The Bahá'í principle of religious unity is unique among the world's religious traditions in that its primary basis is found within its own sacred texts and not in commentaries of those texts. The Bahá'í principle affirms the existence of a common transcendent source from which the religions of the world originate and receive their inspiration. The Bahá'í writings also emphasize the process of personal transformation brought about through faith as a unifying factor in all religious traditions. The apparent differences between the world's religious traditions are explained by appealing to a perspectivist approach grounded in a process metaphysics. For this reason, I have characterized the Bahá'í view as "process perspectivism". Radical pluralism is the greatest philosophical challenge to the Bahá'í principle of religious unity. The main criticisms made by the radical pluralists are briefly examined.
Using a genealogy of the narratives of the Guadalupes, I explore three moral identities. The Mescalero Apache exist as caretakers of sacred space. Spanish and Anglo settlers exist as conquerors of a hostile land. The park service exists as captives, imprisoned in the belief that economic justifications can protect the intrinsic value of wilderness. The narrative shift from oral to abstract text-based culture entails a shift from intrinsic to instrumental valuation. I conclude that interpretation of narratives, such as those of the Guadalupes, is not by itself a sufficient condition for change. Interpretation is, however, a necessary condition for expanding the cultural conversation beyond merely instrumental justifications to include caring for wilderness's intrinsic values.
A paradox exists in attempting to resolve ecocrisis: awareness of ecological concerns is growing, but the crisis continues to escalate. John Firor, a well-known scientist, suggests that to resolve the paradox and hence ecocrisis, we need an alternative definition of "human beingness"--that is, a human ontology.
This thesis develops a legal theory reflecting the insights of feminism and environmental philosophy. I argue that human beings are not ontologically separate, but embedded in webs of relationality with natural others. My primary purposes are to 1) delineate ways in which institutions of modernity (such as law and science) have precipitated ecosocial crisis through the attempt to dialectically enforce mastery and control over nature and women; and 2) explore alternate political forms and ontologies which challenge the classical liberalist view of the (human) individual as a radically isolated, discrete, autonomous being. My overarching theme is that law functions as a narrative that can both hinder and enhance the promotion of ecological ideas, and how ecofeminism can contribute to transformative projects of environmental philosophy and feminist law.