Although John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice does not deal specifically with the ethics of environmental concerns, it can generally be applied to give justification for the prudent and continent use of our natural resources. The argument takes two forms: one dealing with the immediate effects of environmental impact and the other, delayed effects. Immediate effects, which impact the present society, should besubject to environmental controls because they affect health and opportunity, social primary goods to be dispensed by society. Delayed (...) environmental impacts, affecting future generations, are also subject to control because future generations have a just claim upon our natural resources-the generation to which a person belongs is an arbitrary contingency which should not exclude persons not yet born from consideration in the original contract of society. (shrink)

The purpose of this note is to examine the notion of obligations to future generations, a notion that finds increasing use in discussions of social policies and programs, particularly as concerns population distribution and control and environment control. Thus, it may be claimed, the solution of problems in these areas is not merely a matter of enhancing our own good, improving our own conditions of life, but is also a matter of discharging an obligation to future generations.

In this essay I propose an environmental ethic in the pragmatic vein. I begin by suggesting that the contemporary debate in environmental ethics is forced into a familiar but highly restrictive set of distinctions and problems by the traditional notion of intrinsic value, particularly by its demands that intrinsic values be self-sufficient, abstract, and justified in special ways. I criticize this notion and develop an alternativewhich stresses the interdependent structure of values, a structure which at once roots them deeply in (...) our selves and at the same time opens them to critical challenge and change. Finally, I apply this alternative view back to environmental ethics. It becomes easy to justify respect for other life forms and concern for the natural environment, and indeed many of the standard arguments only become stronger, once the demand to establish intrinsic values is removed. (shrink)

Disputes over agriculture and foodproduction have occurred against a background ofdisputed authority with regard to governments,experts, and single issue pressure groups. Consumershave intervened in quite significant ways with manyaltering their buying patterns. The conventionalassessment of consumer ``preferences'''' throughaggregated purchases fails to reflect the ethicalnature of significant numbers of purchase decisions.Nevertheless, consumers seem to offer a wider basis onwhich to consider ethical issues. The author proposesthat a valuable inclusion of consumer opinion in thedebates would require a move away from neo-classicaleconomics and (...) the selective inclusion of consumeropinion to unravel the complexity of (aggregated)consumer behavior. It is argued that Hirschman''sframework of ``exit, voice, and loyalty'''' is a moreappropriate tool for the understanding of ethics infood consumption. (shrink)