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.
Michael Prior discusses the theory behind economic valuation, concluding that all environmental valuation is at odds with beliefs based upon the existence of objective and intrinsic values.
Val Plumwood clarifies her stance on intentionality and the possibility of nonhuman agency, with reference to apparently purposeful machines and to Dennett’s theory of consciousness.
Brian K. Steverson argues against James Sterba’s attempt to show that anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists would accept the exact same principles of environmental justice.
Stephen M. Gardiner discusses climate change, intergenerational ethics, and the convergence of problems which make climate change “a perfect moral storm.”
Peter Singer argues that on any plausible principle, industrialised nations should be doing much more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto Protocol requires.
Angelika Krebs concludes that discourse ethics is an anthropocentric moral theory.
