Environmentalists consider invasions by exotic species of plants and animals to be one of the most serious environmental problems we face today, as well as one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss. Alan Carter argues that in order to develop and enact sensible policies, it is crucial to consider two philosophical questions: (1) What exactly makes a species native or exotic, and (2) What values are at stake?
Darren Domsky discusses J. Baird Callicott’s attack on Christopher D. Stone’s moral pluralism and argues that it fails entirely.
Robert L. Chapman discusses how one might set moral boundaries relating to immigration and environment.
Andrew Dobson considers the contribution that a biocentric perspective might make to the ethical debate concerning the practice of genetic engineering.
This article attempts to illuminate this question of what the nature of envrionmental problems is by exploring the relationship between environmental ethics, environmental problems and their solution.
J. Baird Callicott responds to Ben A. Minteer’s representation of his critique of moral pluralism.
Jon Wetlesen addresses the question: Who or what can have a moral status in the sense that we have direct moral duties to them?
In her essay, Katie McShane argues that even if we grant the truth of Bryan Norton’s convergence hypothesis, there are still good reasons to worry about anthropocentric ethics.
Ernest Partridge discusses Alan Carter’s criticism of Thomas Schwartz’s “future persons paradox.”
The present paper is a commentary on very interesting papers by Thomas Dunlap, Thomas Hill, and Kimberly Smith, who take up the spiritual, ethical, and political perspectives respectively. Their accounts are described and evaluated.
