The categories and the types of care we assign are very often tenuous and troubled in nature. The articles in this volume explore some of the intricacy, ambiguity, and even irony in our perceptions and approaches to “multispecies” relations.
Content
David Benatar refutes Peter Alward’s defense of the “naive argument” against moral vegetarianism.
Robert Elliot discusses anthropocentric ethics, concluding with a subjectivist account of intrinsic value.
Chistopher J. Preston explains why environmental ethicists with a commitment to the normative significance of the historical evolutionary process may see synthetic biology as a moral “line in the sand.”
Harry Barton examines a 1991 proposal to embark upon the largest mining project in Europe, on the remote island of Harris and Lewis in Scotland. He argues that different groups perceive their environments differently, and pleads for a wider recognition of this diversity, as well as expansions of concepts of development and sustainability.
Martin Mulligan explores the Australian conservation movement, arguing that future conservation strategies need to tackle “frontier mentality” and a heavy reliance on scientific rationale. He suggests learning from the Australian Aborigines and non-rational approaches to nature conservation.
Jan J. Boersema discusses the effects of our limited knowledge of the future on our consideration of future generations.
Mick Smith argues that the expressivist hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Walter Benjamin might offer an alternative understanding of the nature of language and the language of nature.
Robin Attfield refutes the neo-Malthusian paradigm put forward by Holmes Rolston, arguing that authentic development will seldom conflict with nature conservation.
Carsten Helm and Udo Simonis develop a proposal for distributing common resources with regard to international climate policy, based on widely accepted equity criteria.
