David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 23-39 (2008)
Environmental policy has a size bias. Small organisms, such as microorganisms, command less attention from environmentalists than larger organisms, such as birds and large mammals. A simple thought experiment involving microscopic polar bears and giant microorganisms illustrates the importance of size in environmental ethics. Given the positive correlation between body size and brain size, there is probably a basis for a size bias in environmental ethics using ethical frameworks based on conations. This paper examines the relevance of the size of organisms in environmental ethics. It emphasizes the need to understand the theoretical reasons for the importance of size, and not to base a size bias merely on a subjective anthropocentric prejudice favouring large organisms.
|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
J. Baird Callicott (1980). Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair. Environmental Ethics 2 (4):311-338.
Kenneth E. Goodpaster (1978). On Being Morally Considerable. Journal of Philosophy 75 (6):308-325.
Immanuel Kant (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
Ernest Partridge (1984). Nature as a Moral Resource. Environmental Ethics 6 (2):101-130.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ted J. Case (1979). Optimal Body Size and an Animal's Diet. Acta Biotheoretica 28 (1).
Charles Cockrell (2005). The Value of Microorganisms. Environmental Ethics 27 (4):375-390.
Francisco Aboitiz (1998). To Normalize or Not to Normalize for Overall Size? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):327-328.
Peter A. Stanwick & Sarah D. Stanwick (1998). The Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance, and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Examination. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (2):195-204.
Marc Orlitzky (2001). Does Firm Size Comfound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance? Journal of Business Ethics 33 (2):167 - 180.
Scott Wisor (2009). Is There a Moral Reason To Limit Family Size? Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 29 (3/4):26-31.
Alan K. Reichert, Marion S. Webb & Edward G. Thomas (2000). Corporate Support for Ethical and Environmental Policies: A Financial Management Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 25 (1):53 - 64.
Brendan Maher (1998). When the Coefficient Hits the Clinic: Effect Size and the Size of the Effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):211-211.
Helen E. Ross (2003). Neurological Models of Size Scaling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):425-425.
Khaled Elsayed (2006). Reexamining the Expected Effect of Available Resources and Firm Size on Firm Environmental Orientation: An Empirical Study of UK Firms. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 65 (3):297 - 308.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #106,988 of 1,099,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #66,909 of 1,099,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?