Order:
See also
  1. Population Engineering and the Fight Against Climate Change.Colin Hickey, Travis N. Rieder & Jake Earl - 2016 - Social Theory and Practice 42 (4):845-870.
    Contrary to political and philosophical consensus, we argue that the threats posed by climate change justify population engineering, the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations. Specifically, we defend three types of policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: choice enhancement, preference adjustment, and incentivization. While few object to the first type of policy, the latter two are generally rejected because of their potential for coercion or morally objectionable manipulation. We argue that forms of each policy type are (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2. Fertility, Immigration, and the Fight Against Climate Change.Jake Earl, Colin Hickey & Travis N. Rieder - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (8):582-589.
    Several philosophers have recently argued that policies aimed at reducing human fertility are a practical and morally justifiable way to mitigate the risk of dangerous climate change. There is a powerful objection to such “population engineering” proposals: even if drastic fertility reductions are needed to prevent dangerous climate change, implementing those reductions would wreak havoc on the global economy, which would seriously undermine international antipoverty efforts. In this article, we articulate this economic objection to population engineering and show how it (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  29
    Biomedical Enhancement and the Kantian Duty to Cultivate Our Talents.Colin Hickey - 2017 - Journal of Value Inquiry 51 (1):165-185.
    Many traditional arguments in favor of enhancement are consequentialist in nature. Many of the classic arguments against enhancement seem to have loosely Kantian origins. In this paper I offer a different interpretation of what a Kantian should be committed to with respect to enhancement by focusing on Kant's sometimes overlooked imperfect duty to cultivate our talents. I argue that in promoting an end that Kant thinks we have a duty to set, enhancing is more than just permissible, but has morally (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  7
    Climate Change, Distributive Justice, and “Pre‐Institutional” Limits on Resource Appropriation.Colin Hickey - forthcoming - European Journal of Philosophy.
    In this paper I argue that individuals are, prior to the existence of just institutions requiring that they do so, bound as a matter of global distributive justice to restrict their use, or share the benefits fairly of any use beyond their entitlements, of the Earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases (EAC) to within a specified justifiable range. As part of the search for an adequate account of climate morality, I approach the task by revisiting, and drawing inspiration from, two (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  11
    Group Duties: Their Existence and Their Implications for Individuals, Stephanie Collins, 2019. Oxford, Oxford University Press. X 218 Pp, £50.00. [REVIEW]Colin Hickey - 2020 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 37 (4):678-680.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  2
    Koolstofemissies als een kwestie van verdelende rechtvaardigheid.Colin Hickey & Ingrid Robeyns - 2020 - Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 112 (4):453-457.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  5
    The Demandingness of Individual Climate Duties: A Reply to Fragnière.Colin Hickey - 2021 - Utilitas (First view):1-8.
    In this article, I respond to Augustin Fragnière's recent attempt to understand the demandingness of individual climate duties by appealing to the difference between “concentrated” harm and “spread” harm and the importance of “moral thresholds”. I suggest his arguments don't succeed in securing the conclusion he is after, even from within his own commitments, which themselves are problematic. As this is primarily a critical project, the upshot of this discussion is that if there is a defensible way to justify the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark