Environmental Values 15(2006): 145-171. doi: 10.3197/096327106776678898
In claiming that 'nature speaks', authors such as Scott Friskics and David Abram implicitly agree that language use is linked to moral considerability, adding only that we need to extend our conception of language to see that non-humans too use it. I argue that the ethical significance of language use derives from its role in dialogue, in which speakers make truth-claims, question and potentially criticise the claims of others, and provide justifications for the claims they raise themselves. Non-human entities (as a contingent matter) seem not to engage in dialogue in this sense, and none of the examples Friskics and Abram offer suggest that they do. Thus the conception of language such authors employ is too weak to support the ethical conclusions they implicitly wish to defend.
KEYWORDS: Language, nature, ethics, moral considerability, Abram, Habermas
CITATIONS in other Environmental Values articles
Thinking from Within the Calyx of Nature. Freya Mathews
Nature (and Politics). Andrew Dobson
Listening to the Birds: A Pragmatic Proposal for Forestry. Nicole Klenk
Bruno Latour and the Ontological Dissolution of Nature in the Social Sciences: A Critical Review. Jacques Pollini
Decolonising Dignity for Inclusive Democracy.Christine J. Winter
Download full text (PDF format) from IngentaConnect. Access is free if your institution subscribes to Environmental Values.
Subscriptions and back numbers of Environmental Values.Other papers in this volume
THE WHITE HORSE PRESS
The Old Vicarage, Winwick
Cambridgeshire, PE28 5PN, UK
Tel: +44 1832 293222