2010Unpublished venueRequires access

Questions for discussion and revision

Andrew Brennan

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Introduction: the place of environmental philosophy and its basic concepts Is a whale no more intrinsically valuable than a pig, a fox or a kangaroo? It is considered humane in some situations to kill an animal to put it out of its misery. Reflect on why there is much more controversy about the mercy killing of human beings. It is said by some writers that people have no right to pollute the planet, but that equally people have the right to a decent life and to the means of subsistence. Is there any conflict between these two claims? Do you think the notion of dignity can be applied to animals or plants? If so, explain what it means in your imagined context. If not, explain why only humans can have dignity. Future generations: what consideration do we owe them? Vegetarians, vegans, cyclists and in general people who restrain their energy and material consumptions often claim that their lifestyles are better for the environment than those of meateaters, carusers and average consumers. Do you think people without children are likewise justified in claiming that their lifestyles, as people without children, are better for the environment than those of people with children? Do you think sacrificing your opportunity to have children is a virtuous way to do good to the environment? Why or why not? […]

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Introduction: the place of environmental philosophy and its basic concepts Is a whale no more intrinsically valuable than a pig, a fox or a kangaroo? It is considered humane in some situations to kill an animal to put it out of its misery. Reflect on why there is much more controversy about the mercy killing of human beings. It is said by some writers that people have no right to pollute the planet, but that equally people have the right to a decent life and to the means of subsistence. Is there any conflict between these two claims? Do you think the notion of dignity can be applied to animals or plants? If so, explain what it means in your imagined context. If not, explain why only humans can have dignity. Future generations: what consideration do we owe them? Vegetarians, vegans, cyclists and in general people who restrain their energy and material consumptions often claim that their lifestyles are better for the environment than those of meateaters, carusers and average consumers. Do you think people without children are likewise justified in claiming that their lifestyles, as people without children, are better for the environment than those of people with children? Do you think sacrificing your opportunity to have children is a virtuous way to do good to the environment? Why or why not? […]

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Introduction: the place of environmental philosophy and its basic concepts Is a whale no more intrinsically valuable than a pig, a fox or a kangaroo? It is considered humane in some situations to kill an animal to put it out of its misery. Reflect on why there is much more controversy about the mercy killing of human beings. It is said by some writers that people have no right to pollute the planet, but that equally people have the right to a decent life and to the means of subsistence. Is there any conflict between these two claims? Do you think the notion of dignity can be applied to animals or plants? If so, explain what it means in your imagined context. If not, explain why only humans can have dignity. Future generations: what consideration do we owe them? Vegetarians, vegans, cyclists and in general people who restrain their energy and material consumptions often claim that their lifestyles are better for the environment than those of meateaters, carusers and average consumers. Do you think people without children are likewise justified in claiming that their lifestyles, as people without children, are better for the environment than those of people with children? Do you think sacrificing your opportunity to have children is a virtuous way to do good to the environment? Why or why not? […]

Key concepts: Environmental ethics, Epistemology, History, Philosophy, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Questions for discussion and revision — Research Paper | ScholarLens