罗尔斯顿这类理论家认为,生态科学的最新发现证明了:大自然是一个能主动争取(好词!)平衡、均衡、完整的自动平衡系统,因此我们应当保护、维护、配合、甚至服从、崇拜和热爱大自然。在此,我不想争辩生态科学证明了或没有证明什么。我只提一个问题:我们从这些生态学事实(不论是何种事实)能否推导出伦理学结论。人们能够从“是”推导出“应该”吗? Ralston’s theorists hold the view that the latest findings in ecological science have proved that nature is a balanced, balanced and complete automatic balancing system that can be actively pursued (good word!) So we should protect, maintain, cooperate and even Obedience, worship and love of nature. Here, I do not want to argue that eco-science proves or fails to prove anything. I will just raise one question: we can derive ethical conclusions from these ecological facts (whatever the facts). Can people derive “should” from “yes”?