Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment

ABSTRACT After a brief review of environmental ethics this paper examines how terrestrial environmental values can be developed into policies to protect extraterrestrial environments. Shallow environmentalism, deep environmentalism and the libertarian extension of rights are compared and then applied to the environmental protection of extraterrestrial bodies. Some scientific background is given. The planet Mars is used as a test case from which an ethical argument emerges for the protection of environments beyond Earth. The argument is based on the necessity to recognise the intrinsic value of all living species and natural environments. At present, the treatment of extraterrestrial environments by makers of space policy is ethically undernourished. This paper explains why such an attitude endangers those environments and calls for the policy-makers to incorporate non-anthropocentric ethics into extraterrestrial environmental policy.     

Public Bodies, Private Selves

ABSTRACT A patient whose case notes had been used, without her permission, during a disciplinary inquiry on the conduct of Wendy Savage (her obstetrician) complained that this was a breach of confidentiality. Her complaint cannot be understood as based on a concern about the possible adverse consequences of this use of the notes: rather, her concern was just with the fact that medical information about her had been made known to others.
My concern is with the meaning and status of the right to privacy, to which the Savage patient appealed. Such a right cannot be reduced to a property right, since this cannot capture what concerned the Savage patient. A proper understanding of what lies behind her complaint requires us to recognise the way in which facts about oneself—in this case facts about one's body—are intimately bound up with one's self, with one's identity, and thus with one's autonomy. What kinds of fact, and thus what conception of the self, are involved in such a conception of privacy need not everywhere be the same; the crucial point is that privacy and the self are concepts which, whatever their particular content, are internally related [1].     

Thinking for Tomorrow: reflections on Avner de-Shalit

ABSTRACT According to Avner de-Shalit, our relationship with future generations is one of obligation based on welfare rights, not on basic human rights. This is because welfare rights derive from a shared community, and because we and future generations are members of the one 'transgenerational'community. I argue that although it is correct to ground our relations to possible future people in the concept of community, it is wrong to think that rights-talk of any kind is an adequate articulation of that sense of community. To present the issue of our relationship with future generations in terms of a choice between human rights and welfare rights misrepresents the nature of reasoning on these sorts of concerns. In a properly developed communitarian position there is a model of philosophical reasoning that can better articulate and interpret our intuitions about community in general and about our relations to potential future people in particular. Furthermore, such articulations can give those intuitions persuasive force.