Ethics

Peppoloni, Silvia; Capua, Giuseppe Di

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73568-9_115

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That issue is addressed by ethics in general, as well as in the specific form of professional ethics. However, even in the absence of guidance in how to act, a geoscientist's expert knowledge comes with responsibility for the individual scientist, as a professional and as a citizen, towards people and communities [20,21,41,42].…”

Section: Societal Contexts Of the Geosciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Frequently, these frameworks, which consider the works of professional geoscientists in various societal contexts, use the label 'geoethics'. Mainstream geoethics is an example of an agent-centric virtue-ethics that puts the responsible behaviour of a human agent at the centre of thinking about human-geosphere interactions, in regards to sustainable and inclusive economic and social development [10,21,41,108,109].…”

Section: Ethical Contexts Of the Geosciences And The 'Gts Amendment'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around

Böhle

Bilham

2019

Quaternary

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debates about naming the unfolding times of anthropogenic global change the ‘Anthropocene’ are ultimately debates about the ‘human condition’. The proposal to amend the geological time scale by adding an ‘Anthropocene’ epoch (that is, the ‘Anthropocene proposal’ in its strict sense) is both an intra-geoscience debate about scientific sense-making and a debate about the societal context of the geosciences. This essay juxtaposes these debates, starting from three postulates: first, that the scientific methods of geological chronostratigraphy are applied rigorously; second, that anthropogenic global change is happening; and third, that the ‘Anthropocene proposal’ may be rejected if it does not meet the conditions required for its approval based on the rigorous application of the scientific methods of geological chronostratigraphy. These postulates are analysed through the lenses of the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics and the normative statements of the ‘geoethical promise’. It is found that an ethical quandary would arise if the ‘Anthropocene proposal’ were to be rejected. Consequently, and given the societal contexts of the geosciences, it is explored whether distinguishing between the geological past (as demarcated according to current chronostratigraphic methodology) and contemporary geological–historical times (characterised somewhat differently) could offer a work-around to tackle the quandary.

show abstract

Section: Societal Contexts Of the Geosciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%