Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (4):969-987 (2017)

Abstract
There is both individual and collective widespread concern in society about the impact of human activity and the effects of our decisions on the physical and social environment. This concern is included within the idea of sustainability. The meaning of the concept is still ambiguous and its practical effectiveness disputed. Like many other authors, this article uses as a starting point the definition proposed by the World Commission on Environment and Development, considering it to be a proposal for changing the assessment of the effects of decisions, from at least two perspectives: what effects we should consider and how we should assess them. Based on this double perspective, sustainability is explored as a method for decision-making which both expands the assessment of the consequences, and also provides an objective criterion for such assessment. It will be argued that the idea of sustainability, seen from this perspective, brings to decision-making two qualities which had been partially lost: realism and impartiality. In turn, the criteria for realism and impartiality in decision-making can be used to identify the limitations of some partial approaches to sustainability, which suffer from insufficient realism, insufficient impartiality or both phenomena at once. The article concludes by demonstrating how realism and impartiality provide the basis for a new form of sustainable decision-making, which is dependent on the development of two moral virtues, prudence and benevolence, and which brings practical effectiveness and ethical sense to the concept of sustainability.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-016-9850-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,676
External links

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

After Virtue.A. MacIntyre - 1981 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 46 (1):169-171.

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Shared Decision-Making, Gender and New Technologies.Kristin Zeiler - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):279-287.
Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? [REVIEW]Dawn R. Elm & Tara J. Radin - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):313-329.
Supporting Individuals in Group Decision-Making.P. Korhonen & J. Wallenius - 1990 - Theory and Decision 28 (3):313-329.
Social and Creative Decision Making.Carl Martin Allwood & Marcus Selart - 2010 - In Carl Martin Allwood & Marcus Selart (eds.), Decision making: Social and creative dimensions. Springer Media.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-06-26

Total views
1 ( #1,441,144 of 2,386,668 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #552,015 of 2,386,668 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes