Theories of Social Ecology Essays -- Social Ecology

All three theories by Heidegger, Bookchin, and Naess ar 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 origin 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. Heideggers 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 intercourse 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 pr oximity, humans stewardship should not promote egocentricity or superiority over non-human items. This responsibility does not render selfish coercion, but deferential regards to such items in order to bring forward 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 groundwork 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 kind ecology characterized humans as citizens of a community. Although he does not press on equality like Naess does in... ... life for all or do we seek to use our power and set 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 conse quences 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 possibly we are, unfortunately, ignorant towards the destruction of our own flourishing of life. Work CitedSessions, George. Arne Naess The Deep Ecological Movement. Deep Ecology for the twenty-firstCentury. 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.