This dissertation aims to develop an ethical system that can properly frame such questions as the morality of large-scale efforts to transform inanimate parts of nature, for example, proposals to terraform Mars. Such an ethics diverges from traditional approaches to ethics because it expands the class of entities regarded as morally considerable to include inanimate entities. I approach the task by building on the environmental ethical theory of Paul W. Taylor, as developed in his 1986 book Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. I discuss various criticisms of Taylor and propose two extensions to his theory: an expansion of the scope of moral considerability to include all concrete material objects and the introduction of the concept of variable moral significance. Using Taylor’s modified and extended theory as a foundation, I develop something I call universal ethics. This is an ethical framework whose key elements are a fundamental ethical attitude of respect for the world and a principle of minimal harm. Universal ethics regards all concrete material entities, whether living or not, and whether natural or artefactual, as inherently valuable, and therefore as entitled to the respect of moral agents. I offer a defence of this ethical framework and discuss a number of practical applications, including criticism of proposals for the terraforming of Mars. I conclude that terraforming Mars or any other celestial body at this point in our history would be morally wrong. I also suggest that universal ethics provides an ethical foundation for efforts to protect Antarctica, and that it has implications for our relations to other inanimate parts of our world, including artefacts.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 58,242
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Humans Should Not Colonize Mars.Ian Stoner - 2017 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 3 (3):334-353.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Ethics of Respect for Nature.Paul W. Taylor - 1981 - Environmental Ethics 3 (3):197-218.
The Ethics of Terraforming.Robert Sparrow - 1999 - Environmental Ethics 21 (3):227-245.
Do We Have Moral Duties Towards Information Objects?Philip Brey - 2008 - Ethics and Information Technology 10 (2-3):109-114.
Communicative Ethics and Moral Considerability.Richard J. Evanoff - 2007 - Environmental Ethics 29 (3):247-266.
Ethics Beyond Moral Theory.Timothy Chappell - 2009 - Philosophical Investigations 32 (3):206-243.
Moral Considerability and Universal Consideration.Thomas H. Birch - 1993 - Environmental Ethics 15 (4):313-332.
Natural and Artifactual.Yeuk-Sze Lo - 1999 - Environmental Ethics 21 (3):247-266.
Nonreductive Ethical Naturalism.Andrew B. Schoedinger - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:3-6.
A Code of Ethics for Corporatecode of Ethics.Mark S. Schwartz - 2002 - Journal of Business Ethics 41 (1-2):27 - 43.


Added to PP index

Total views
2,782 ( #894 of 2,419,525 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #152,159 of 2,419,525 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes