Thinking about the Environment: Our Debt to the Classical and Medieval Past
The contributions to this volume explore and uncover contemporary scholarship’s debt to the classical and medieval past.
The contributions to this volume explore and uncover contemporary scholarship’s debt to the classical and medieval past.
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.
Robert Elliot discusses anthropocentric ethics, concluding with a subjectivist account of intrinsic value.
Brian K. Steverson argues against James Sterba’s attempt to show that anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists would accept the exact same principles of environmental justice.
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.
Angelika Krebs concludes that discourse ethics is an anthropocentric moral theory.
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.
Dale Jamieson discusses animal liberation as an environmental ethic.