Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Critical Analysis about Environmental Ethics and Moral Position of Landscape Architecture - Focusing on Eugen C. Hargrove's 'Weak Anthropocentrism' -

조경의 환경윤리에 대한 비판적 해석과 도덕적 위치 - 유진 하그로브의 '약한 인간중심주의'를 중심으로 -

  • Oh, Chang-Song (Interdisciplinary Program of Landscape Architecture Major, Graduate School, Seoul National University)
  • 오창송 (서울대학교 대학원 협동과정 조경학전공)
  • Received : 2015.01.19
  • Accepted : 2015.04.07
  • Published : 2015.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The theory of landscape architecture applies environmental ethics in order to secure an ecological status. However, environmental ethics that focus on nature conservation excludes landscape architecture as artifacts. In the process, it is hard to identify what landscape architecture insists on as the middle position between humans and nature. Rather, landscape architecture pretends to be an 'agent of nature' and pushes the traditional moral values 'for people.' Therefore, the purpose of this study is to reestablish the anthropocentrism moral position of landscape architecture through critical analysis. Hargrove's weak anthropocentrism' of several environmental ethics branches accepts natural aesthetics(such as landscape architecture) as an ethical virtue. But environmental ethics makes landscape architecture a critical target. For that reason, this study looked into critical contents and objects that in a position to moral, aesthetic and landscape architecture. Critical details are as follows: First, nature is an absolute as an aesthetic and moral value, but landscape architecture is an imitation and takes a relaxed attitude about nature. Second, nature is full of aesthetic substance because it is self-creative, but landscape architecture is designed nature covered human flaws through imagination. Third, environmental management granting techniques in nature generate a moral nihilism. As an argument, environmental ethics overlooked the moral practices of landscape architecture beyond nature another moral aspect of creation and the imagination-and moral aspects of environmental management as 'care' because they rule out 'moral autonomy' and simplify what is considered 'good.' As a result, conservation cannot be the only virtue why the problem of nature in reality cannot be separated from human life. The moral position of landscape architecture based on a 'good life' is more appropriate under anthropocentrism than as a middle position.

조경은 스스로 환경적 지위를 확보하기 위해 환경윤리를 이론으로 흡수하였다. 그러나 환경윤리는 자연 보전에 집중한 나머지 조경을 인공물로 취급하며 도덕 대상에서 배척하였다. 그 과정에서 조경은 인간과 자연의 중도적 입장을 주장하나 도덕적 정체성을 의심하게 한다. 오히려 조경은 '자연의 대리인'으로 자처하며 '인간을 위한' 조경의 전통적 도덕관을 밀어내고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 환경윤리의 비판적 해석을 통해 인간중심으로서 조경의 도덕적 위치의 재정립을 연구의 목적으로 삼는다. 환경윤리의 여러 분파 중 하그로브의 '약한 인간중심주의'는 조경처럼 자연미학을 윤리적 덕목으로 삼는다. 그러나 상이한 자연관 때문에 환경윤리는 조경을 비판적 대상으로 삼는다. 그러한 이유로 필자는 하그로브의 조경 비판 내용을 살펴보고 그에 대한 반론을 도덕적, 미학적, 조경적 입장에서 살펴본다. 비판 내용은 다음과 같다. (1) 자연은 존재 자체로서 미적이고 도덕적인 반면 조경은 모조품으로서 자연에 대한 완화된 태도를 취한다. (2) 자연은 자기창조적이기에 완전한 미적 실체인 반면 조경은 상상을 통해 인간적 결함을 감추는 설계된 자연이다. (3) 자연에 기술을 부여하는 환경관리는 무의미하기에 도덕적 허무주의를 발생한다. 이에 대한 반론으로 환경윤리는 '도덕적 자율성'을 배제하고 '도덕적 선'을 단순화함으로써 조경이 내포하고 있는 자연을 넘어선 도덕적 실천 능력, 창조와 상상의 폭 넓은 도덕적 의미, '돌봄'으로서 환경관리의 도덕적인 면을 간과하고 있다. 그 결과, 현실에서 자연의 문제는 인간의 삶과 분리할 수 없기에 더 이상 보전만이 미덕이 될 수 없다. 또한 조경은 '선한 삶'을 기반으로 하기 때문에 중도적 위치보다는 인간중심적 도덕적 위치가 타당하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Beathely, Timothy(1994) Environmental ethics and the field of planning: Aternative theories and middle-range principales. in Huw Thomas(ed.) Values and Planning. Addershot: Avebury. pp. 12-37.
  2. Callicott, J. Barid(1980) Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental Ethics 2: 311-338. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19802424
  3. Callicott, J. Barid(1984) Non-anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly 21: 299-309.
  4. Callicott, J. Barid(1993) Introduction. in Zimmerman M. E. (general ed.) Environmental Philosophy: from Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. pp. 3-11.
  5. Callicott, J. Barid(2008) Leopold's Land Aesthetic. in Allen Carlson and Shela Lintott(eds.) Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 105-118.
  6. Carlson, Allen(1984) Nature and positive aesthetics. Environmental Ethics 6: 5-34 https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19846114
  7. Cooper, David E.(2006) A Philosophy of Garden. New York: Oxford University.
  8. Grange, Joseph(1992) Foundations of environmental ethics by Eugen C. Hargrove. Philosophy East and West 42(1): 175-177. https://doi.org/10.2307/1399697
  9. Hardin, Garrett(1968) The tragedy of commons. Science 162: 1243-1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
  10. Hargrove, Eugene C.(1988) Foundations of Environmental Ethics. 김형철(역) 환경윤리학. 서울: 철학과현실사. 1994.
  11. Hargrove, Eugene C.(1992) Weak anthropocentric intrinsic value. Monist 75(2): 182-208.
  12. Harvey, David(2000) Space of Hope. 최병두․이상율․박규택(역) 희망의 공간: 세계화, 신체, 유토피아. 서울: 한울. 2001.
  13. Johnson, Mark(1993) Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. 노양진(역) 도덕적 상상력: 체험주의 윤리학의 새로운 도전. 파주: 서광사. 2008.
  14. Kim, Kuk Hyun(2006) Cultivating moral imagination and moral education. Journal of Korean Ethics Studies 61: 193-225.
  15. Kim, Kwang Tae(2011) The is-ought debate and the definition of moral -Focused on Peter Singer's ethical theory-. Journal of Ethics Education Studies 24: 143-162.
  16. Kim, Moon Hwan(2001) Historical developments of aesthetics of nature and its contemporary significance -In its relation with the foundation of environmental aesthetics-. The Korean Journal of Aesthetics 30: 35-115.
  17. Kim, Nam Joon(2009) Naturalness as criterion of moral judgment -Nature, naturalness and naturalistic fallacy-. Environmental Philosophy 8: 225-260.
  18. Kim, Sang Deuk(2003) The is/ought distinction and moral realism. Journal of the Society of Philosophical Studies 61: 221-238.
  19. Kim, Sun Kyu(2011) Ontology of artworks and critic of aesthetic consciousness. Studies for Hermeneutics 27: 111-142.
  20. Leopold, Aldo(1949) A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. 송명규(역) 모래 군의 열두 달: 그리고 이곳 저곳의 스켓치. 서울: 따님. 2000.
  21. Meyer, Elizabeth K.(2008) Sustaing beauty: The performance of appearance. Journal of Landscape Architecture 3(1): 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2008.9723392
  22. Mun, Dong Kyu(2004) Das Seinsdenken Heideggers und der ontologische Grund der Umwelt-Ethik. Journal of Pan-Korean Philosophical Society 32: 83-111.
  23. Nassauer, Joan Iverson(2008) Cultural Sustainability: Aligning Aesthetics and Ecology. in Allen Carlson and Shela Lintott(eds.) Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 363-376.
  24. Norton, Bryan G.(1984) Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics 6: 131-148. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19846233
  25. Park, Sang Hyuk(2007) Can a morally bad work of art be an aesthetically good work of art?. The Korean Journal of Aesthetics 50: 115-138.
  26. Passmore, John(1974) Man's Responsibility for Nature: Ecological Problem and Western Traditions. London: Gerald Duchworth.
  27. Schauman, Sally(1997) Beyond Stewardship toward Partnership. in George F. Thompson & Frederick R. Steiner(eds.) Ecological Design and Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 239-262.
  28. Shin, HyunWoo(2012) Astudy on the moral imagination as motivational factor of moral behavior. Journal of Korean Ethics Studies 87: 186-203.
  29. Singer, Peter(1973) The triviality of the debate over 'is-ought' and the definition of 'moral'. American Philosophical Quarterly 10: 51-56.
  30. Song, Myung Gyu(1994) The development of environmental philosophy (1): Environmental ethics. Community Development Review 19(2): 79-109.
  31. Song, Myung Gyu(1998) Aldo Leopold's land ethics. Journal of Environmental Policy and Administration 6(1): 39-71.
  32. Tayor, Paul W.(1986) Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  33. Thompson, Ian H.(1998) Environmental ethics and the development of landscape architecture theory. Landscape Research 23(2): 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399808706534
  34. Walker, Peter and Melanie L. Simo(1996) Invisible Gardens: The Search for Modernism in the American Landscape. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  35. Zimmerman, M. E.(1993) General Introduction. in Zimmerman M. E. (general ed.) Environmental Philosophy: from Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. pp. v-x.