Abstract As we face the effects of a rapidly changing climate, appeals to harms done to the environment are commonplace. Yet the concept of “environmental harm” is often thought to be either mistaken or shorthand for damage to individual living entities. Without a recognizable subject for which things might go better or worse, prospects for environmental harm seem poor. This paper suggests we reframe our understanding of environmental harm. It argues that a fitting attitude account of environmental harm allows for the legitimate application of environmental harm without reliance on the well-being of individual entities. It further provides a means of distinguishing merely disturbing environmental changes from those that constitute harms, a form of discernment of particular importance in a changing environment.
Kenneth Shockley (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: