當有倫理學家呼籲我們必須要對非人類個體生命負起道德責任時，他們或是從作為一個個體的道德地位之判準的證成著手；在另一方面也有人主張人與環境以及其中的生物與非生物所形成的一個整全的環境整體是更基本且更具優位，整體論者是如何證明這種整體的意義呢？其倫理學內容如何？本文最初的構想是要對比佛教與深層生態學作為環境整體論的差異。而進行的步驟是先介紹三種環境整體論，再分別說明深層生態學整體論是以「生態大我」來表達人與自然的整體關係之圓現的圖像，而佛教則可以說是以一種無執的環境整體論來表達。最後本文從思維方法、人性、自然、變化等觀念作對比，在凸顯出兩者的不同之處亦看出佛教作為一種殊異的環境整體論的可能。

Some ethicists contend that human have moral responsibility to non-human beings. While some position may be adequate as a criterion for a moral status, holism emphasizing by the interplay among environment, human and non-humans. Could be the later make their case? What are the contents of environmental holism? Thisartic1e studies what are the differences between Buddhism and Deep ecology as environmental holism. First, I would introduce three kinds of holism. Secondly, the views of Buddhism and deep ecology on environmental holism would be briefly introduced. It can be said that 〝Ecological Self'〞 is the character of Deep ecology, while Buddhism achieve its target through 〝non-attachment〞. Last, four important concepts, namely, thinking method, human nature, nature, and change as the theme. In contrasting with deep ecology, we find a possible distinctive interpretation of environmental holism of Buddhism.