"Moral Pluralism and the Environment"
Economics and contemporary ethical theory must come to terms with the fact that not everything from consumer goods to endangered species can be given a value in order to make them comparable.
Economics and contemporary ethical theory must come to terms with the fact that not everything from consumer goods to endangered species can be given a value in order to make them comparable.
The article explores the possibilities of a new ethic that incorporates the phenomenon of environmental crisis and aims at changing people’s outlooks and behaviour.
Tom Crowards discusses nonuse values as a potentially very important, but controversial, aspect of the economic valuation of the environment, introducing the concept of Safe Minimum Standards.
Michael Mason argues that Habermasian moral theory reveals a key tension between, on the one hand, an ethical commitment to wilderness preservation informed by deep ecological and bioregional principles that is oriented to a naturalistic value order and, on the other, the procedural norms of democratic participation.
Mark A. Michael explains why the failure to insist on the distinction between different kinds of equality has led many to believe that egalitarianism generally has counter-intuitive implications, when in fact only one version of egalitarianism has this problem.
Response to Dale Jamieson’s article ‘Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic’ in Environmental Values 7, No. 1.
Jon Wetlesen addresses the question: Who or what can have a moral status in the sense that we have direct moral duties to them?
J. Baird Callicott responds to Ben A. Minteer’s representation of his critique of moral pluralism.
Alan Carter seeks to advance our understanding of some of the possibilities within Humean moral theory, while simultaneously providing new foundations for both animal welfare and a wider environmental ethic.
Nigel Dower discusses human development in relation to environmental ethics.