Environmental Ethics. Группа авторов

Moral Criticisms: A Nietzschen Perspective on Our Contemporary Fascination with Wilderness” Ethical Perspectives: Journal of the European Ethics Network 14 (4) (2007): 371−403.

      39 ³⁹ Two studies show the quandary that pollution caused in nineteenth century Britain: Stephen Mosley, The Chimney of the World: A History of Smoke Pollution in Victorian and Edwardian Manchester (London and New York: Routledge, 2008) and Peter Thorsheim, Inventing Pollution: Coal, Smoke, and Culture in Britain since 1800 (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2006).

      40 ⁴⁰ The human “makings” over and against Nature without this human interference is obviously a controversial topic in nineteenth century Britain, cf. Thomas Hardy’s novel, A Laodicean, in which the daughter of a man who made a fortune as an engineer in the new rail service to the West Country (an act which is seen as unnatural) follows onto the daughter, who herself is unnatural from this background. For a broader historical treatment see the classic: Eric Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire: The Birth of the Industrial Revolution (New York: The New Press, rpt. 1999).

      41 ⁴¹ I distinguish between two sorts of human communities based upon size: Boylan (2004) chapter 6.

      42 ⁴² In the Torah, Genesis 2−3 there is a forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden: it is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve are told to forbear eating of this fruit. Since John Milton in Paradise Lost, this prohibition was extended to technology that might verge Nature (para phusin): the “new science” of the seventeenth century, op. cit. n. 37.

      43 ⁴³ A very safe ploy against censorship since Eve was the “fallen woman” who doomed humankind. You could put almost anything in her mouth. This is Milton playing it cautious.

      44 ⁴⁴ There were a number of individuals in the nineteenth century Britain advocating some form of evolutionary theory. For examples of these see: W.J. Dempster, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century: Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew (Bel Air, CA: The Pentland Press, 1995); and Evolution and its Influence, ed. by the staff of Humanities in the Modern World (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1954). In the context of controlling Nature as a cultural event in this era see: Martin Fichman, Controlling Nature: Evolutionary Theory and Victorian Culture (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2002).

      45 ⁴⁵ This distinction in the Western tradition goes at least as far back as the differing views of Parmenides (the static view) and Heraclitus (the constant change position).

      46 ⁴⁶ How biological evolutionary theory ought to be applied to human social society has been a long going experiment still in progress. From Herbert Spencer, The Synthetic Philosophy (London: Williams and Norgate, 1915, 5th impression) to socio-biology, e.g., Arthur F.G. Bourke, Principles of Social Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) it has been controversial just how principles of biological evolution might be properly applied to the structure of human society.

      47 ⁴⁷ Note that “better” and “worse” are not a part of biological evolutionary theory. Rather, it is an unproven assumption based upon the connotation of the word “evolution” as applied more broadly to human society, cf. n. 46.

      48 ⁴⁸ Hesiod discusses devolution as five ages of man: Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic, and Iron Ages in Works and Days—Hesiod, Theogony and Works and Days, ed. Glenn W. Most (London and Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 2006): ll. 109−201; cf. Ovid, Metamorphosis, ed. G.P. Gould, et al. (London and Cambridge MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1984): Bk. I, ll. 89−150.

      49 ⁴⁹ An example of this in the United State is the politician Donald Trump whose mantra was “to make America great again.” This is an example of devolutionary thinking.

      50 ⁵⁰ It is essential to add a positive outcome to the mechanism otherwise one might be inclined to view positively intricate systems that cause death and destruction. In this account “animal and plant life” is asserted to be a per se good so long as the sustainability proviso is added. Any predatory element that kills more than it enriches will be viewed negatively in this regard. This could include a judgment against humans.

      51 ⁵¹ This argument should be seen in the context of my argument “The Moral Status of Basic Goods” in Natural Human Rights: A Theory (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014): 182.

      52 ⁵² For examples of what I mean by these three forms of logic see my The Process of Argument: An Introduction, 3rd edn. (New York and London: Routledge, forthcoming 2020).

      53 ⁵³ The Table of Embeddedness (See Boylan, 2014; 186).

      54 ⁵⁴ As an assertion this premise must be accepted on cognitive intuitionism. It can be made plausible via fictive narrative philosophy using my version of abduction—See my Fictive Narrative Philosophy: How Fiction Can Act as Philosophy (New York and London: Routledge, 2019): chapter 5.

      55 ⁵⁵ I am using “projection” here in the sense of Nelson Goodman, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, 4th edn. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983). It is my contention here that the feature of projection for an overhypothesis are met: empirically supported, unviolated, and unexhausted.

      56 ⁵⁶ cf. The depiction set out in Boylan 2014, chapter 6.

      57 ⁵⁷ I put these two relations as the parts of metaphysics as I characterize them: ontology (the things that are) and cosmology (the priority relation between the things that are)—see Michael Boylan, The Good, The True, and the Beautiful (London: Bloomsbury, 2009): chapter 5.

      58 ⁵⁸ See: Gottfried Wilhelm Freiheer von Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, ed. Albert R. Chandler, trans. George Montgomery (Lasalle, IL: Open Court, 1924, rpt. 1902).

      59 ⁵⁹ Please note that “making” (in the sense intended above) is under the control of the “maker.” Some apparent “makings” really owe their efficacy to some other system, e.g., biological reproduction does not constitute a “making” in this sense. If male A and female B sexually interact so that child C results, there is a sense of A and B being a contributing part of the causal process in C’s coming-to-be, but most of the work involves n/Natural processes that are common to all males and females of that species and others, as per phylogenetic relations affected by systematic, evolutionary proximity.

      60 ⁶⁰