ethics

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?

In her essay, Katie McShane argues that even if we grant the truth of Bryan Norton’s convergence hypothesis, there are still good reasons to worry about anthropocentric ethics.

Ernest Partridge discusses Alan Carter’s criticism of Thomas Schwartz’s “future persons paradox.”

The present paper is a commentary on very interesting papers by Thomas Dunlap, Thomas Hill, and Kimberly Smith, who take up the spiritual, ethical, and political perspectives respectively. Their accounts are described and evaluated.

This paper suggests that the contribution of Buddhism to the issue of species conservation should be part of the conservation discourse.

In this article Ronald Sandler considers four concerns regarding the possibility of an environmental virtue ethic functioning as an alternative—rather than a supplement—to more conventional approaches to environmental ethics.

This paper outlines a constructivist approach to environmental ethics which attempts to reconcile realism in the ontological sense.