Date of Award
2018
Document Type
Dissertation - Closed Access
Degree Name
Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.)
Institution
Duke University School of Law
Abstract
This Article explores the role of law in the evolution of environmental values. The Article compares and contrasts the ‘intrinsic value’ and the ‘welfarist’ approaches, the two leading methodologies for valuing nature in environmental law and policy. Proponents of intrinsic value argue that nature is morally significant and holds intrinsic value as an end in itself. In contrast, welfarists view nature not as intrinsically valuable but simply as a means to a human end. After evaluating the merits and demerits of each approach, the Article concludes that their flaws caution against using either as the sole rationale underlying environmental policies. Instead, I advocate for value pluralism in environmental law and policy. I develop a pragmatic theory of environmental ethics that identifies human experience as the source of environmental values.
Based on this theory, the Article argues that legal frameworks play an important role in the evolution of environmental values. Through the structure of human relationships, social institutions, and physical environments, the law influences the experiences which make up an individual’s worldview and ethical thinking. Hence, to “get our environmental ethics right,” we must embrace environmental pluralism and experimentation. The Article explores governance approaches that support environmental experimentation and pluralism while maintaining individual responsibility towards the natural world. Translating the theoretical discussion into specific legal recommendations, I develop legal principles for a choice-based polycentric system of environmental governance that protects individual rights to responsible environmental experimentation
Citation
Ori Sharon, Finding Eden in a Cost Benefit State, 27 George Mason Law Review 571-614 (2020)
Library of Congress Subject Headings
Environmental law, Environmental ethics
Comments
This article is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.), Duke University School of Law, 2018.