David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 17 (1):85-92 (2005)
My theory of biocentric consequentialism is first shown not to be significantly inegalitarian, despite not advocating treating all creatures equally. I then respond to Carter's objections concerning population, species extinctions, the supposed minimax implication, endangered interests, autonomy and thought-experiments. Biocentric consequentialism is capable of supporting a sustainable human population at a level compatible with preserving most non-human species, as opposed to catastrophic population increases or catastrophic decimation. Nor is it undermined by the mere conceivable possibility of counter-intuitive implications. While Carter shows that value-pluralism need not be riddled with contradictions, his version still introduces some, and faces further problems. Thus consequentialist theories may be needed to sift our values, at least if our values are commensurable. Carter's apparent suggestion that monistic theories such as biocentric consequentialism can never be harnessed to rich theories of value and must each myopically give undue prominence to a single value is questioned.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robin Attfield (2009). Non-Reciprocal Responsibilities and the Banquet of the Kingdom. Journal of Global Ethics 5 (1):33 – 42.
Similar books and articles
Jason Kawall (2003). Reverence for Life as a Viable Environmental Virtue. Environmental Ethics 25 (4):339-358.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). Consequentialism's Double-Edged Sword. Utilitas 22 (3):258-271.
Victoria Davion (2006). Itch Scratching, Patio Building, and Pesky Flies: Biocentric Individualism Revisted. Environmental Ethics 28 (2):115-128.
Tim Mulgan (2001). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Karánn Durland (2008). The Prospects of a Viable Biocentric Egalitarianism. Environmental Ethics 30 (4):401-416.
Robin Attfield (2006). The Shape of a Global Ethic. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32 (1):5-19.
James P. Sterba (1995). From Biocentric Individualism to Biocentric Pluralism. Environmental Ethics 17 (2):191-207.
Alan Carter (2005). Inegalitarian Biocentric Consequentialism, the Minimax Implication and Multidimensional Value Theory: A Brief Proposal for a New Direction in Environmental Ethics. Utilitas 17 (1):62-84.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads79 ( #17,426 of 1,102,446 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #47,112 of 1,102,446 )
How can I increase my downloads?