Ranking policy options for sustainable development

Poiesis and Praxis 5 (1):15-31 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Sustainable development calls for choices among alternative policy options. It is a common view that such choices can be justified by appealing to an evaluative ranking of the options with respect to how their consequences affect a broad range of prudential and moral values. Three philosophically motivated proposals for analysing evaluative rankings are discussed: the measured merits model (e.g. Chang), the ordered values model (e.g. Griffin), and the permissible preference orderings model (Rabinowicz). The analysis focuses on the models’ potential for making transparent how an evaluative ranking can contribute to a justified choice among options, particularly in situations that involve diverse values as typically found in debates on sustainable development. Such transparency plays a crucial role when policy rankings are going to be used as arguments in political decision processes. The measured merits model is found to have questionable consequences for the concept of sustainability, while the ordered values model calls for an axiological framework that cannot plausibly be spelled out for sustainability. The permissible preference orderings model is more promising. Its formal structure and its ability to deal with value-pluralism provide an interesting re-structuring of the problem of justifying choices in sustainability issues

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Dual-ranking act-consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 138 (3):409 - 427.
Normative Dimensions of Sustainable Energy Policy.Sanya Carley - 2011 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (2):211 - 229.
Assessing the Construct Validity of the Global 100 Sustainability Ranking for Schools of Business.Gerald W. McLaughlin & Josetta S. McLaughlin - 2011 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 22:274-286.
On the Need and (im) Possibility of a Sustainability Science.Gert Goeminne - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 53:63-72.
Sustainability Transitions and the Nature of Technology.Erik Paredis - 2011 - Foundations of Science 16 (2-3):195-225.
Corporate environmental responsibility.Joe DesJardins - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (8):825 - 838.
Sustainable development: Scientific and ethical assessments. [REVIEW]Mario Giampietro & Sandra G. F. Bukkens - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (1):27-57.
Arguing for majority rule.Mathias Risse - 2004 - Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (1):41–64.
Sustainable development and the local justice framework.Emery Roe - 1997 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 23 (2):97-114.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
45 (#311,298)

6 months
2 (#670,035)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Georg Brun
University of Bern

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Well-being: its meaning, measurement, and moral importance.James Griffin - 1986 - Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press.
IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts.W. B. Gallie - 1956 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1):167-198.
The possibility of parity.Ruth Chang - 2002 - Ethics 112 (4):659-688.

View all 23 references / Add more references