Related categories
Siblings:
25 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Chrisoula Andreou (2012). Add to Cart: Environmental ‘Amenities’ and Cost-Benefit Analysis. In Michael O'Rourke and Matthew H. Slater William P. Kabasenche (ed.), The Environment, vol. 9 of Topics in Contemporary Philosophy.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Robin Attfield (2011). Nolt, Future Harm and Future Quality of Life. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):11-13.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3. Mark H. Bernstein (1998). On Moral Considerability: An Essay on Who Morally Matters. Oxford University Press.
    In this fresh and powerfully argued book, Mark Bernstein identifies the qualities that make an entity deserving of moral consideration. It is frequently assumed that only (normal) human beings count. Bernstein argues instead for "experientialism"--the view that having conscious experiences is necessary and sufficient for moral standing. He demonstrates that this position requires us to include many non-human animals in our moral realm, but not to the extent that many deep ecologists champion.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  4. Thom Brooks (2016). How Not to Save the Planet. Ethics, Policy and Environment 19 (2):119-135.
    Climate change presents us with perhaps the most pressing challenge today. But is it a problem we can solve? This article argues that existing conservationist and adaptation approaches fail to satisfy their objectives. A second issue that these approaches disagree about how best to end climate change, but accept that it is a problem that can be solved. I believe this view is mistaken: a future environmental catastrophe is an event we might at best postpone, but not avoid. This raises (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Baird Callicott & Robert Frodeman (eds.) (2008). Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Macmillan Reference.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Robert K. Garcia & Jonathan Newman (forthcoming). Is It Possible to Care for Ecosystems? Policy Paralysis and Ecosystem Management. Ethics, Policy and Environment:1-13.
    Conservationists have two (non-mutually exclusive) types of arguments for why we should conserve ecosystems, instrumental and intrinsic value arguments. Instrumental arguments contend that we ought to conserve ecosystems because of the benefits that humans, or other morally relevant individuals, derive from ecosystems. Conservationists are often loath to rely too heavily on the instrumental argument because it could potentially force them to admit that some ecosystems are not at all useful to humans, or that if they are, they are not more (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Benjamin Hale (2009). What's so Moral About the Moral Hazard? Public Affairs Quarterly 23 (1):1-26.
    A "moral hazard" is a market failure most commonly associated with insurance, but also associated by extension with a wide variety of public policy scenarios, from environmental disaster relief, to corporate bailouts, to natural resource policy, to health insurance. Specifically, the term "moral hazard" describes the danger that, in the face of insurance, an agent will increase her exposure to risk. If not immediately clear, such terminology invokes a moral notion, suggesting that changing one's exposure to risk after becoming insured (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8. Benjamin Hale (2008). Takings. In Baird Callicott & Robert Frodeman (eds.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Macmillan Reference
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Lauren Hartzell (2011). Responsibility for Emissions: A Commentary on John Nolt's 'How Harmful Are the Average American's Greenhouse Gas Emissions?'. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):15-17.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10. Avram Hiller (2011). Morally Significant Effects of Ordinary Individual Actions. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):19-21.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  11. Marion Hourdequin & David G. Havlick (2011). Ecological Restoration in Context: Ethics and the Naturalization of Former Military Lands. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):69-89.
  12. Donald C. Hubin (1994). The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169.
    Some have attempted to justify benefit/ cost analysis by appealing to a moral theory that appears to directly ground the technique. This approach is unsuccessful because the moral theory in question is wildly implausible and, even if it were correct, it would probably not endorse the unrestricted use of benefit/ cost analysis. Nevertheless, there is reason to think that a carefully restricted use of benefit/ cost analysis will be justifiable from a wide variety of plausible moral perspectives. From this, it (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  13. Donald C. Hubin (1993). Book Review:Thoughtful Economic Man: Essays on Rationality, Moral Rules and Benevolence. Gay Meeks. [REVIEW] Ethics 103 (3):572-.
    Some have attempted to justify benefit/ cost analysis by appealing to a moral theory that appears to directly ground the technique. This approach is unsuccessful because the moral theory in question is wildly implausible and, even if it were correct, it would probably not endorse the unrestricted use of benefit/ cost analysis. Nevertheless, there is reason to think that a carefully restricted use of benefit/ cost analysis will be justifiable from a wide variety of plausible moral perspectives. From this, it (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Tersagh Ichor (2014). Molecular Characterization of Aerobic Heterohophic Bacteria Isolated From Petroleum Hydrocarbon Polluted Brackish Waters of Bodo Creeks, Rivers State Nigeria. Open Journal of Ecology 4:715-722.
    Surface water sources in the oil producing Niger Delta region of Nigeria are highly susceptible to pollution by petroleum hydrocarbons and so it is important to understand the microbial diversity of such ecosystems. Water and sediment samples were collected between April-August, 2013 from Bodo creeks and taken to Environmental Microbiology laboratory of University of Portharcourt for analysis. A total of thirty aerobic heterotrophic bacterial strains isolated ranged from 3.0 - 7.0 × 104 cfu for surface water and 1.6 - 5.6 (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Jason Kawall (2011). Future Harms and Current Offspring. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):23-26.
    By providing an explicit estimate of the harms caused by personal greenhouse gas emissions, John Nolt (in his “How Harmful are the Average American’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions?”) hopes to undermine tendencies to downplay these emissions and their impacts on global climate change. He estimates that an average American would be responsible for one two-billionth of the suffering or death of two billion people (over 1000 years). He treats this as equivalent to being responsible for the suffering or death of one (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. Aaron Maltais (2015). Making Our Children Pay for Mitigation. In Aaron Maltais Catriona McKinnon (ed.), The Ethics of Climate Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc 91-110.
    Investments in mitigating climate change have their greatest environmental impact over the long-term. As a consequence the incentives to invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions today appear to be weak. In response to this challenge there has been increasing attention given to the idea that current generations can be motivated to start financing mitigation at much higher levels today by shifting these costs to the future through national debt. Shifting costs to the future in this way benefits future generations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Aaron Maltais (2015). Making Our Children Pay for Mitigation. In Aaron Maltais Catriona McKinnon (ed.), The Ethics of Climate Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc 91-110.
    Investments in mitigating climate change have their greatest environmental impact over the long-term. As a consequence the incentives to invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions today appear to be weak. In response to this challenge there has been increasing attention given to the idea that current generations can be motivated to start financing mitigation at much higher levels today by shifting these costs to the future through national debt. Shifting costs to the future in this way benefits future generations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Aaron Maltais (2015). Making Our Children Pay for Mitigation. In Aaron Maltais Catriona McKinnon (ed.), The Ethics of Climate Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc 91-110.
    Investments in mitigating climate change have their greatest environmental impact over the long-term. As a consequence the incentives to invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions today appear to be weak. In response to this challenge there has been increasing attention given to the idea that current generations can be motivated to start financing mitigation at much higher levels today by shifting these costs to the future through national debt. Shifting costs to the future in this way benefits future generations by (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. John Nolt (2011). How Harmful Are the Average American's Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):3-10.
    It has sometimes been claimed (usually without evidence) that the harm caused by an individual's participation in a greenhouse-gas-intensive economy is negligible. Using data from several contemporary sources, this paper attempts to estimate the harm done by an average American. This estimate is crude, and further refinements are surely needed. But the upshot is that the average American is responsible, through his/her greenhouse gas emissions, for the suffering and/or deaths of one or two future people.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  20. Jay Odenbaugh (2011). This American Life. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):27-29.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  21. Duncan Purves (2016). The Case for Discounting the Future. Ethics, Policy and Environment 19 (2):213-230.
    Though economists appear to discount future well-being when evaluating the costs of climate change, plausible justifications of this practice have not been forthcoming. The methods of economists thus seem to contravene the requirements of justice by discounting the moral importance of future well-being simply because it exists in the future. I defend the practice of discounting the future against the charge of injustice on grounds that moral theorists of different stripes can accept. I argue that, because public policy choices are (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Duncan Purves (2015). GMOs, Future Generations, and the Limits of the Precautionary Principle. Social Philosophy Today 31:99-109.
    The Precautionary Principle is frequently invoked as a guiding principle in environmental policy. In this article, I raise a couple of problems for the application of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to policies concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). First, I argue that if we accept Stephen Gardiner’s sensible conditions under which it is appropriate to employ the Precautionary Principle for emerging technologies, it is unclear that GMOs meet those conditions. In particular, I contend that GM crops hold the potential (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Ronald Sandler (2011). Beware of Averages: A Response to John Nolt's 'How Harmful Are the Average American's Greenhouse Gas Emissions?'. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (1):31-33.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24. S. Andrew Schroeder (forthcoming). Consequentializing and its Consequences. Philosophical Studies:1-23.
    Recently, a number of philosophers have argued that we can and should “consequentialize” non-consequentialist moral theories, putting them into a consequentialist framework. I argue that these philosophers, usually treated as a group, in fact offer three separate arguments, two of which are incompatible. I show that none represent significant threats to a committed non-consequentialist, and that the literature has suffered due to a failure to distinguish these arguments. I conclude by showing that the failure of the consequentializers’ arguments has implications (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Tomasz Żuradzki (2010). Granice troski o przyszłe pokolenia. Diametros 26:206-225.
    W artykule rozważam następujący problem: czy powinniśmy przykładać taką samą wagę do interesów i dobrobytu ludzi istniejących w przyszłości, jak do interesów i dobrobytu jednostek żyjących obecnie? Staram się wykazać, że traktowanie wymiaru czasowego analogicznie do przestrzennego jest problematyczne, zarówno jeśli chodzi o wymogi moralne, jak i o zasady sprawiedliwości, którymi powinny kierować się instytucje społeczne. Analizuję problem społecznej stopy dyskontowej, a także wskazuję na ograniczenia, jakie napotyka w związku z nim konsekwencjalistyczny rachunek zysków i strat w kontekście sprawiedliwości międzypokoleniowej.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography