|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
way too short for such a common topic in philosophy and environmental studies. Alba 13:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Stan Rowe's critique
I'm not versed enough in the work of J. Stan Rowe at this point to enter Rowe's Critique of Leopold into the entry (or the ecocentricism entry), nor have I sufficiently studied Leopold to appraise Stan Rowe's position relative to Leopold's Land Ethic, but just to make it available, here is a paragraph from J. Stan Rowe's piece "Ecocentricism: The Chord that Harmonizes Humans and Earth" <http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoweEcocentrism.html>
"Wherever our sense of greatest importance lies, there also will our ethics be. The attempt to build ethical concern for the Ecosphere from the inside out, by add-ons starting with our selves and the human race, may soothe consciences for a little while, but it will be the kiss of death for wild nature. Aldo Leopold has been the influential exponent of ethics-by-extension, rationalized as an expedient for human survival. Unfortunately this approach only strengthens anthropocentrism, making it certain that land, air, water and other organisms will always in the crunch take second place to the welfare of self, family and friends. More sensible, but more difficult, is the ecocentric ethic that confers highest valuation on the Ecosphere which, by proxy, bestows ethical merit and concern on its subsidiary contents according to their compliance and cooperation. The self finds its ecological values in the welfare of the non-self."
Rowe is a proponent of ecosphere thinking and he is the author of A Manifesto for Earth.Stephen Mikesell 22:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs)