Environmental Ethics 26 (4):339-360 (2004)

Authors
Abstract
Holmes Rolston, III has argued that there are times when we should save nature rather than feed people. In arguing thus, Rolston appears tacitly to share a number of assumptions with Garrett Hardin regarding the causes of human overpopulation. Those assumptions are most likely erroneous. Rather than our facing the choice between saving nature or feeding people, we will not save nature unless we feed people
Keywords Applied Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0163-4275
DOI 10.5840/enviroethics20042642
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: 61,064
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ideas of Nature in an Asian Context.Michael G. Barnhart - 1997 - Philosophy East and West 47 (3):417-432.
Should the Probabilities Count?Katharina Berndt Rasmussen - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 159 (2):205-218.
Taurek, Numbers and Probabilities.Rob Lawlor - 2006 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2):149 - 166.
The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reasons.Veronique Munoz-Darde - 2005 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (2):207–233.
The Mixed Solution to the Number Problem.Martin Peterson - 2009 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):166-177.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
86 ( #121,868 of 2,439,610 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #432,499 of 2,439,610 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes