送交者: apate 于 2005-1-11, 22:19:10:
回答: 全错.本是基础,和末即枝节相对. 由 fagus 于 2005-1-11, 15:38:26:
first, the ends-means line of thinking seems always hirerchical to me. looked from another angel, the ethics of human-nature relationships is a matter of scale. Aldo Leopold argues that ethics has evolved in three stages: human-human, human-society, and human-nature. the third stage is part of the basis pushing for environmentalism.
second, Hu's citation of "human-centered" doctorine is instrumental in order to the legitimacy of the ruling party by recoursing to some old thought of chinese tradition, just like Jiang's resort to "governance through virtues" (yi de zhi guo). about which i don't have any opions. but the moral implication, especially for environmentalism, is that even man is the center and the ends, insofar as man is the product of nature, humanity shares a lot of commonalities with nature. objectifying nature is in this sense a way of self-deception, because even so-called pure nature has been much modified by human activities. forests, rivers, species of plants and animals, even viruses are not *purely* natural, but in part the result of human intervention or the unintended effect of human activities.
third, speaking of viruses, for example, many of them are modified by human drugs, disseminated by human activities, and even created by human efforts. in this sense, Prof. He's mention of SARS is but an idiotic reduction of nature. although i don't if the virus in the SARS case has anything to to with human intervention, but the fear of nature in its positive sense means human humility in recognizing that the natural world has its own autonomous laws that may bring impacts on human life, for better or worse, often as unintended consequences of human activities.