Introduction: Emotions and Global Challenges of Inequality

An introduction to the special issue, by the guest editor

Food, Food Substitutes and Food Supplements

Distinguishing between food, food substitutes and supplements is common in everydaylife and academic work. The aim of this paper is to analyze this distinction.The question is approached from the point of view of functions. The hypothesisreads as follows: “Food has several nutritional, culinary, social, cultural, aestheticand other functions. These functions are necessary and sufficient for something tobe food. Food substitutes and supplements, serve some, but not many, functions offood. Thus, food substitutes and supplements are not food”. The contemplationsof the paper speak against accepting the hypothesis. This negative view is reachedby defining the central terms, discussing the differences between eating and swallowing,analyzing the different meanings of the term ‘edible’ and a throughout analysisof functions of food, substitutes and supplements. As a part of the discussionan idea of origin based functions is developed. If the hypothesis is false (as argued),then the distinction between food and other edible entities must be based on somethingelse than differences in functions. Alternatively the distinction may lack metaphysicaljustification. The view following this latter alternative is developed forthe purpose of further studies.</p

The Ethics of Climate Nudges: Central Issues for Applying Choice Architecture Interventions to Climate Policy

While nudging has garnered plenty of interdisciplinary attention, the ethics of applying it to climate policy has been little discussed. However, not all ethical considerations surrounding nudging are straightforward to apply to climate nudges. In this article, we overview the state of the debate on the ethics of nudging and highlight themes that are either specific to or particularly important for climate nudges. These include: the justification of nudges that are not self-regarding; how to account for climate change denialists; transparency; knowing the right or best behaviours; justice concerns; and whether the efficacy of nudges is sufficient for nudges to be justified as a response to the climate crisis. We conclude that climate nudges raise distinct ethical questions that ought to be considered in developing climate nudges.</p

Ethical compatibility of GM crops with intrinsic and extrinsic values of farmers: a review

v2009okpujKA

The Ethics of Climate Nudges: Central Issues for Applying Choice Architecture Interventions to Climate Policy

While nudging has garnered plenty of interdisciplinary attention, the ethics of applying it to climate policy has been little discussed. However, not all ethical considerations surrounding nudging are straightforward to apply to climate nudges. In this article, we overview the state of the debate on the ethics of nudging and highlight themes that are either specific to or particularly important for climate nudges. These include: the justification of nudges that are not self-regarding; how to account for climate change denialists; transparency; knowing the right or best behaviours; justice concerns; and whether the efficacy of nudges is sufficient for nudges to be justified as a response to the climate crisis. We conclude that climate nudges raise distinct ethical questions that ought to be considered in developing climate nudges

The Extinction and De-Extinction of Species

In this paper, we discuss the following four alternative ways of understanding the outcomes of resurrection biology (also known as de-extinction). Implications of each of the ways are discussed with respect to concepts of species and extinction. (1) Replication: animals created by resurrection biology do not belong to the original species but are copies of it. The view is compatible with finality of extinction as well as with certain biological and ecological species concepts. (2) Re-creation: animals created are members of the original species but, despite their existence, the species remains extinct. The view is incompatible with all species concepts presented. (3) Non-extinction: animals produced belong to the original species which actually never went extinct. The view may be consistent with phenetic and phylogenetic species concepts as well as with finality of extinction. (4) According to literal resurrection, resurrection biology is successful in reversing extinction through the creation of new members of species that once went extinct. This view presupposes non-finality of extinction and it is compatible with phenetic species concepts. It is notable that no species or extinction concept is consistent with all possible views of resurrection biology nor is any view of resurrection biology consistent with all species or extinction concepts. Thus, one’s views regarding species and extinction determine which views one can adopt regarding resurrection biology and vice versa.</p

Ymmärrys

Siirretty Doriast