Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Climate Change Justice.Darrel Moellendorf - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (3):173-186.
    Anthropogenic climate change is a global process affecting the lives and well-being of millions of people now and countless number of people in the future. For humans, the consequences may include significant threats to food security globally and regionally, increased risks of from food-borne and water-borne as well as vector-borne diseases, increased displacement of people due migrations, increased risks of violent conflicts, slowed economic growth and poverty eradication, and the creation of new poverty traps. Principles of justice are statements of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Human Rights, Harm, and Climate Change Mitigation.Brian Berkey - 2017 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47 (2-3):416-435.
    A number of philosophers have resisted impersonal explanations of our obligation to mitigate climate change, and have developed accounts according to which these obligations are explained by human rights or harm-based considerations. In this paper I argue that several of these attempts to explain our mitigation obligations without appealing to impersonal factors fail, since they either cannot account for a plausibly robust obligation to mitigate, or have implausible implications in other cases. I conclude that despite the appeal of the motivations (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Negative “GHIs,” the Right to Health Protection, and Future Generations.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):165-176.
    The argument has been made that future generations of human beings are being harmed unjustifiably by the actions individuals commit today. This paper addresses what it might mean to harm future generations, whether we might harm them, and what our duties toward future generations might be. After introducing the Global Health Impact (GHI) concept as a unit of measurement that evaluates the effects of human actions on the health of all organisms, an incomplete theory of human justice is proposed. Having (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Climate Change as a Three-Part Ethical Problem: A Response to Jamieson and Gardiner.Ewan Kingston - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (4):1129-1148.
    Dale Jamieson has claimed that conventional human-directed ethical concepts are an inadequate means for accurately understanding our duty to respond to climate change. Furthermore, he suggests that a responsibility to respect nature can instead provide the appropriate framework with which to understand such a duty. Stephen Gardiner has responded by claiming that climate change is a clear case of ethical responsibility, but the failure of institutions to respond to it creates a (not unprecedented) political problem. In assessing the debate between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What Policy Should Be Adopted to Curtail the Negative Global Health Impacts Associated with the Consumption of Farmed Animal Products? [REVIEW]Jan Deckers - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):57-72.
    The negative global health impacts (GHIs) associated with the consumption of farmed animal products are wide-ranging and morally significant. This paper considers four options that policy-makers might adopt to curtail the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of farmed animal products. These options are: 1. to introduce a ban on the consumption of farmed animal products; 2. to increase the costs of farmed animal products; 3. to educate people about the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of farmed animal products; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Climate Change, Fundamental Interests, and Global Justice.Carl Knight - 2016 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (5):629-644.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Justice, Negative GHIs, and the Consumption of Farmed Animal Products.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Global Ethics 7 (2):205 - 216.
    In a previous work, I argued that all human beings should possess the right to adequate health protection and that we have good reasons to believe that not all human beings are or will be able to enjoy this right. I introduced the ?Global Health Impact? or ?GHI? concept as a unit of measurement to evaluate the effects of human actions on the health of human and nonhuman organisms and argued that the negative GHIs produced by our current generation jeopardise (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Our Obligations to Future Generations: The Limits of Intergenerational Justice and the Necessity of the Ethics of Metaphysics.Pranay Sanklecha - 2017 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47 (2-3):229-245.
    Theories of intergenerational justice are a very common and popular way to conceptualise the obligations currently living people may have to future generations. After briefly pointing out that these theories presuppose certain views about the existence, number and identity of future people, I argue that the presuppositions must themselves be ethically investigated, and that theories of intergenerational justice lack the theoretical resources to be able to do this. On that basis, I claim it is necessary to do the ‘ethics of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Climate Justice and Capabilities: A Framework for Adaptation Policy.David Schlosberg - 2012 - Ethics and International Affairs 26 (4):445-461.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • What’s the Harm in Climate Change?Eric S. Godoy - 2017 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 20 (1):103-117.
    A popular argument against direct duties for individuals to address climate change holds that only states and other powerful collective agents must act. It excuses individual actions as harmless since they are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause harm, arise through normal activity, and have no clear victims. Philosophers have challenged one or more of these assumptions; however, I show that this definition of harm also excuses states and other collective agents. I cite two examples of this in public discourse (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Future Generations as Rightholders.Johan Brännmark - 2016 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (6):680-698.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark