4 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Dan C. Shahar [4]Dan Coby Shahar [1]
See also:
Profile: Dan C. Shahar (University of Arizona)
  1.  4
    Dan C. Shahar (2016). Treading Lightly on the Climate in a Problem-Ridden World. Ethics, Policy and Environment 19 (2):183-195.
    Personal carbon footprints have become a subject of major concern among those who worry about global climate change. Conventional wisdom holds that individuals have a duty to reduce their impacts on the climate system by restricting their carbon footprints. However, I defend a new argument for thinking that this conventional wisdom is mistaken. Individuals, I argue, have a duty to take actions to combat the world’s problems. But since climate change is only one of a nearly endless list of such (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  9
    Dan Coby Shahar (2015). Rejecting Eco-Authoritarianism, Again. Environmental Values 24 (3):345-366.
    Ecologically-motivated authoritarianism flourished initially during the 1970s but largely disappeared after the decline of socialism in the late-1980s. Today, 'eco- authoritarianism ' is beginning to reassert itself, this time modelled not after the Soviet Union but modern-day China. The new eco-authoritarians denounce central planning but still suggest that governments should be granted powers that free them from subordination to citizens' rights or democratic procedures. I argue that current eco-authoritarian views do not present us with an attractive alternative to market liberal (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  5
    Dan C. Shahar (2014). Integrity Versus Expediency for Non-Anthropocentrists. Ethics, Policy and Environment 17 (3):271-274.
    Kevin Elliott observes that environmental protection efforts often benefit humans, not just because the natural environment is useful, but also because activities that result in environmental protections can also promote a range of other human values. Elliott argues that environmentalists could gain practical advantages by emphasizing these indirect benefits. He also insists that even for environmentalists who believe that nature ought to be protected for its own sake, deploying such arguments would not necessarily pose problems of integrity since more explicitly (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  14
    Dan C. Shahar (2011). Conflict and Comparison Between Species. Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (2):163 - 166.
    Paul Taylor has argued that all living organisms have equal inherent worth. David Schmidtz objects, insisting that there is little to be gained by talk of “equality” in interspecific contexts. On Schmidtz’s view, ethicists should be satisfied simply to say that all organisms deserve respect, while leaving unspecified how such claims to respect measure up to one another. Yet in this paper, I contend that Schmidtz’s position cannot be sustained in the face of predictable and ongoing conflict between species. When (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography