Avner de-Shalit

The Environment: Between Theory and Practice

Introduction PART I: WHY HASNT ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY HAD AN IMPACT ON POLICIES? 1. The social role of the philosopher and the philosophical role of society 2. Where philosophy meets politics: the concept of the environment PART II: PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT: FROM META-ETHICS TO POLITICAL THEORY 3. Is liberalism environment friendly? 4. The community of nature and the nature of community 5. Democracy and the environment: a radical theory of participation 6. Socialism and the environment. Summary: from theory to practice

From the political to the objective: The dialectics of Zionism and the environment

Is the argument that we can only conceive of the ‘environment’ in political terms far‐fetched? Is an objective understanding of the concept of the ‘environment’ possible? By an analysis of three phases in the relationship between Zionism and the environment, it can be argued, first, that not only the developmental but also the romantic attitudes to the environment regard the latter instrumentally and both constitute political definitions of the environment; and second, that a direct transition from a romantic‐ruralist attitude to the environment to a modern, scientifically‐based environmentalism is — at least in Israel ‐ impossible, and that the anti‐thesis of the ethos of development has been necessary for the instrumental and political approach to the environment to be abandoned and the environment related to as it is. Further, the shift from the objective to the political conception of the environment raises certain general theoretical questions.

The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age

Acknowledgments ix Introduction: Civicism 1 Jerusalem: The City of Religion 18 Montreal: The City of Language(s) 56 Singapore: The City of Nation Building 78 Hong Kong: The City of Materialism 111 Beijing: The City of Political Power 140 Oxford: The City of Learning 161 Berlin: The City of (In)Tolerance 191 Paris: The City of Romance 222 New York: The City of Ambition 249 Notes 279 Bibliography 321 Index 333

National Self‐determination: Political, not Cultural1

Many liberal theorists misinterpret nationality and the demand for national self-determination. This paper asks what is the claim for national self-determination. Following this, it is asked which way of meeting the demand is the best one. While analysing the circumstances in which the demand is raised, it is argued that this claim is political rather than cultural, and that therefore some of the solutions which have been put forward in theory and in practice (especially autonomy) do not meet this claim. It is also argued that the failure of many Western politicians and political theorists to address the demand for national self-determination as a political demand derives from three reasons: methodological, moral and ideological.

Green or blue and white? Environmental controversies in Israel 1

abstract Environmental controversies in Israel are characterised by the dominance of non‐anthropocentric modes of reasoning. In that respect they are different from such debates in other Western countries. This is not accidental, but is related to a profound cleavage between a non‐anthropocentric attitude and the Israeli‐Zionist ethos of development, which has governed Israeli political thought since the 1930s.

Political Philosophy and Empowering Citizens

This paper defends the idea of empowering citizens by means of teaching them political philosophy. First, I explain and define empowerment as an experience leading to the development of critical and philosophical capabilities. Several challenges to using philosophy to empower citizens are then discussed and rejected. This group of challenges is called the ‘divorce theory’, because, according to them, philosophy and politics should be distinguished, as if divorced from each other, so that they can live happily side by side, but not together. Finally, empowerment is normatively defended and distinguished from paternalism, and examine the relationships between empowerment through political philosophy and deliberative democracy.

Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign

Introduction The question this paper asks is “Why, and when, do environmentalists fail in environmental campaigns. Before answering, we first need to define what such failure is. The answer is fairly straightforward: failure is when a group campaigns to have a policy introduced and fails to convince the relevant decision-makers, or, when a group campaigns against a policy and fails to prevent its implementation. This constitutes failure. However, I would first like to note that sometimes when a group fails it nevertheless makes gains in other spheres; for example, it might become more cohesive, or its public profile might improve. However, rather than seeing such a gain as an additional campaign goal, I would call this a competing goal, i.e., a goal which attracts activists away from their original, environmental goal.

Transnational and International Exploitation

There are four types of exploitation in the international arena: exploitation between states; exploitation within state A, the beneficiaries of which are mainly people in state B; exploitation of individuals from one country by another state in which they work; exploitation of individuals from one country by individuals in another state, in which they work. The Marxian and the liberal theories of exploitation are inadequate to discuss these cases. After exploring the difficulties of applying these theories to international and transnational exploitation, it is suggested that the theories could be reconstructed: exploitation is when the exploiter benefits from treating the exploitee not as equal in circumstances of bargaining. It is finally shown how this interpretation helps us in the discussion of all four types of international and transnational exploitation.

Environmentalism for Europe — One Model?

Two models of environmentalism are considered. One — hard line environmentalism — is a theory which unites environmental ethics and political theory; the other — soft environmentalism — is a package of the two as two distinctive levels of moral reasoning. It is argued that hard-line environmentalism is a-democratic, rests on wrong methodological assumptions, and is friendly to the environment just so long as being so serves a sought-after ‘psychological revolution’. Soft environmentalism is to be preferred also because its idea of democracy must be national and international rather than local. Since in the ‘new’ Europe people will move very often and will therefore fail to develop a sense of ‘place’ which is local, it may be a waste of time to emphasise ‘localism’ as part of environmentalism.

Teaching political philosophy and academic neutrality

Should lecturers who teach political philosophy hide their personal political beliefs? This question becomes interesting when lecturers face what seems to be morally repugnant policies, such as massive human rights violations. In such cases is there a conflict between a lecturer’s civic and political obligations and his/her academic and pedagogical ones? This article argues that while university lecturers should not adhere to academic neutrality, they should be impartial. While arguing this a distinction is drawn between paternalism and empowerment through teaching.