[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-267753-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-267753-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","ethics-economics-and-sustainability-john-oneill-argues-against-dominant-economic-environmental-policy","Ethics, Economics and Sustainability - John O’Neill - argues against dominant economic environmental policy","","On the dominant economic approach to environmental policy, environmental goods are framed as forms of capital whose services to human well-being can be assigned monetary values. Those values are then weighed against other goods through tools such as cost-benefit analysis and market-based mechanisms like emissions trading and biodiversity offsets. David Wiggins challenges key assumptions about well-being, practical reason, and ethical deliberation. The paper develops these objections and draws implications for understanding sustainability and ethical demands across generations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ethics-economics-and-sustainability-john-oneill-argues-against-dominant-economic-environmental-policy/267753/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ethics-economics-and-sustainability-john-oneill-argues-against-dominant-economic-environmental-policy/267753.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Noah","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How does the dominant economic approach value environmental goods?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Environmental goods are treated as forms of natural capital that provide services for human well-being. Those services are assigned monetary values so they can be compared against other goods and services.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What role does “no net loss” play in environmental policy?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"A “no net loss” policy maintains aggregate natural capital levels by allowing loss in one component to be offset by gains elsewhere that provide the same services.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What mechanisms does the dominant approach use to translate environmental value into money?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It uses shadow prices derived from market behavior or stated willingness to pay, and it can also create actual monetary values via constructed markets such as emissions trading and biodiversity offset markets.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},267753,1789424643,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},8796095462418,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80000253c1241d02b47?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1778826106357471780","Ethics, Economics and Sustainability  \nJOHN O ’ NEILL  \nAbstract  \nOn the dominant economic approach to environmental policy, environmental goods are conceptualised as forms of capital that provide services for human well-being. These services are assigned a monetary value to be weighed against the values of other goods and services. David Wiggins has offered a set of arguments against central assumptions about the nature of well-being, practical reason and ethical deliberation that underpin this dominant economic approach. In this paper I outline these arguments and consider their implications for understanding ethical demands across generations. The paper focuses, in particular, on their implications for understanding the nature and requirements of sustainability.  \n1.  \nEnvironmental policy making is increasingly dominated by a particular economic approach. Environmental goods are conceptualised as forms of capital that provide various services for human well-being. These services are to be assigned a monetary value such that their value can be properly weighed against the values of other goods and services. A policy of ‘no net loss’ allows aggregate levels of natural capital to be maintained: loss of one component of natural capital can be offset by a gain in natural capital elsewhere that provides the same services. The understanding of environmental goods as forms of natural capital that are to be assigned a monetary value has come to dominate policy making at international, national and local levels. The approach, it is claimed, is a requirement for rational choices about their future that will ensure the optimal improvement in human well-being.  \nIn this paper I examine arguments which Wiggins offers that puncture this dominant economic approach to environmental policy. His work offers criticisms of central assumptions about the nature of well-being, practical reason and ethical deliberation that underpin the approach. In doing so it offers an articulation and defence of the ordinary human scale of values that the approach seeks to replace.  \nFor mainstream economic theory, the source of environmental problems lies in the fact that the value of environmental goods is  \ndoi:10 . 1017/S0031819122000225 © The Author(s), 2022 . Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of Philosophy. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ([https://](https://)[ ](https://)[creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 337 Philosophy 97 2022  \nDownloaded from [https://www.cambridge.org/core](https://www.cambridge.org/core. 14 Sep)[. 14 Sep](https://www.cambridge.org/core. 14 Sep) 2026 at 22:23:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use.  \nJohn O’Neill  \nnot captured in market transactions. They are ‘externalities’. The solution is to ensure environmental goods are assigned a monetary value that reflects the strength of preferences for them. There are two ways this can be done. First, various methods can be used to ascertain shadow prices on the environmental goods, either by inference from behaviour in markets or by asking people what they would be willing to pay in some hypothetical market setting. Those values can then enter a cost-benefit analysis which mimics the outcome of ideal markets. Second, the goods can receive an actual monetary value by constructing a market for them, for example through the definition of tradeable rights to pollute and through the creation of tradeable assets in offsets. Emissions trading and biodiversity offset markets offer two notable examples.  \nThis approach to environmental problems is premised on a series of assumptions about the nature of well-being and practical rationality.  \nThe nature of well-being: The standard welfare economics that underpins","cbCaifpURWJfDgkq","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifpURWJfDgkq","pdf",202605,23,"English","# Abstract\n# Dominant economic approach to environmental policy\n## Natural capital and monetary valuation\n## “No net loss” and rational choice\n# Arguments against the dominant approach\n## Critiques of well-being assumptions\n## Practical rationality and ethical deliberation\n## Commensurability and preference satisfaction","[{\"question\":\"How does the dominant economic approach value environmental goods?\",\"answer\":\"Environmental goods are treated as forms of natural capital that provide services for human well-being. Those services are assigned monetary values so they can be compared against other goods and services.\"},{\"question\":\"What role does “no net loss” play in environmental policy?\",\"answer\":\"A “no net loss” policy maintains aggregate natural capital levels by allowing loss in one component to be offset by gains elsewhere that provide the same services.\"},{\"question\":\"What mechanisms does the dominant approach use to translate environmental value into money?\",\"answer\":\"It uses shadow prices derived from market behavior or stated willingness to pay, and it can also create actual monetary values via constructed markets such as emissions trading and biodiversity offset markets.\"}]","Ethics, Economics and Sustainability - John O’Neill - argues against dominant economic environmental policy | PDF",58]