Hermeneutics and Field Environmental Philosophy: Integrating Ecological Sciences and Ethics into Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 240

Leopold ( 1949 ), a central fi gure in US environmental ethics, with his well-known
metaphor invites us to “think like a mountain.”
In the fusion of horizons we aim to not only understand an object , but we
want to understand the other , precisely as a non-object , as a dialogue partner
and interpreter -with the aim of not reifying the other. The expectations about
the other do change, and these changes open ways to discoveries and encoun-
ters, not to reductionism.

15.4 A Latin American Approach to Integrate Ethics

and Ecology into Earth Stewardship

The International Long Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network is fostering an
understanding of “humanity as complex, self-organized, multi-level, and highly
integrated socio-bio-physical entities” (Maass and Equihua in this volume [Chap.
14 ] ). As Manuel Maass and Miguel Equihua show, this requires a new ontological
paradigm, new epistemological tools, and transdisciplinary research approaches. In
this ILTER context, the notion of “natural resources” should shift toward the notion
of “biosphere,” a shift that might be catalyzed the FEP methodology. It may seem
contradictory to assign intrinsic value to non-human persons that provide services
to humans, or to appreciate the value of “in-itself” of realities that are not alive but
are interrelated with living beings. However, it is fully possible. For instance, in the
transition from LTER to LTSER (Long Term Socio- Ecological Research) networks,
cross-cultural analysis show that many cultures assign intrinsic value to living and
anon-living beings. It is important to note that many cultures value the bodies of
deceased ancestors and animals, due to their relationship with humans. It is clear
that this value assignment is not of biotic dependency. Similarly, other non-living
and intangible realities--uch as climate, social and cultural factor--are recognized as
having a signifi cant impact on matters which have a direct or indirect link with
living organisms. Thus, research at the Chilean LTSER has disclosed how these
realities are deemed to be “living” entities (Rozzi et al. 2012 , p. 234). Similar bio-
cultural links between living and non-living realities are also present in Andean
ecological worldviews (see Sarmiento and Mamani-Bernabé in this volume [Chaps.
5 and 6 ] ). Hermeneutically and analogously it can be said that climates, cliffs, soils,
societies, landscapes, and other entities are “alive”.
Analogously, in medical sciences a whole universe of inorganic realities axiolog-
ically receives the adjective of “healthy or healthier.” For example, the adjective
healthy is applied to a job as much as to a resting period, to an exercise as much as
to a moment of bed rest. Further, for purposes of diagnosis and prescription the
adjective healthy is applied to food as well as to excrements. Is it the case that inani-
mate and intangible things are actually alive and healthy, or that these things can die
or get sick? A suitably hermeneutic-analogical perspective of the biosphere can
include this concept through the methodological approach of FEP, and thereby
provide a contribution to the Earth Stewardship initiative.