"Immigration and Environment: Settling the Moral Boundaries"
Robert L. Chapman discusses how one might set moral boundaries relating to immigration and environment.
Robert L. Chapman discusses how one might set moral boundaries relating to immigration and environment.
Mario Petrucci reviews the population-resource debate relating to Red, Green, and neo-Malthusian ideologies to demonstrate how they have ramified into current economic and development theory.
Clive L. Spash presents a critical review of some recent research by social psychologists in the US attempting to explain stated behaviour in contingent valuation.
This paper examines technical, ethical and ecological science perspectives on environmental valuation, and discusses problems in terms of the implications for practical policy-making.
In their article, John O’Neill and Clive L. Splash analyse how local processes of envrionmental decision-making can enter into good policy-making processes.
Christopher J. Preston explores differing stances taken by supporters of the intrinsic value and the care approaches to environmental ethics, and looks for common ground.
In this paper, Theresa Satterfield recognises the many contributions to work on environmental values while arguing that some reconsideration of elicitation practices is warranted.
Darren Domsky discusses J. Baird Callicott’s attack on Christopher D. Stone’s moral pluralism and argues that it fails entirely.
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?
This article examines allegedly Humean solutions by J. Baird Callicott to the is/ought dichotomy and the land ethic’s summary moral precept, concluding that neither the solution nor the argument is Humean or cogent.