The philosophy of nature preservation has focused on whether arguments for nature preservation should be centred on the value of nature itself (ecocentrism) or derived human benefits (anthropocentrism). This book argues that this way of thinking has been counter-productive for environmental ethics.
The philosophy of nature preservation has focused on whether arguments for nature preservation should be centred on the value of nature itself (ecocentrism) or derived human benefits (anthropocentrism). This book argues that this way of thinking has been counter-productive for environmental ethics
The philosophy of nature preservation has focused on whether arguments for nature preservation should be centred on the value of nature itself (ecocentrism) or derived human benefits (anthropocentrism). This book argues that this way of thinking has been counter-productive for environmental ethics.
Why should any society take the decision to devote scarce resources, as a matter of public policy, to preserving natural objects? This is one of the questions considered in the field of environmental ethics, and the thinking that has taken place in this discipline has been dominated by the 'ecocentric-anthropocentric' distinction. Answers focus on either 'intrinsic values in nature', or on the human welfare benefits that will accrue from preservationist policies. These two answersare generally taken to be both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Ecocentric writers believe that thei
Oxford University Press
xii, 212
Problem melden