My final plan for the essay is to write about the categorical imperative, duty, maxims, and the deep ecology movement. I'm very interested in environmental ethics and the current philosophy we hold toward nature. A lot if the current environmental attitudes from humans stemmed from the enlightenment and the beginning of the western focus on "rationality." The enlightenment shaped the western world, for better or for worse, and attitudes like that of Kant have defined the way we decide to treat nature. Kant has decreed that only rational beings have any type of duty toward nature. The categorical imperative only applies to rational beings as freedom of will is only afforded to those with rationality. Thus we can not generalize any type of view of nature. That means we can't create a rational case as to why to protect nature. That precedent is extremely dangerous, and has had real effects. It's a common view held subconsciously by the west that nature is distinct from man due to our cognitive capabilities, something that Kant makes clear he also believes. I hope to then add information about how humans may be similar to animals and nature, and we can't draw such a hard line between the two. Because the hard line provides more natural issues than if we were to equate ourselves to nature at some level. I then hope to develop that nature has intrinsic value through the Deep Ecology Movement and Arne Naess. By having some sort of intrinsic value in nature, then we can then add it into the categorical imperative. After all, our relationship with nature doesn't fit into the idea of a maxim. We cannot generalize a rule that we can abuse nature because it's non-rational. It unsustainable, because if we continue to abuse nature then it will destory nature and thus humanity. I want to argue that we can tweak the categorical imperative and use Kant's seemingly anti-nature view to create a more sympathetic view toward nature. This sympathetic view can allow us to resotre nature in a more effective way. Our current anthropocentric philosophy is not conducive to successful environmental change. The shifting of the categorical imperative thus spawns a duty toward nature. There would be a rule of sympathy and balance with nature that we would be compelled to follow. Like Kant says we we may break that maxim, but it's existence as a bar to work toward that allows for the environmental change that can save our planet.
top of page
bottom of page