Felix Pinkert
Biographic Data
| ID | 4623128 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Felix Pinkert |
| GIVEN NAMES | Felix |
| FAMILY NAME | Pinkert |
| SIGNATURE | PINKERT F |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Vienna |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-7307-990X |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 3 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 0 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 3 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2021 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 0 |
Harm, Insignificant Effects, and the Morality of Procreation
Several authors have argued that we ought to have fewer children in order to reduce our contribution to climate change. Proponents of this view generally hold a moderate version of the view, according to which it is still permissible to have one or two children per couple. One recent exception is Chad Vance’s paper “Procreation is Immoral on Environmental Grounds” in this journal, in which he argues that procreation is always, or almost always, m…
Procreative Prerogatives and Climate Change
One of the most provocative claims in current climate ethics is that we ought to have fewer children, because procreation brings new people into existence and thereby causes large amounts of additional greenhouse gas emissions. The public debate about procreation and climate change is frequently framed in terms of the question of whether people may still have any children at all. Yet in the academic debate it is a common position that, despite th…
Procreation, Footprint and Responsibility for Climate Change
Several climate ethicists have recently argued that having children is morally equivalent to over-consumption, and contributes greatly to parents’ personal carbon footprints. We show that these claims are mistaken, for two reasons. First, including procreation in parents’ carbon footprints double-counts children’s consumption emissions, once towards their own, and once towards their parents’ footprints. We show that such double-counting defeats t…
No prominent works on this page.
Procreation, Footprint and Responsibility for Climate Change
Several climate ethicists have recently argued that having children is morally equivalent to over-consumption, and contributes greatly to parents’ personal carbon footprints. We show that these claims are mistaken, for two reasons. First, including procreation in parents’ carbon footprints double-counts children’s consumption emissions, once towards their own, and once towards their parents’ footprints. We show that such double-counting defeats t…
Harm, Insignificant Effects, and the Morality of Procreation
Several authors have argued that we ought to have fewer children in order to reduce our contribution to climate change. Proponents of this view generally hold a moderate version of the view, according to which it is still permissible to have one or two children per couple. One recent exception is Chad Vance’s paper “Procreation is Immoral on Environmental Grounds” in this journal, in which he argues that procreation is always, or almost always, m…
Procreative Prerogatives and Climate Change
One of the most provocative claims in current climate ethics is that we ought to have fewer children, because procreation brings new people into existence and thereby causes large amounts of additional greenhouse gas emissions. The public debate about procreation and climate change is frequently framed in terms of the question of whether people may still have any children at all. Yet in the academic debate it is a common position that, despite th…
Climate Change and Geoengineering (3 works) · Environmental ethics (3 works) · Law (3 works) · Philosophy (3 works) · Political science (3 works) · Climate change (2 works) · Political Philosophy and Ethics (2 works) · Sociology (2 works) · Carbon Footprint (1 works) · Climate Change Communication and Perception (1 works)