Dzwonkowska, D. (2018). Is Environmental Virtue Ethics Anthropocentric? Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 31(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-
018-9751-6.
Dzwonkowska (2z018) opined that the application of virtue ethics to environmental ethics
contradicts human centeredness approach. The author explored three types of anthropocentrism,
namely ontological, epistemological, and ethical that designated either the form of human-
centeredness or the intensity. The author believes that environmental virtue ethics can be
elaborated to encompass nonhuman beings.
In contextualizing the discussion, Dzwonkowska (2018) studied closely Ronald Sandler’s
environmental virtue ethics and more specifically his claim pluralistic virtue and a pluralistic
approach. Sandler looks at ethical actions that lead humans and nonhumans to attain maximum
flourishing. The author concludes that Sandler’s ethics is virtue-oriented ethics that is non-
anthropocentric. Dzwonkowska’s examination of virtue in environmental ethics is breathtaking
because it adopts an unusual approach to look at ways of achieving humanistic and non-
humanistic flourishing. The journal offers an interesting approach to study environmental ethics.
The author’s claim can be used comparatively in delineating differences between instrumental
and non-instrumental value. Additionally, Sandler’s work on pluralistic virtue and a pluralistic
approach can also be used to determine human motives which may infer on environmental
ethics. Dzwonkowska’s (2018) article is somehow difficult to read because complex ethical
terms but when done slowly it can prove to be resourceful.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 3
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., & Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: intrinsic
versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(4), 187–191
The authors attempt to discredit a popular supposition by many biologists who have taken a view
that intrinsic value is the best ethical basis for protecting the ecosystem. Acknowledging that
intrinsic value is the current currency adopted by many biologists, there ought to be clarity and
efficacy to decide on the best conservational method. The article concludes that instrumental
value is an adequate option for making conservation decisions.
Justus, Colyvan, Regan & Maguire (2009) adopted an explorative and fun route in comparing
intrinsic and instrumental value. Specifically, the article does not only look at intrinsic value but
considers what has intrinsic value. The article offers that intrinsic value is more philosophical
than a scientific solution. The article is credible and supported by reliable information. It
proposes new ideas for conservation decision-making such as using tradeoffs. The article is
resourceful especially to those doing comparative studies between intrinsic and instrumental
value.
Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate
broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological
Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–21.
According to the authors, most of the discussions by scientists justifying conservation
approaches have mainly been between intrinsic and instrumental value. Moreover, the New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP) has mainly advanced arguments of pro-environmental behavior. The
article took a divergent approach by introducing a new approach, a relational value which mainly
links people and ecosystems through tangible and intangible relationships to nature supported by
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 4
principles and virtues. The authors proved their claim by constructing six statements distributed
to Costa Rican farmers. The study found that relational values are distinct compared to the
intrinsic and instrumental value and the New Ecological Paradigm.
The article was resourceful and provides its claim. The statements were distributed to
international respondents who offered unimpaired decision. Additionally, the article used
empirical evidence to examine the results of the study. It passed the test of credibility and
reliability. Klain, Olmsted, Chan & Satterfield (2017), rather using philosophical arguments to
prove their claim opted for an empirical approach. The article is resourceful and easy to read for
environmental ethics students and researchers.
Albrecht, G., Brooke, C., Bennett, D., & Garnett, S. (2013). The Ethics of Assisted Colonization
in the Age of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics, 26(4), 827–845.
The authors introduced a new discussion to environmental ethics by studying at a growing trend
called assisted colonization. Aware of the danger that the ecosystem faces due to anthropogenic
climate change and in the context of intragenerational, intergenerational, and interspecies,
animals and plants are facing extinction. A systematic assisted colonization has been suggested
to preserve these species; however, such measures have raised serious ethical issues. Albrecht,
Brooke, Bennett & Garnett (2013) conclude that with mitigation assisted colonization can be
ethically adopted but without mitigation assisted colonization remains unethical exercise.
The authors took a brave step and instead of focusing on straightforward competing arguments
between intrinsic and instrumental values looked at a contemporary issue of assisted colonization
of species. The article brings in new ideas to the study of environmental ethics. The article is
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 5
easy to read and has been clearly organized. Also, practical case studies have been used to
support the article’s main claim. The article is well-researched and supported with tangible
information from accessible databases.
Jakobsen, T. G. (2016). Environmental Ethics: Anthropocentrism and Non-anthropocentrism
Revised in the Light of Critical Realism. Journal of Critical Realism, VOLUME 16,
Issue 2.
Jakobsen (2016), attempts to introduce another angle to the already murky discussion on
environmental ethics. The author discredits worldview propagated by anthropocentrism and non-
anthropocentrism philosophers. The author sets out to expose serious flaws in the two
approaches. They achieved this by looking at critical realism which offers a better approach.
A seasoned researcher, the author supplemented his arguments with views/opinions of other
internationally acclaimed researchers’ in the field of environmental ethics such as Seo MinGyu
and Bhaskar. The author adopted a position and successfully defended it. The article is well-
researched and heavily reliant on environmental ethics philosophies. The article is instrumental
in any environmental ethics comparative study.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 6
References
Albrecht, G., Brooke, C., Bennett, D., & Garnett, S. (2013). The Ethics of Assisted Colonization in the
Age of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 26(4),
827–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9411-1
Dzwonkowska, D. (2018). Is Environmental Virtue Ethics Anthropocentric? Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 31(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-
018-9751-6
Jakobsen, T. G. (2016). Environmental Ethics: Anthropocentrism and Non-anthropocentrism Revised in
the Light of Critical Realism. Journal of Critical Realism, VOLUME 16, Issue 2.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2016.1265878
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., & Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus
instrumental value. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(4), 187–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.011
Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly
and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS
ONE, 12(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962