This issue aims to continue the discussion of how the continental tradition might advance or transform environmental thinking by considering different philosophers’ works.
In his article, Ben A. Minteer analyzes American pragmatist John Dewey’s idea of public interest in the context of environmental ethics and policy discussions.
In this paper, Theresa Satterfield recognises the many contributions to work on environmental values while arguing that some reconsideration of elicitation practices is warranted.
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?
Darren Domsky discusses J. Baird Callicott’s attack on Christopher D. Stone’s moral pluralism and argues that it fails entirely.
Robert L. Chapman discusses how one might set moral boundaries relating to immigration and environment.
Andrew Dobson considers the contribution that a biocentric perspective might make to the ethical debate concerning the practice of genetic engineering.
This article attempts to illuminate this question of what the nature of envrionmental problems is by exploring the relationship between environmental ethics, environmental problems and their solution.
J. Baird Callicott responds to Ben A. Minteer’s representation of his critique of moral pluralism.
Jon Wetlesen addresses the question: Who or what can have a moral status in the sense that we have direct moral duties to them?
