Already a subscriber? Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:

Displaying: 51-60 of 1754 documents

book reviews
51. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 3
Wayne Ouderkirk, The Environment: Philosophy, Science, and Ethics by William P. Kabasenche, Michael O’Rourke, and Matthew H. Slater, eds.
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
52. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 3
Gregory M. Mikkelson, On the Intrinsic Value of Everything by Scott A. Davison
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
53. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 3
Jerome A. Stone, Redacted Dominionism: A Biblical Approach to Grounding Environmental Responsibility by Christopher Cone
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
54. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
News and Notes
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
from the book review editor
55. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
Eric Katz, Reconsidering the Turn to Policy Analysis
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
56. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
V. P. J. Arponen, The Cultural Causes of Environmental Problems
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In a range of human sciences, the human relationship to nature has often been viewed as driven fundamentally by religious, philosophical, political, and scientific ideas as well as values and norms about nature. As others have argued before, the emphasis on ideas and values faces serious problems in heeding the structural, socioeconomic quality of the human relationship to nature and thereby the deeply problematic structural character of the human environmental burden. At the same time, alleviating the structural environmental burden generated by global industrial market society represents arguably the single most challenging task in addressing environmental problems. Critically explicating the tendency of our intellectual culture to produce ideological and psychologistic explanations of human ecologically consequential action, and human action more generally, can clarify the notion of the cultural causes of environmental problems and the character of the human collective causing them. Only a structuralist point of view can accommodate the diversity of our positions and perspectives toward nature in the global context in which environmental problems are caused.
57. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
Sean C. Lema, The Ethical Implications of Organism-Environment Interdependency
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Modern ethical perspectives toward the environment often emphasize the connection of humans to a broader biotic community. The full intimacy of this connectedness, however, is only now being revealed as scientific findings in developmental biology and genetics provide new insights into the importance of environmental interaction for the development of organisms. These insights are reshaping our understanding of how organism-environment interaction contributes to both consistency and variation in organism development, and leading to a new perspective whereby an “organism” is not solely viewed as the adaptive product of evolutionary selection to an external environment over generations, but as continuously being constructed through systems of interactions that link an organism’s characteristics developmentally to the physical and social influences it experiences during life. This newfound emphasis on “interaction” leads to an interdependency whereby any change to an “environment” impacts the interacting “organism(s),” and an alteration to the “organism” eventually affects its “environment.” The causal reciprocity embedded within this organism-environment interdependency holds implications for our moral obligations to environments, given their compulsory role in shaping all organisms including ourselves.
58. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
Alex Lee, Adam Pérou Hermans, Benjamin Hale, Restoration, Obligation, and the Baseline Problem
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Should we restore degraded nature, and if so, why? Environmental theorists often approach the problem of restoration from perspectives couched in much broader debates, particularly regarding the intrinsic value and moral status of natural entities. Unfortunately, such approaches are susceptible to concerns such as the baseline problem, which is both a philosophical and technical issue related to identifying an appropriate restoration baseline. Insofar as restoration ostensibly aims to return an ecosystem to a particular baseline state, and depends upon clearly identifying this baseline for success, the very project of restoration appears impossible to get off the ground. Recasting environmental restoration in terms of obligations, instead of status, value, or worth, can avoid this and other classic challenges. If obligations to restore nature follow from intersubjectively validated reasons to justify our actions, we can salvage restoration from the threat of the baseline problem.
discussion papers
59. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
Ji Li, Yali Tan, Hong Zhu, Zhenyao Cai, Susanna Y. F. Lo, Environmental Protection of Panda Habitat in the Wolong Nature Reserve: A Chinese Perspective
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Environmental ethics can be cultivated in China and other Asian countries based on Chinese philosophical perspectives. Two major Chinese philosophies relevant to the issues of environmental ethics—Confucianism and Taoism—suggest certain approaches to developing environmental ethics. These approaches can complement each other in developing a Chinese or East Asian theory of environmental ethics. Drawing on these perspectives, China’s Wolong National Nature Reserve can face the challenge of protecting its pandas while developing the local economy. By adopting a set of strategies with elements from both Confucianism and Taoism, Wolong has fared well in both protecting pandas and promoting environmental ethics. This case has implications for both managerial researchers and practitioners.
60. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 36 > Issue: 2
Alain Ducharme, Aristotle and the Dominion of Nature
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Although it is often held that Aristotle endorses anthropocentric dominionism, Aristotle’s writings include an account of nonhuman value. The interpretation of Aristotle’s natural teleology which assumes that the claim that plants and animals are “for the sake of humans” entails an axiologically anthropocentric view of nature. However, a combination of aspects of Aristotle ethics and natural teleology shows that nature is valuable insofar as it is constituted by natural objects, things with natures. In virtue of having a nature, an object has an end or good toward which it strives. Natural objects thus have morally relevant interests. Because having a nature is sufficient for intrinsic value, it is wrong to associate Aristotle with the dominion thesis.