Biotechnology, the Limits of Norton's Convergence Hypothesis, and Implications for an Inclusive Concept of Health
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and the Environment 5 (2):229-241 (2000)
Bryan Norton proposes a "convergence hypothesis'* stating that anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists can arrive at common environmental policy goals if certain constraints are applied. Within his theory he does not, however, address the consideration ofnonconsequentualist issues, and, therefore, does not provide an argument for the convergence between consequentualist and nonconsequentualist ethical positions. In the case of biotechnology, nonconsequentualist issues can dominate the debate in both the fields of environmental ethics and bioethics. I argue that, the convergence hypothesis must be rejected when tested against the case of biotechnology, and this limitation of convergence applies to any theory of reconciliation within the "health" concept because the achievement and preservation of "health "emphasizes a consequentualist outlook. I conclude that an inclusive ethics for ecosystem and human health should be explicit about this limitation
|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
Daniel Gregorowius, Petra Lindemann-Matthies & Markus Huppenbauer (2012). Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):265-293.
Similar books and articles
Brian K. Steverson (2009). Contextualism and Norton's Convergence Hypothesis. In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press 135-150.
Brian K. Steverson (1995). Contextualism and Norton's Convergence Hypothesis. Environmental Ethics 17 (2):135-150.
Ben A. Minteer & Robert E. Manning (2000). Convergence in Environmental Values: An Empirical and Conceptual Defense. Ethics, Place and Environment 3 (1):47 – 60.
Bryan G. Norton (2009). Convergence and Divergence: The Convergence Hypothesis Twenty Years Later. In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Nature in Common?: Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy. Temple University Press
Toby Svoboda (2012). The Ethics of Geoengineering: Moral Considerability and the Convergence Hypothesis. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3):243-256.
Bryan G. Norton (1997). Convergence and Contextualism: Some Clarifications and a Reply to Steverson. Environmental Ethics 19 (1):87-100.
Mikael Stenmark (2009). The Relevance of Environmental Ethical Theories for Policy Making. In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press 135-148.
Mikael Stenmark (2002). The Relevance of Environmental Ethical Theories for Policy Making. Environmental Ethics 24 (2):135-148.
Joachim Schummer, From Nano-Convergence to NBIC-Convergence: “The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It”.
Katie McShane (2008). Convergence, Noninstrumental Value and the Semantics of 'Love': Reply to Norton. Environmental Values 17 (1):15-21.
Bryan G. Norton (2009). Convergence and Contextualism: Some Clarifications and a Reply to Steverson. In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Environmental Ethics. Temple University Press 87-100.
Jose Luengo (2002). The Convergence-Divergence Hypothesis. World Futures 58 (1):45 – 60.
Mark B. Couch (2005). Functional Properties and Convergence in Biology. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1041-1051.
Andrew Light (2009). Does a Public Environmental Philosophy Need Convergence Hypothesis? In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Nature in Common?: Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy. Temple University Press
Katie McShane (2007). Anthropocentrism Vs. Nonanthropocentrism: Why Should We Care? Environmental Values 16 (2):169-85.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads3 ( #439,653 of 1,699,676 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,699,676 )
How can I increase my downloads?