Abstract
The article presents three perspectives from which Kant‘s philosophy can be useful for a contemporary ecological reflection: a moral standpoint, a juridical one and, finally, a vitalist one. We shall thus see that, far from having an anthropocentrical position, Kant gives us powerful reasons to respect nature, whether animated or unanimated.
Descargas
References
Anderson-Gold, S. (2008). The Purposiveness of Nature: Kant and the Environmental Ethics. En Rohden, V. et al. Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants. Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, tomo 3 (pp. 3-22). Berlín: Gruyter.
Baranzke, H. (2004). Does Beast Suffering Count for Kant: A Contextual Examination of § 17 in The Doctrine of Virtue. En Essays in Philosophy, vol. 5, número 2. Recuperado de http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip.
Ginsborg, H. (2016). Kant‘s Biological Teleology and its Philosophical Significance. En Bird, G. , A Companion to Kant (pp. 455-470). Malden: Blackwell.
Kant, I. (1977). Crítica del juicio. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Kant, I.(2008). Metafísica de las costumbres. Madrid: Tecnos.
Kant, I. (2014). Werke. Akademie Ausgabe. Berlín: Felix Meiner.
Korsgaard, C. (2004). Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals. En Peterson G.B. (ed.). The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (pp. 77-110). Salt Lake City: University of Michigan.
Nussbaum, M. (2004). Beyond Compassion and Humanity‘: Justice for Non human Animals. En Nussbaum, M. & Sunstein, C. (eds.). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (pp.299-320). Nueva York: Oxford.
Nuzzo, A. (2017). Kant‘s Other Nature‘. En: Kuperus, G. Ontologies of Nature (pp.87-113).Cham: Springer.
Schopenhauer, A. (1993). Escrito concursante sobre el fundamento del amoral. En Los dos problemas fundamentales de la ética (pp. 133-298). Madrid: SigloXXI.
Sessions, G. (1995). Deep Ecology for the twenty-first Century. Boston: Shambhala.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Antonio Pérez