ethics

Robin Attfield refutes the neo-Malthusian paradigm put forward by Holmes Rolston, arguing that authentic development will seldom conflict with nature conservation.

Roger Crisp responds to Dale Jamieson’s views on animal liberation as environmental ethic.

Brian Baxter responds to Onora O’Neill’s argument that environmental ethics could and should be reformulated in terms of a search for the obligations held by moral agents towards each other, with respect to the non-human world.

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.

In this paper, Robert L. Chapman discusses the importance of a place-based approach to standard virtue ethics, and argues that virtuous action, such as respect and gratitude, arises from deliberation from a position of being in and of the natural world.

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.

Emily Brady argues for the importance of aesthetic value, as aesthetic experience is already embedded in a range of human practices and should be considered in policy debates.

This article examines the twin concepts of “playing God” and “vexing Nature” as they relate to arguments against (or for) certain human technological actions and behaviors.

Ben A. Minteer criticises the tendency in environmental ethics to demonstrate a preference for foundationalist approaches in the theoretical justification of environmentalism. He argues for a more contextual, social, and pragmatic approach.

Holmes Rolston III discusses nature and development in an invited response to other articles in this issue of Environmental Values.