Humans must define and carry out a way of life so that each generation can fulfill and forward their obligation to their children while enjoying a favourable way of life themselves.
Jan J. Boersema discusses the effects of our limited knowledge of the future on our consideration of future generations.
Environmentalists consider invasions by exotic species of plants and animals to be one of the most serious environmental problems we face today, as well as one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss. Alan Carter argues that in order to develop and enact sensible policies, it is crucial to consider two philosophical questions: (1) What exactly makes a species native or exotic, and (2) What values are at stake?
Alan Carter responds to Ernest Partridge’s article “The Future - For Better or Worse” in Environmental Values 11, no. 1.
In his article, Lawrence E. Johnson discusses the moral significance of future generations.
This article argues that the State-Primacy Theory provides a plausible explanation for the nature of that mechanism, and concludes that the most common strategies offered as a response to our environmental impact are most likely to be insufficiently radical to meet our seeming obligations effectively.
The aim of this paper is to consider more closely how uncertainty affects our moral responsibility to future generations, and to what extent moral agents can be held responsible for activities that inflict risks on future people.
This article argues that in a risky world and a risk-averse society even under the assumptions of weak sustainability the circumstances under which different forms of capital may be substituted are limited.
In their article, Judith Crane and Ronald Sandler analyse Lawrence Johnson’s argument on Homo sapiens.
Stephen M. Gardiner discusses climate change, intergenerational ethics, and the convergence of problems which make climate change “a perfect moral storm.”
