Krebs, Angelika, "Discourse Ethics and Nature"
Angelika Krebs concludes that discourse ethics is an anthropocentric moral theory.
Angelika Krebs concludes that discourse ethics is an anthropocentric moral theory.
Michael Mason argues that Habermasian moral theory reveals a key tension between, on the one hand, an ethical commitment to wilderness preservation informed by deep ecological and bioregional principles that is oriented to a naturalistic value order and, on the other, the procedural norms of democratic participation.
Mark A. Michael explains why the failure to insist on the distinction between different kinds of equality has led many to believe that egalitarianism generally has counter-intuitive implications, when in fact only one version of egalitarianism has this problem.
David Schmidtz argues that “the philosophies of both conservation and preservationism can fail by their own lights, since trying to put their respective principles of conservationism or preservationism into institutional practice can have results that are the opposite of what the respective philosophies tell us we ought to be trying to achieve.”
Kerry H. Whiteside discusses Arendtian ecology.
Dale Jamieson discusses animal liberation as an environmental ethic.
Stan Godlovitch examines “aesthetic offenses” against nature.
Tony Lynch and David Wells assert their objections to the idea of a non-anthropocentric ethic of nature.
Robin Attfield refutes the neo-Malthusian paradigm put forward by Holmes Rolston, arguing that authentic development will seldom conflict with nature conservation.
Ben A. Minteer criticises the tendency in environmental ethics to demonstrate a preference for foundationalist approaches in the theoretical justification of environmentalism. He argues for a more contextual, social, and pragmatic approach.