You are hereBiblio / Prediction and Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Lessons from the Philosophy of Science
Prediction and Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Lessons from the Philosophy of Science
|Title||Prediction and Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Lessons from the Philosophy of Science|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||1996|
|Authors||McKinney, William J.|
|Journal||Science and Engineering Ethics|
|Keywords||ECOLOGY , ECOLOGY, , ENVIRONMENTAL , ethics , Ethics, , RISK , RISK, , SCIENCE|
Rolston (1988) argues that in order to act ethically in the environment, moral agents must assume that their actions are potentially harmful, and then strive to prove otherwise before implementing that action. In order to determine whether or not an action in the environment is harmful requires the tools of applied epistemology in order to act in accord with Rolston's ethical prescription. This link between ethics and epistemology demands a closer look at the relationship between confirmation theory, particularly notions of plausibility, in the philosophy of science and environmental ethics. Upon taking this look, I conclude that, at least logically, we are not better off assuming that actions are maximally risky (Rolston) than when we assume minimal risk.
Cover Date: October 1996.Source Info: 2(4), 429-440. Language: English. Journal Announcement: 31-2. Subject: ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; RISK; SCIENCE. Subject Person: ROLSTON, H. Update Code: 20090226.