A New Argument for the Irrelevance of Equality for Intrinsic Value

Kershnar, Stephen; Purves, Duncan

doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9764-1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, sustainability solutions in terms of value changes could be turned into policy suggestions; for example, a sense of responsibility for nature, for future generations, or for current generations could be translated into expenditures for environmental protection, environmental R&D, and aids for poor people. Finally, equality is assumed to be instrumental (Kershnar & Purves, 2016), since a value is attached to consequences for people.…”

Section: Paradigms Concepts and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Zagonari

2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of global environmental sustainability solutions based on one or more value changes. The framework represents four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability WS, a-growth AG, de-growth DG, strong sustainability SS) and five value changes (i.e., a sense of responsibility for nature β, future generations γ, or current generations in developing countries δ; aversion to inequality for current generations ε or future generations ζ). It defines solutions in terms of consumption, environment use, and welfare for representative individuals in both developed (OECD) and developing (non-OECD) countries. Solutions are characterised by efficiency (i.e., Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks) with respect to welfare and by intra-and inter-generational equality for consumption, environment use, and welfare, by confirming internal consistency and consistency with alternative equity approaches for utilitarianism (i.e., Harsanyi), egalitarianism (i.e., Arneson for welfare; Dworkin for consumption or environment use; Sen for consumption and environment use), and contractarianism (i.e., Rawls). Theoretical and operational insights are described for alternative sustainability paradigms and equity approaches. In terms of feasibility, by considering improved technology θ, decreased population η, and modified consumption α, the ordering is γ > δ > ε > ζ and AG > SS > DG > WS: β is unfeasible. In terms of internal consistency, γ > δ = ε = ζ and SS > AG > DG: WS is internally inconsistent. In terms of consistency with an equity approach, γ > δ = ζ > ε and SS > AG > DG > WS.

show abstract

Section: Paradigms Concepts and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Zagonari

2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that my analysis disregards libertarian approaches, both in terms of positive rights (Lomasky, 1987) and negative rights (Nozick, 1974), because it is arguable whether future generations or nature have rights in this context (Gosseries, 2008). Next, equality is assumed to be instrumental (Kershnar & Purves, 2016), since a value is attached to the consequences for people.…”

Section: Paradigms Concepts and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: Policies for a shared sea from a multi-country analytical model

Zagonari

2018

Marine Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a theoretical framework for four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability, a-growth, de-growth, strong sustainability) within cooperative and non-cooperative scenarios, and includes changes in four values (a sense of responsibility to nature and future generations; aversion to inequality for current and future generations). The model assesses the feasibility of sustainability solutions for a shared environment as a function of specific value changes in each country by interpreting these value changes as support for environmental policies. The solutions are defined in terms of consumption, use of the environment, and welfare of representative individuals in each country; they are characterised by efficiency and equality at both intra-and inter-generational levels; they are checked for internal consistency and consistency with alternative approaches such as utilitarianism, egalitarianism (i.e., Arneson, Dworkin, Sen), and contractarianism. Theoretical insights are obtained by comparing contextual stability and relative effectiveness of the environment's use among countries in alternative scenarios. A case study of the Baltic Sea operationally suggests that the currently adopted strong sustainability (i.e., an ecosystem approach) in a non-cooperative scenario (i.e., countries attempt to maximize their own rather than overall welfare) is internally consistent, relatively efficient, and consistent with Dworkin egalitarianism. Agrowth was never feasible, but de-growth in which Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Sweden increase environmental protection would increase intra-generational equality; de-growth or weak sustainability in which Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia increase environmental R&D would increase intra-and inter-generational equality; weak sustainability and de-growth consistent with Arneson and Dworkin egalitarianism would improve the environmental status.

show abstract

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Zagonari

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A New Argument for the Irrelevance of Equality for Intrinsic Value

Cited by 3 publications

References 37 publications

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: Policies for a shared sea from a multi-country analytical model

Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About