An alliance beyond the human realm for ecological justice

This paper proposes to argue that ecological justice that is rooted in an ecocentric approach to nature is the key to achieving integral human development which goes beyond ‘development that is only worth our while’. Ecological justice is achievable if there is a clear understanding of relations at two distinct levels - one, the relation among humans and another between the entire human community and other elements of the ecosystem. These relations are the basis of the alliances that we form to address issues of integral human development. The focus of the paper is the second kind of alliance that is based on an understanding of the relation between the human and the non-human realm. However, an ‘alliance’ is normally formed between partners with equal standing. Is there a sense in which both humans and the non-human world can be considered to be ‘equal partners in an alliance? The paper considers how one might establish this by examining diverse philosophical viewpoints that have addressed the issue of the treatment of non-human animals for anthropocentric ends. It discusses whether equality between parties is necessary for the formation of an alliance drawing extensively from ethical theories and examples from the world. From rights approach, recipients of justice, to care ethics, several theories offer guidance to support what would constitute a ‘humane’ approach to non-human animals. While these approaches crucially pin the broad perspective, they have not explicitly considered the role of an alliance between humans and non-human animals in achieving a basic level of wellbeing for the latter. Taking cues from the different kinds of ‘ruling over’ from Stuart Gray’s understanding of the relation between humans and non-human nature, the paper seeks to establish that an alliance between humans and the non-human realm is possible even without committing to their equal status and this could form the basis of ecological justice and well-being.Cet article défend l’idée que la justice écologique enracinée dans une approche écocentrique de la nature est la clé du développement humain intégral et dépasse le "développement qui ne vaut que pour nous". La justice écologique est réalisable s'il existe une compréhension claire des relations à deux niveaux distincts - l'un, la relation entre les humains et l'autre entre la communauté humaine tout entière et les autres éléments de l'écosystème. Ces relations constituent la base des alliances que nous formons pour résoudre les problèmes de développement humain intégral. Cet article est axé sur le deuxième type d’alliance qui repose sur la compréhension de la relation entre le monde humain et le monde non humain. Cependant, une alliance est normalement formée entre des partenaires de rang égal. Y a-t-il un sens dans lequel les humains et le monde non humain peuvent être considérés comme des partenaires égaux dans une alliance? L’article examine comment on pourrait établir cela en examinant divers points de vue philosophiques qui ont développé la question du traitement des animaux non humains à des fins anthropocentriques. Il aborde la question de savoir si l’égalité entre les parties est nécessaire à la formation d’une alliance reposant largement sur des théories éthiques et des exemples. De l’approche fondée sur les droits, en passant par l’éthique du care, plusieurs théories offrent des indications pour soutenir ce qui constituerait une approche humaine des animaux non humains. Bien que ces approches épousent de manière cruciale la perspective large, elles n’ont pas explicitement envisagé le rôle d’une alliance entre humains et animaux non humains dans l’atteinte d’un niveau de base de bien-être pour ces derniers. S'inspirant des différents types de décisions développées par Stuart Gray de la relation entre l'homme et la nature non humaine, l’article cherche à établir qu'une alliance entre l'homme et le monde non humain est possible, même sans s'engager à égalité de statut et cela pourrait constituer la base de la justice écologique et du bien-être

Is Ethical Theory Opposed to Moral Practice?

Many philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition have held that the predominant modern western theories of ethics like Kant’s deontological theory and Mill’s Utilitarianism have failed to deliver as a “theory” of ethics. In other words, they are not successful as “decision procedures” whereby one can determine which action from a multitude of actions open before the agent would be right and therefore morally obligatory for him to do. In fact, the basic concepts of moral obligation, impartiality, and objectivity of moral standards has been questioned and pitted against the “personal point of view” of the agent. It has been held that the “moral goods” have to be given up for the sake of the “personal goods.” Is this a systemic fault which is linked with the normative nature of ethics? Or, can we understand ethics in a manner where it can be objective and yet not have to give up on the plurality of moral and nonmoral goods? Can ethical theory in this sense function as an “action guide to moral practice”? These are some questions that will be taken up in the paper against the backdrop of the views of the critics of ethical theory

An Indian global ethics initiative

In what sense must global ethics be global? In one sense, it must deal with global issues. In another, it must not be parochial but inclusive of normative views from around the world. So far, global ethics has met the first standard much better than the second. Authors based in the global South contribute approximately 5% of the internationally published research on global ethics. With this in mind, the co-editors of this special issue sought to bring more perspectives, experiences, and authors from India into the international global ethics conversation, and so they launched the Indian Global Ethics Initiative. Their first step, this special issue, presents Indian experience and authors on topics including urban development, care ethics, women’s empowerment, fair trade, distorted policy research, poverty, and health. Much of this work is grounded by the authors’ experience in policy-making and advocacy for social and global justice. The co-editors invite contact from interested readers who would like to join and continue this Indian Global Ethics Initiative, as well as readers who would like to take similar initiatives in other regions