Graduate studies at Western
Environmental Ethics 11 (4):355-361 (1989)
|Abstract||Appeals to science as a help in constructing policy on complex issues often assume that science has relatively clear-cut, univocal answers. That is not so today in the environmentally crucial fields of ecology and evolutionary biology. The social role of science has been as a source of information to be used in the prediction and domination of nature. Its perspectives are finely honed for such purposes. However, other more conscientious perspectives are now appearing within science, and we provide an example here in rebuttal to the claim that there is no warrant from within ecology for ecosystem moral considerability|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Hadley (2007). Critique of Callicott's Biosocial Moral Theory. Ethics and the Environment 12 (1):67-78.
W. Murray Hunt (1980). Are Mere Things Morally Considerable? Environmental Ethics 2 (1):59-65.
Benjamin Hale (2006). The Moral Considerability of Invasive Transgenic Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (4):337-366.
Hugh Lehman (2000). Ecosystem Health as a Moral Requirement. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (3):305-317.
Karen J. Warren & Jim Cheney (1993). Ecosystem Ecology and Metaphysical Ecology: A Case Study. Environmental Ethics 15 (2):99-116.
Donato Bergandi & Patrick Blandin (1998). Holism Vs. Reductionism: Do Ecosystem Ecology and Landscape Ecology Clarify the Debate? Acta Biotheoretica 46 (3).
Harley Cahen (1988). Against the Moral Considerability of Ecosystems. Environmental Ethics 10 (3):195-216.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,768 of 756,890 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,433 of 756,890 )
How can I increase my downloads?