ABSTRACT
InChapterThree,IcomparedandcontrastedtheZenBuddhistviewofnaturewith thepositionsofsomemodernenvironmentalethicists.Notwithstandingthegeneral Mahayanistconcernforthewelfareofallsentientbeings,Irejectedthesuggestion thataZenBuddhistenvironmentalethicwouldbeaformof'humanemoralism'of thesortadvocatedbyPeterSinger.IalsorejectedtheideathatZenrepresentsan extremeformof'ethicalholism'ofthekindarguablyevidentinthewritingsof AldoLeopold.Iarguedthat,incontrasttohumanemoralism,Zenbrings apparentlynon-sentientbeingssuchasplantswithinthepurviewofethics,butthat unlikeextremeformsofethicalholism,itrecognizesthevalueindividualbeings haveinthemselves,andwouldthereforenotsanctiontheideathatthegoodofthe environmentalwholemustalwaystrumpthegoodofindividualbeings.Ifound thatthedualcommitmenttoholismandthevalueofindividualbeingsevidentin Zenresonateswithsomeformulationsofdeepecology.Inparticular,thevirtuesof selflessnessandempathy,whichallowonetoidentifywithotherbeings,would seemtobeimportantinbothdeepecologyandZen.Iconcludedthechapterby suggestingthatinsayingthatalllivingbeingshaveintrinsicvalue,deepecologists seemtobeespousingaviewinkeepingwiththespiritofZenBuddhism.Inthis chapter,IwilltrytodeterminewhetherZenBuddhismshouldindeedbethoughtof asattributingintrinsicvaluetonature.
