La ética ambiental como proyecto de vida y “obra” social: Un desafío de formación
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo se exponen y analizan las principales corrientes en el campo de la ética ambiental. Mediante un análisis comparativo de once corrientes y el encuadre de sus aportaciones en relación a tres ejes que enmarcan la discusión de los conceptos de valor, ética y moral –el ser humano, la vida y los sistemas de vida o ecosistemas–, descubrimos la necesidad de una discusión académica sobre los valores ambientales, la cual ayuda a desarrollar procesos de formación y proyectos de educación ambiental pertinentes. Por tanto, reconocer la pluralidad de diferentes posturas pero también la factibilidad y necesidad de desarrollar enfoques pedagógicos que despierten una mayor sensibilidad, compromiso y responsabilidad desde las propias elecciones éticas de los seres humanos, permitirá generar éticas que, si bien son antropogénicas, no sean antropocéntricas.AbstractThis essay explains and analyzes the main currents in the field of environmental ethics. By means of a comparative analysis of eleven ethical stances and the explanation of theirs contributions regarding to three different axis –human being, life and life systems or ecosystems– that orient the discussion about the concepts of value, ethics and moral, we discover the need of an academic discussion about environmental values. These values help us to develop relevant formative processes and environmental education projects. Therefore, examining the plurality of different stances as well as the need of developing pedagogic approaches that stimulate more sensitivity, commitment and responsibility from the own ethical elections of human beings, it’s possible to develop non anthropocentric –although anthropogenic– ethics.Recibido: 15 de enero de 2015Aceptado: 22 de mayo de 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".