|Sustainability, Energy, and Environment Community
Office SEEC S238A
Campus Box 488
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0488
- A paper arguing a way around the causal impotence objection to climate mitigation.
- Full article in The Monist
- A paper arguing that there is nothing endogenously moral about the moral hazard.
- Full article in Public Affairs Quarterly
- A paper arguing that governments have strong moral reasons to implement substantive family planning programs in conjunction with universal education programs.
- Full article in Public Health Ethics
- Abstract Only: A paper arguing that talk of naturalness, and talk of intrinsic value in nature, is talk, ultimately, of what we are responsible for.
- Abstract Only: A paper arguing that perfect remediation technologies can help us get a better grasp on what's really wrong with pollution.
- Abstract Only: A paper employing several cases of harmless wrongdoing to suggest that remediation technologies cannot alone redress the wrongs of pollution.
- Abstract Only: A paper examining the ethics of ocean fertilization and related technologies by introducing the "Problem of Permissible Pollution".
- Abstract Only: A paper arguing that many environmental problems, particularly related to energy production, are characterized by the consumption of nonrenewable resources and that this has implications for ethical considerations regarding their use.
- Abstract Only: A paper asking
whether we are released from special obligations to consider the interests of genetically modified animals when they threaten to eradicate the habitat of naturally occurring species.
Full article in The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
- Abstract Only: A paper arguing in favor of the "autonomy model" of sleep and against the "choice model" of sleep -- the view that characterizes sleep decisions as a simple choice.
Co-authored with Lauren Hale. Full article available in The Philosophy of Public Health, ed. Angus Dawson. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
- Introduction Only: A paper arguing that technological artifacts are not morally considerable.
Full article available in New Waves in Philosophy of Technology, ed. Evan Selinger, Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen, and Søren Riis. (Ashgate Publishing, 2007).
Abstract Only : A paper deferring to Kant's arguments regarding autonomy and Hegel's arguments regarding recognition to argue that face recognition technology poses a threat to subjective freedom.
Full article in Ethics, Place and the Environment.
- Abstract Only: A paper arguing that the problem of feeling guilty about a death in utero is primarily a moral problem, not a medical or psychological problem.
Full article in The Journal of Medical Ethics
- A Clarification of the New (First) Bush Cabinet and the Principles that Drive It. (Written in 2001)
- A Response to Paul Krugman's April 22, 2001 NY Times Op-Ed Piece Regarding the Anti-Globalization Protests in Quebec
- A Response to Piers Stephens's essay Towards a Jamesian Environmental Philosophy, presented at the 2006 ISEE/IAEP Joint Conference.
- Not available on-line: A paper criticizing Christine Korsgaard's position on the Kantian moral law by appealing to the case of the recently-arrested United States double agent Robert Philip Hanssen.
- Abstract Only: A paper arguing that imprisonment and incarceration cannot generate the conditions necessary for reflective endorsement of practical reasons, and thus, cannot achieve the goal of providing an environment conducive to becoming ethical via reflection.
- Not available on-line: A paper criticizing Christine Korsgaard's position on our obligations not to cause pain to animals.
- A short policy analysis criticizing the proposal that environmental regulations that prevent property owners from utilizing their land as they deem appropriate should always include compensation for lost potential value.
- Handout: Just for fun, here's a brief handout that I've prepared for discussions of Lars von Trier's Dogville. I sometimes show the film to my ethics students. In this handout I cover only one of the many aspects of the movie -- notably, Kantian and Utilitarian justifications for punishment. If you have not seen the movie, you both (a) must see the film and (b) should be warned that there are spoilers in the handout.