Ethics, Policy and Environment

ISSNs: 2155-0085, 2155-0093

9 found

View year:

  1.  12
    Egoistic Love of the Nonhuman World? Biology and the Love Paradox.Elisa Aaltola - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):86-105.
    Love of nonhuman animals and nature is often presumed to have positive moral implications: if we love elks or forests, we will also better appreciate their moral value and treat them with more respect and care. This paper investigates perhaps the most common variety of love – here termed ‘the biological definition of love’ – as applied to other animals and nature. Introducing the notion of ‘the love paradox’, it suggests that biological love of other animals and nature can also (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  21
    Artificial Intelligence Needs Environmental Ethics.Seth D. Baum & Andrea Owe - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):139-143.
    The growing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) has prompted work on the ethical issues raised by AI technology. We argue that environmental ethicists can make important contributions to AI ethics, and that doing so would be a worthy activity for environmental ethicists. Environmental ethicists can highlight the environmental dimensions of AI, such as its energy footprint and its potential application for environmental protection. Additionally, environmental ethicists can assess the ethics of novel situations that could be enabled by AI, such as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  5
    The Norwegian Oil Fund in a Warming World: What are the Interests of Future Generations?Anand Bhopal - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):106-120.
    The intended beneficiaries of the Norwegian Oil Fund are current and future generations of Norwegians, with the interests of current generations served through the expenditure of revenues on public services and the interests of future generations met by increasing the value of the fund. This formulation is reexamined in light of climate change and found to be narrow and incomplete and in tension with reducing carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. I argue that a collective vision encompassing the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  7
    American Chestnut Restoration: Accommodating Others or Scaling Up?Christian Diehm - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):69-85.
    A genetically modified variant of the critically endangered American chestnut (Castanea dentata) has been developed for use in restoring the species. This essay argues against such use, on the grounds that deploying the engineered tree potentially sets troubling industry and conservation precedents, operates on a paradigm of increased intervention rather than increased accommodation of other forms of life, and presents significant justice challenges in relation to Indigenous groups. In light of these problems, it is recommended that conservationists follow the approach (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  2
    Antibiotic Resistance, Meat Consumption and the Harm Principle.Davide Fumagalli - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):53-68.
    This paper vindicates using the harm principle (HP) to justify restricting consumer’s access to meat products in light of the impact that it has on the development of antibiotic resistance (ABR). In particular, the study claims that, since an individual instance of consumption, or purchase of meat, meaningfully contributes to the development of ABR in farming environments, a state intervention limiting consumer freedom would be legitimate. The causal impact of individuals in greater-scale problems has long been debated and dismissed as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  9
    Why It’s OK to Eat Meat: by Dan C. Shahar, New York, Routledge, 2022, xiii + 220 pp., $170.00 (hardback), $26.95 (paperback), ISBN: 9780367172763. [REVIEW]Trevor Hedberg - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):149-152.
    Dan Shahar’s Why It’s OK to Eat Meat is an accessible and provocative defense of the claim that one can be morally justified in eating meat even when that meat has been produced via factory farming...
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  4
    Between Neutrality and Action: State Speech and Climate Change.Kevin McGravey & Matthew Hodgetts - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):121-138.
    ABSTRACT2019 saw a wave of youth-led climate strikes that demanded states ‘listen to the science’. Some of these states are committed to protecting free speech through neutrality on climate change. That commitment inhibits informed democratic deliberation by remaining neutral between climate science and denial. In response, using the United States as our example, we argue that the state can and should use its expressive capacity to promote climate literacy and doing so does not violate free speech commitments. Public deliberation must (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Arguments from Need in Natural Resource Debates.Espen Dyrnes Stabell - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):19-33.
    With regard to any natural resource, we can ask whether we should obtain (more of) it. We may further hold that the answer to this question depends, at least in part, on whether there is a need in our society for the resource in question. In this paper, a framework is developed for evaluating the moral significance of arguments from need in natural resource debates. The main components of the framework are: a harm-based conception of morally significant needs; a transmission (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  9
    Why Offsetting is Not Like Shaking a Bag: A Reply to Barry & Cullity.H. Orri Stefánsson & Mac Willners - 2023 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 26 (1):144-148.
    Barry and Cullity argue that when morally assessing a person’s climate actions, we should ask how these actions affect other people’s prospects, understood in terms of the actor’s episemic probabilities. In this comment we argue, first, that even though Barry and Cullity are right in that we should use a person’s epistemic probabilities when assessing her climate actions, it is not clear that their conclusion follows. The reason is that important questions remain about what should be the object of these (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues