In this thesis, I claim that the recently emerged perspective of environmental pragmatism is nonviable. For many years, it was deemed impossible for environmental ethics to formulate justified...Show moreIn this thesis, I claim that the recently emerged perspective of environmental pragmatism is nonviable. For many years, it was deemed impossible for environmental ethics to formulate justified environmental policy. Environmental pragmatism, and its primary scholar Bryan G. Norton, has promoted a new outlook in that debate by proposing an ideal methodology based upon classic American pragmatism. In this methodology, a community can determine what is morally righteous by (i) conducting open-ended inquiry and (ii) considering all relevant stakeholders in a rational discourse. Environmental pragmatism must therefore accommodate reasonable value pluralism. Moreover, Norton claims that these criteria should be complemented with what I call the ‘sustainability criterion’. However, this principle of righteous decisionmaking appears inconsistent with the two aforementioned commitments. This thesis considers the extent to which this is the case. As it turns out, environmental pragmatism is unable to reconcile the commitment of sustainability with reasonable value pluralism, when its ideal methodology is applied in practical terms. And, because environmental pragmatism aims to do so, I conclude that it is nonviable.Show less
Political judgement – as defined here – is an intrinsically complex matter. By definition, the moral agent finds himself in a non-conventional setting and is confronted with the immediate necessity...Show morePolitical judgement – as defined here – is an intrinsically complex matter. By definition, the moral agent finds himself in a non-conventional setting and is confronted with the immediate necessity to make a valid judgement in a political spirit. For that purpose, Aristotle’s phronēsis is a promising virtue. Accordingly, this paper develops a phronetic mode of deliberation that accounts for the very characteristics of political judgement. Phronetic judgement enables the moral agent to specify the end – what is good in the particular setting – and then to deliberate about the appropriate means towards this end. That deliberative specification of the end is encouraged does however not imply that phronetic judgement leads to a sort of arbitrary ethics; I argue that in phronetic judgement – correctly understood – the moral agent also considers moral principles in the process of deliberation. Further, it is shown that the phronimos approaches political judgement with an eye for the common good, for the good of others and for justice; consequently, phronetic judgement is reconcilable with the truth of pluralism and the rule of law.Show less
