It is a branch of philosophy, — Tanner Lloyd

If philosophy is about open questions, what are some open questions in environmental philosophy?

Sure, such as "What is the environment itself?" "Is wilderness real or is it a construct?" "What is Nature itself?" and so on and so forth. The International Association for Environmental Philosophy regularly publishes their journal 'Environmental Philosophy' jointly through the University of Oregon.

I was looking at the categories on the left hand side and I noticed that there wasn't anything close to "environmental philosophy". It is a branch of philosophy, after all, and I think it ought to be included somehow even if you have to click a few times to get to it. — Tanner Lloyd

Good call. Here here.

Where would you recommend nesting the category, given the current structure in the sidebar menu?

If philosophy is about open questions, what are some open questions in environmental philosophy? — tim wood

It's an open question whether philosophy is about open questions.

It's a matter of fact that there is a cluster of relevant professional disciplines and discourses.

How should human beings relate to the natural world? And what do we owe to other human beings, including future generations, when it comes to the environment? Environmental philosophy addresses such questions by seeking to understand nature and its value, and using ethical and political theories to reflect on environmental challenges. Topics and approaches within the field include conservation and restoration, environmental justice and environmental racism, ecofeminism, climate change, green political theory, the ethics of technology, and environmental activism. — U of Sheffield Philosophy Department

Environmental philosophy took off in the 1970s through engaging a key question: are human lives and experiences the only things that count morally? In addition to such environmental ethical questions, some theorists have also inquired about topics in metaphysics, epistemology, and cosmology in relation to the environment, suggesting that a change in our understanding of the world and our place in it can underwrite a new ethic for environmental sustainability. Some writers say that a puzzle about human beings lies at the heart of environmental philosophy, namely whether humans are unique in having a morally special status—a moral value—that no other living or nonliving thing has. If human beings are morally special, then in virtue of what features do they have that very special status? Is it because they can talk, or think, engage in dialogue with each other, or have possibilities of pleasure and pain denied to other living things? Is it because they build their lives around projects in terms of which to make sense of themselves, their relationships, and their surroundings. Is it because they are aware of their own mortality in a way that other things are not? If humans are special then this can be seen as a justification for an anthropocentric (human-centered) worldview and an attitude toward nature that treats other things, living or not, as means to human flourishing rather than having any value in themselves. In its extreme form, anthropocentrism may view other living things as no more than such a means. Such a perspective, it has been argued, is entrenched in many of the classics in the history of Western philosophy. Sustained efforts have been put into developing alternative frameworks in terms of which to conceptualize and think about human behavior in relation to nature and its nonhuman inhabitants. The blueprints for these alternatives have sometimes been found within the Western philosophical tradition too, although some have been sought from other sources, especially among various religious traditions and the classics of Eastern thought. While questions of ethics, and ethical responsibility to the environment, have been central to the field, a wider examination of questions about the nature of ecology as a science, and also of metaphysical questions about holism and individualism, has also occurred. In addition, environmental philosophers have also ventured into policy areas by discussing issues about sustainability, conservation, and restoration. — Brennan and Lo, Environmental Philosophy, Oxford Bibliographies

Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human contents. — Brennan and Lo, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Early positions of “feminist environmental philosophy” focused mostly on ethical perspectives on the interconnections among women, nonhuman animals, and nature (e.g., Carol Adams 1990; Deborah Slicer 1991). As it matured, references to feminist environmental philosophy became what it is now—an umbrella term for a variety of different, sometimes incompatible, philosophical perspectives on interconnections among women of diverse races/ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and geographic locations, on the one hand, and nonhuman animals and nature, on the other. For the purposes of this essay, “feminist environmental philosophy” refers to this diversity of positions on the interconnections among women, nonhuman animals and nature within Western philosophy—what will be called, simply, “women-nature connections”. — Warren, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

the University of Oregon. — Tanner Lloyd

Good outfit. I used to attend their Western Public Interest Environmental Law Conference for years back in the 80s. Learned a bit and met some interesting folks.

I'm a bit disappointed. I thought it was about how the planet can be saved from people destructing Nature on its surface. — CasaNostra

Don't be disappointed. That is in there too. It's usually wrapped into discussion about whether we are part of or separate from. And Christopher Stone's "ontological problem" asking, generally, whether it matters if we fuck the planet, since Ma Nature is going to press on with or with out us, and she won't bat an eye. The White Rhino, however . . .

Nevertheless, it's the cloth that counts. — CasaNostra

To us, anyway. :wink:

And obviously we've put a barrier up. — CasaNostra

It's that barrier (real or perceived) which forms the basis for some of the environmental philosophy discussions that are often had. It's a broad field so don't be turned off by it yet.

Philosophy of Science? Unless you plan to get spooky with it. Than Philosophy of Religion.

Philosophy of Science? Unless you plan to get spooky with it. Than Philosophy of Religion. — Outlander

Both, and then some, I'd imagine.

I don't understand.