Next Article in Journal
Environment and Human Health: The Challenge of Uncertainty in Risk Assessment
Next Article in Special Issue
Unconventional Approach for Prevention of Environmental and Related Social Risks: A Geoethic Mission
Previous Article in Journal
Landslide Change Detection Based on Multi-Temporal Airborne LiDAR-Derived DEMs
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Need for Geoethics Awareness from a Canadian Perspective
Open AccessReview

Valuing Humans and Valuing Places: “Integrity” and the Preferred Terminology for Geoethics

Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College London, Room 3.42 Virginia Woolf Building, Kingsway, London WC2B 6LE, UK
Geosciences 2018, 8(1), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8010025
Received: 8 October 2017 / Revised: 24 December 2017 / Accepted: 12 January 2018 / Published: 17 January 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ethics and Geoethics in Geosciences)
What follows will support the centrality of appeals to the integrity of places as a plausible way of extending the concept of integrity in the light of our actual practices of valuing. The emphasis will, however, be upon practices of valuing rather than upon metaphysical claims about "inherent value”. The latter are not dismissed, they are merely set aside. The guiding thought is that our ethical theory should not depart too greatly from our understanding of how and what humans actually do hold to be of value in any particular culturally-shaped context. Following an introduction to the concept of integrity (Section 1), the discussion will open with an attempt to show that we do sometimes value places non-instrumentally (Section 2), even though we tend to look elsewhere to justify our respect for, and valuing of, places (Section 3). It will then proceed through a defence of appeals to such valuing as ethically significant (Section 4), before moving on to a provisional account of integrity as an effective way of making sense of what it is that we value when we value places in their own right (Section 5). Unlike Rolston, who is strongly associated with the concept of integrity, the intention is not to go metaphysically deep and identify something akin to the moral properties of things. Rather, the concern will be with the kinds of considerations that agents would typically point to as a reason for valuing places without any deeper set of claims about inherent value. This provides a less troubling, more metaphysically “neutral”, way of addressing matters. The paper is intended for an audience working on Geoethics; however, the norms of argument will be those associated more narrowly with philosophical ethics. View Full-Text
Keywords: integrity; valuing; duty; respect; rights integrity; valuing; duty; respect; rights
MDPI and ACS Style

Milligan, T. Valuing Humans and Valuing Places: “Integrity” and the Preferred Terminology for Geoethics. Geosciences 2018, 8, 25.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop