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.
Content Index
In their paper, the authors present a comparative analysis of the vision and mission statements of international envrionmental organizations.
In his essay, Lewis P. Hinchman argues that environmental theorists, seeking the origin of Western exploitative attitudes toward nature, who have directed their attacks against “humanism” are wrong. Instead, humanism has much closer affinities to environmentalism than the latter’s advocates believe.
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.
Frank G. Mueller attempts to assess and evaluate some of the economic implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Peter Alward examines a naive argument against moral vegetarianism.
H.A.E. Zwart discusses Ibsen’s The Wild Duck as the origin of a new animal science.
Michael Lockwood synthesizes insights from philosophy, psychology, and economics towards an understanding of how humans value nature.
Bruce Morito shows that our inclusion as members of the ecological community makes our valuational activity an integral and transformational element within more comprehensive ecological processes, thus indicating a need for our moral commitment to the environment to be radically reshaped.