In this article, I suggest that the recently emerged perspective of environmental pragmatism encompasses self-contradicting principles. For many years, it was deemed impossible for environmental ethics to formulate justified environmental policy. Environmental pragmatism, and its primary scholar Bryan G. Norton, has promoted a new outlook in that debate by proposing an ideal methodology based upon classic American pragmatism. In this methodology, a community can determine what is morally righteous by (i) conducting open-ended inquiry and (ii) considering all relevant stakeholders in a rational discourse. Environmental pragmatism must therefore accommodate reasonable value pluralism. Moreover, Norton claims that these criteria should be complemented with what I call the ‘sustainability criterion’. However, this principle of righteous decision- making appears inconsistent with the two aforementioned commitments. This article considers why this is the case.

在本文中，我建议，最近出现的环境实用主义观点包括自相矛盾的原则。多年来，环境伦理被认为不可能制定合理的环境政策。环境实用主义及其主要学者布莱恩·诺顿（Bryan G. Norton）通过提出一种基于经典美国实用主义的理想方法，在这场辩论中提出了新的观点。通过这种方法，社区可以通过（i）进行不限成员名额的询问和（ii）在理性的话语中考虑所有相关的利益相关者来确定什么是道德正义。因此，环境实用主义必须适应合理的价值多元化。此外，诺顿声称这些标准应与我所谓的“可持续性标准”相辅相成。然而，正义的决策原则似乎与上述两项承诺不一致。本文考虑了为什么是这种情况。