Environmental harm: Political not biological
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (1) (2009)
| Abstract | In their fine paper, Evans et al. (2009) discuss the proposition that invasive non-native species (INS) are harmful. The question to ask is, “Harmful to whom?” Pathogens that make people sick and pests that damage their property—crops, for example—cause harms of kinds long understood in common law and recognized by public agencies. The concept of “harm to the environment,” in contrast, has no standing in common law or legislation, no meaning for any empirical science, and no basis in a political consensus other than might be drawn from the Endangered Species Act. As a generalization, the proposition that INS cause “environmental harm”—since this concept is empty of legal, scientific, and political meaning—must rest on definition, diktat, or diatribe. As Evans et al. suggest, however, the idea of “harm to the environment” is not always and certainly need not be arbitrary; it might gather significance in the context of a particular place through a political process that weighs economic concerns with cultural, religious, aesthetic, and other relevant beliefs, practices, and commitments that people who care about that place present. It is not clear, however, that adaptive management, which Evens et al. propose, will provide that democratic political process. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesE. Haavi Morreim (1988). The Concept of Harm Reconceived: A Different Look at Wrongful Life. Law and Philosophy 7 (1):3 - 33.
Daniel I. A. Cohen (1994). The Hate That Dare Not Speak its Name: Pornography Qua Semi-Political Speech. Law and Philosophy 13 (2):195 - 239.
Andrew Kernohan (1995). Rights Against Polluters. Environmental Ethics 17 (3):245-257.
Nils Holtug (2001). The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.
Daniel Simberloff (2005). Non-Native Species DO Threaten the Natural Environment! Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (6).
M. F. Jonas & S. J. Thornley (2011). Smoky Rooms and Fuzzy Harms: How Should the Law Respond to Harmful Parental Practices? Public Health Ethics 4 (2):129-142.
Evan Fox-Decent (1998). Why Self-Ownership is Prescriptively Impotent. Journal of Value Inquiry 32 (4):489-506.
Mark Sagoff (2005). Do Non-Native Species Threaten the Natural Environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads95 ( #6,898 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
