ethics

Barnabas Dickson analyses and criticises ethicist claims in environmental philosophy.

Karen Green applies Korsgaard’s distinctions—one between intrinsic and extrinsic value, and the other between having value as an end and having value as a means—to some issues in environmental philosophy.

In this paper Roger Fjellstrom argues that there is a lack of coherence between his ethical ideology and his actual ethical theory.

David Sumner and Peter Gilmour discuss the arguments relating to radiation mortality, arguing them to be rooted in a utilitarian system of moral philosophy.

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.

In this essay, Freya Mathews argues that the moral point of view involves a feeling for the inner reality of others and explains the consequences of this idea for other-than-human life forms and systems.

In his paper, Simon P. James reconsiders Buddhist envrionmental ethics.

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 study empirically assesses the extent to which intrinsic value theories of nature are accepted and acknowledged outside the realm of academic environmental ethics.