301 pages, Figs, tabs
This important book brings together leading environmental thinkers to debate a central conflict within environmental philosophy: should we appreciate nature mainly for its ability to advance our interests or should we respect it as having a good of its own, apart from any contribution to human well being? Specifically, the fourteen essays collected here discuss the 'convergence hypothesis' put forth by Bryan Norton - a controversial thesis in environmental ethics about the policy implications of moral arguments for environmental protection.
Historically influential essays are joined with newly commissioned essays to provide the first sustained attempt to reconcile two long-opposed positions. Norton himself offers the book's closing essay. This seminal volume contains contributions from some of the most respected scholars in the field, including Donald Brown, J. Baird Callicott, Andrew Light, Holmes Rolston III, Laura Westra, and many others.
&i;"Nature in Common? brings together leading environmental philosophers to sharpen and clarify the divisions and critically examine the strengths and limits of moving environmentalists toward an agenda with which most can agree. This is an important and unique collection of essays. Minteer's introductory framing is excellent, and each of the chapters, are clear and forceful. This volume is a major contribution and deserves to be read widely."&o;
- Jan Dizard, Amherst College
There are currently no reviews for this book. Be the first to review this book!