All three theories by Heidegger, Bookchin, and Naess are based on the normative assumption: humans perceived themselves as being distinct from a world that unites both humans and non-humans. To better understand the distinguishments that each author makes in his theory, I will reconstruct each of their assumption. After that, we will explore the rational fashioning of integrative ways and the problems that it raises. In conclusion, there may be a reiteration of the assumption in our effort to act ethically according to the ecosystem.
Heidegger’s theory orbits around the idea that humans are mortal stewards of things on the earth. He believes that humans should consider and respect non-human life forms as part of this comprehensive world in all dimensions of earth, sky, divinities, and their roles in their relative locations. In the same manner, non-humans share an undiscriminating relationship closely knit together in a network by their functions and bestowals. Because of this proximity, human’s stewardship should not promote egocentricity or superiority over non-human items. This responsibility does not seek selfish coercion, but deferential regards to such items in order to bring forth diversity and life. His assumption here implies that humans are like tenants responsible to take care of the rest of the earth as a shared home for all living things. Along with this heuristic, Heidegger supports the saving, preserving, dwelling, building, and integrating of our daily lives with respect to the whole earth.
Similarly, Bookchin believes in a respectful co-evolving community of life on earth. His theory of social ecology characterized humans as citizens of a community. Although he does not press on equality like Naess does in...
... middle of paper ...
... life for all or do we seek to use our power and values to dominate? If our treatment of our own kind is considered unjust, consider how our treatment of non-human life forms must be. As I have mentioned earlier, the consequences of our actions and values may be backfired at us and passed to future generations. Perhaps we are ignorant towards the outcome of the transformation we impose on non-human life or perhaps we are, unfortunately, ignorant towards the destruction of our own flourishing of life.
Sessions, George. “Arne Naess: The Deep Ecological Movement.” Deep Ecology for the 21st
Century. Ed. George Sessions. Boston: Shambhala Publication, Inc., 1995. 64-84. Print.
Sessions, George. “Arne Naess: The Eight Points Revisited.” Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Ed. George Sessions. Boston: Shambhala Publication, Inc., 1995. 213-221. Print.