Journal of Moral Education 37 (2):245-248 (2008)

Establishing factually-based public support for the intrinsic value of nature, vis-agrave-vis a 'domineering' or 'stewardship' relation with the natural environment, necessitates the prior theoretical and methodological establishment of the above normative distinction. In this reply I argue that the Modified New Environmental Paradigm used by Helton and Helton does not address the differences between Christian and deep ecological values by fusing them into one anti-industrial paradigm, thus allowing for the articulation of otherwise false impressions of public support for anti-developmental policies
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/03057240802009553
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: 59,827
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

The Medieval Roots of Our Environmental Crisis.Manussos Marangudakis - 2001 - Environmental Ethics 23 (3):243-260.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Reply to M. Marangudakis.Nicole D. Helton & William S. Helton - 2008 - Journal of Moral Education 37 (2):249-250.
Apresentação.Helton Adverse - 2008 - Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 49 (118).
Deep Anthropology.Alan E. Wittbecker - 1986 - Environmental Ethics 8 (3):261-270.
Is Deep Ecology Too Radical?William Aiken - 1994 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):1-5.


Added to PP index

Total views
12 ( #768,306 of 2,432,740 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #213,901 of 2,432,740 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes