Environmental Virtue Ethics: A Traditional Indian Perspective on Hursthouse’s Quest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sitansu S Chakravarti explores the possible routes indicated by Hursthouse to building a viable environmental virtue ethics in her landmark 2007 paper. In the process he incorporates Indian philosophical concepts from ancient times as he builds a model for environmental virtue ethics grounded on the virtue Indian philosophy has especially emphasized in character building, viz., harmony within . Chakravarti claims this anchor virtue implies the presence of other needed virtues, thus pointing to the unity of virtues, as Hursthouse comments in personal communication on previous versions of this paper. Here Chakravarti has followed the spirit of World Philosophy in his attempt at finding a solution to the philosophical problem of building environmental virtue ethics with the help of philosophical insights and wisdom from the Indian tradition. He attempts to elaborate on Ronald Sandler’s concepts of the meaning of life, knowledge and autonomy suggested as distinctive emergent features in the process of evolution reaching its final state of rationality where we humans are situated. In fact, finding the meaning of life in knowledge and autonomy is a move toward a state of existential becoming where the virtue harmony within seems to be of quite a relevance. This existential becoming is what the author understands as spirituality involved in the process of our relation to nature while character is considered important in Sandler’s book with the significant title ‘Character and Environment’. ‘The meaning of life based on harmony within ’, says Chakravarti, ‘which is ‘intentional’ in character, prompts one to look for harmony all the way, and help maintain, and build it if found missing by any chance’.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".