Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Burkhardt (1989)
The morality behind sustainabilityJournal of agricultural ethics, 2
James Montmarquet (1989)
The Idea of Agrarianism
William Bondesson, H. Englehardt, S. Spicker, D. Winship (1984)
Abortion and the Status of the Fetus
G. Sher, R. Hare (1982)
Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point.Noûs, 18
R. Poincelot (1986)
Toward a More Sustainable Agriculture
T. Regan (2023)
The Case for Animal Rights
Wendell Berry (1977)
The Unsettling of America
D. Parfit (1986)
Reasons and Persons
M. Sagoff (1988)
The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment
R. Sikora, B. Barry (1978)
Obligations to future generations
Joel Feinberg (1971)
Social Philosophy
Derek Parfit (1976)
Ethics and Population
K. George (1990)
Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Practice a Sustainable AgricultureJournal of Sustainable Agriculture, 1
George Pitcher (1984)
The Misfortunes of the DeadAmerican Philosophical Quarterly, 21
Annette Baier (1984)
Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics
J. Feinberg (1980)
8. The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations
Immanuel Kant (1963)
Lectures on Ethics
V. Weil, E. Partridge (1982)
Responsibilities to Future GenerationsTechnology and Culture, 23
Paul W. Taylor (1986)
Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics
M. Rokeach (1979)
Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal
Jeffrey Alexander, J. Feinberg (1987)
The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Vol 1. Harm to Others
Peter Singer (1975)
Animal Liberation
Wendell Berry (1987)
Is There a Moral Obligation to Save the Family Farm?
Bernard Rollin (1989)
The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science
R. Frey, B. Rollin (1981)
Animal Rights and Human Morality
D. Hoover (1984)
Agricultural Sustainability In A Changing World Order
Joel Feinberg (1974)
Philosophy and the Environmental Crisis
J. Rachels (1986)
The Elements of Moral Philosophy
Three views of sustainability are juxtaposed with four views about who the members of the moral community are. These provide points of contact for understanding the moral issues in sustainability. Attention is drawn to the preferred epistemic methods of the differing factions arguing for sustainability. Criteria for defining membership in the moral community are explored; rationality and capacity for pain are rejected as consistent criteria. The criterion of having interests is shown to be most coherent for explaining why all living humans belong to the moral community. This criterion allows inclusion of future generations as well, and extends to animals and plants membership in the moral community. Inferences are drawn that food sufficiency advocates hold only presently living persons to be full-fledged members of the moral community, but that this view is internally inconsistent. Stewards should agree that all living things are members of the moral community. A distinction between welfare interests and ulterior interests allows the steward to include the aims of those who argue for sustainability as community without committing some of their errors. Community advocates argue that essential values and virtues will be lost is the culture of agriculture is transformed. I argue that community advocates may fail to pass on our most important virtue — justice — without such a transformation.
Agriculture and Human Values – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 27, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.