Search for a command to run...
Geoethics is an epistemic-normative practice that dynamically integrates geoscientific knowledge with ethical reasoning to guide tellurian entanglements of people and Earth. It highlights agency, virtue, responsibility, and knowledge as core tenets1. When geoethical thought is extended to public issues, it supports civic participation while maintaining its foundation in Earth System Science2,3.Analysing geoethics through the prism of systemism, scientific realism, praxeology (means–end analysis), and agathonism (human flourishing), this study explores mutual conceptual alignments of geoethical practice and Mario Bunge’s philosophical program4,5:Systemism holds that every entity is part of a system, composed of components, relations, and mechanisms across levels, including non-mechanical ones such as algorithms or LLMs.Scientific realism & fallibilism: truth is objective but partial; knowledge grows by conjecture, test and error correction.Praxeology (means–end): responsible action pursues value-guided ends using empirically supported means, with consequences assessed—including long-term effects—and endorses equality, liberty, democracy, solidarity, justice, and competence for institutions.Axiology—Agathonism: ethics aims to promote human flourishing (health, knowledge, solidarity, justice, freedom), rejecting radical moral relativism while allowing contextual trade-offs. Bunge, drawing in part on Max Weber, rejected the idea of an absolute moral code and developed a humanist ethics that evaluates actions by their consequences, integrating commitments to truth and human well-being. His central maxim—“Enjoy life and help others live”—unites personal and collective flourishing.Initially, systemism reframes agency as capabilities embedded in multi-level socio-ecological systems, requiring explicit description of components, relations, and feedback across scales. Realism and praxeology upgrade virtue and responsibility from personal dispositions to rule-governed routines, such as open data, code and access, registration of interests and affiliations, independent replication, reviews, and audits. Finally, agathonism specifies non-relativist ends (knowledge, welfare, liberty, solidarity, justice) and converts universal rights into side-constraints and metrics for practical trade-offs.A proposed alignment checklist follows:-System model (Are components, relations, and cross-scale mechanisms explicit?),Ends–means coherence (Do chosen means have evidence for and safety given uncertainties?),-Value vector (How are welfare, knowledge, freedom, solidarity, and justice advanced or constrained?),-Evidence protocol (What are the reproducibility and transparency provisions (data, methods, replication funding)?),-Participation efficacy (What binding levers do non-expert stakeholders possess, and how is impact measured?),-Responsibility pathway (Who is answerable for unintended effects, and what are remediation triggers and funds?).Overall, the proposed conceptual alignment moves geoethical practice from laudable aspirations to evidence-led, publicly justifiable, and purpose-oriented designable mechanisms that support human flourishing within planetary boundaries.1Di Capua, G., Peppoloni, S., Bobrowsky, P. (2017). The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Annals of Geophysics, 60(0), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553.2Bohle, M., & Marone, E. (2022). Phronesis at the Human-Earth Nexus: Managed Retreat. Frontiers in Political Science, 4(February), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.819930.3Marone, E. & Marone, L. (2025). Enlightening the Anthropocene through Supradisciplinary Science and Education. In Dialogues with the Earth Sciences. Bohle M. & Nauen C. eds. Springer International Publishing 978-3-031-97445-8(ISBN).4Bunge, M. A. (2001). Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction. Prometheus Books.5Bunge, M. A. (2006). Chasing Reality (Toronto St). University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442672857.