This article examines the twin concepts of “playing God” and “vexing Nature” as they relate to arguments against (or for) certain human technological actions and behaviors.
Content Index
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.
Holmes Rolston III discusses nature and development in an invited response to other articles in this issue of Environmental Values.
John Andrews discusses weak panpsychism, the view that mind-like qualities are widespread in nature, in relation to environmental ethics.
Michael Prior discusses the theory behind economic valuation, concluding that all environmental valuation is at odds with beliefs based upon the existence of objective and intrinsic values.
Val Plumwood clarifies her stance on intentionality and the possibility of nonhuman agency, with reference to apparently purposeful machines and to Dennett’s theory of consciousness.
Brian K. Steverson argues against James Sterba’s attempt to show that anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists would accept the exact same principles of environmental justice.
William Grey discusses the moral status of future persons, and the relationship between abortion and environmental values.
Dale Jamieson develops several objections to the concept of ‘ecosystem health’ in environmental policy, outlining problems in governance institutions, value structures, and knowledge systems.
Bryan Norton discusses limitations to James Nelson’s concept of ecosystem health as having both descriptive and normative content.