Part II - Intrinsic Value Defenses
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2017
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Defending BiodiversityEnvironmental Science and Ethics, pp. 205 - 417Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
7.5 Further Reading
Blackburn, S. 2003. Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. 2014. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 8th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
8.9 Further Reading
Varner, Gary. 2011. “Environmental Ethics, Hunting, and the Place of Animals.” In Beauchamp, Tom L. and Frey, R.G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 855–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.5 Further Reading
Agar, Nicholas (2001). Life’s Intrinsic Value: Science, Ethics, and Nature. New York; Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Paul W. (1986). Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Varner, Gary E. (1998). In Nature’s Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.6 Further Reading
In this chapter we have concentrated on Callicott’s interpretation of Leopold as an ecoholist, because that has been the most widely read and discussed interpretation. For an alternative, the reader should see either of the following works by Bryan Norton, who reads Leopold as a pragmatist who believed that the implications of ecoholism and a kind of enlightened anthropocentrism converge in practice. Readers interested in Leopold’s development as a scientist should see his professional biography by Flader (1974).
Flader, S.L. (1974). Thinking Like a Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude Toward Deer, Wolves, And Forests. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Lo, Y.S. (2001). “The land ethic and Callicott’s ethical system (1980–2001): An overview and critique.” Inquiry, 44, 331–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. (2015). “Re-examining the Darwinian basis for Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic,” Ethics, Policy & Environment, 18, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Bryan G. (1987). “The Constancy of Leopold’s Land Ethic.” Conservation Biology 2: 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Bryan G. (1991). “Aldo Leopold and the Search for an Integrated Theory of Environmental Management.” In Norton, Bryan, Toward Unity Among Environmentalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar
Ouderkirk, W. and Hill, J. eds. (2002) Land, Value, Community: Callicott and Environmental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.7 Further Reading
Carlson, A. (2008). Nature and Landscape: An Introduction to Environmental Aesthetics, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (1993). “On Being Moved By Nature: Between Religion and Natural History,” in Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts, Kemal, S. and Gaskell, I. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hargrove, E.C. (1989). Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Paden, R. Harmon, L.K. and Milling, C.R. (2013). “Philosophical histories of the aesthetics of nature.” Environmental Ethics 35: 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. (1995). “Aesthetics and the value of nature.” Environmental Ethics, 17: 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, T. (ed.). 1984. Earthbound: Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics. Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Kirkman, R. 2002. Skeptical Environmentalism: The Limits of Philosophy and Science. Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Maier, D.S. 2012. What’s So Good about Biodiversity? A Call for Better Reasoning about Nature’s Value. New York, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. (ed.) 2000. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Oxford. Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hare, R.M. 1982. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method and Point. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, Bryan. 1988. Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Varner, Gary. 1998. In Nature’s Interests: Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varner, Gary. 2012. Personhood, Ethics and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in Hare’s Two-Level Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronon, W. 1983/2003. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Cronon, W. 1998. The trouble with wilderness, or getting back to the wrong nature. In Callicott, J.B. and Nelson, M.P. (eds.) The Great New Wilderness Debate, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, pp. 414–442.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1994. Not with my tax money: The problem of justifying government subsidies for the arts. Public Affairs Quarterly 8:101–123.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. 1998. Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, R.N. 1994. Intrinsic value and overcoming Feinberg’s Benefit Principle. Public Affairs Quarterly 8:125–140.Google Scholar
Takacs, D. 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Worster, D., 1977/1994. Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar