Guillaume Latombe, Ugo Arbieu, Sven Bacher, Stefano Canessa, Franck Courchamp, Stefan Dullinger, Franz Essl, Michael Glaser, Ivan Jarić, Bernd Lenzner, Anna Schertler, John R U Wilson
{"title":"澄清环境保护的伦理立场:电车问题的思想实验。","authors":"Guillaume Latombe, Ugo Arbieu, Sven Bacher, Stefano Canessa, Franck Courchamp, Stefan Dullinger, Franz Essl, Michael Glaser, Ivan Jarić, Bernd Lenzner, Anna Schertler, John R U Wilson","doi":"10.1093/biosci/biaf052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conservation policies often need to integrate scientific predictions with ethical considerations. However, different normative ethical systems at the root of conservation approaches often support different decisions, and the moral stances of stakeholders are influenced by diverse societal values and perceptions. This creates the potential for dilemmas and conflicts. In the present article, we adapt the well-known trolley problem thought experiment to a conservation context. Exploring variations in how the problem is framed enables us to highlight key concepts that need to be considered in decision-making (uncertainty; asymmetry in numbers, victims, and impacts; temporal and spatial asymmetry; causal relationships and stakeholder involvement). We argue that the trolley problem offers a simplified but flexible framework to understand and predict the factors underlying differences in moral stances across diverse conservation issues, foster communication, and facilitate informed decision-making in conservation practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9003,"journal":{"name":"BioScience","volume":"75 9","pages":"722-736"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12412296/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clarifying ethical stances in conservation: a trolley problem thought experiment.\",\"authors\":\"Guillaume Latombe, Ugo Arbieu, Sven Bacher, Stefano Canessa, Franck Courchamp, Stefan Dullinger, Franz Essl, Michael Glaser, Ivan Jarić, Bernd Lenzner, Anna Schertler, John R U Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/biosci/biaf052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Conservation policies often need to integrate scientific predictions with ethical considerations. However, different normative ethical systems at the root of conservation approaches often support different decisions, and the moral stances of stakeholders are influenced by diverse societal values and perceptions. This creates the potential for dilemmas and conflicts. In the present article, we adapt the well-known trolley problem thought experiment to a conservation context. Exploring variations in how the problem is framed enables us to highlight key concepts that need to be considered in decision-making (uncertainty; asymmetry in numbers, victims, and impacts; temporal and spatial asymmetry; causal relationships and stakeholder involvement). We argue that the trolley problem offers a simplified but flexible framework to understand and predict the factors underlying differences in moral stances across diverse conservation issues, foster communication, and facilitate informed decision-making in conservation practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioScience\",\"volume\":\"75 9\",\"pages\":\"722-736\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12412296/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioScience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf052\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioScience","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf052","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clarifying ethical stances in conservation: a trolley problem thought experiment.
Conservation policies often need to integrate scientific predictions with ethical considerations. However, different normative ethical systems at the root of conservation approaches often support different decisions, and the moral stances of stakeholders are influenced by diverse societal values and perceptions. This creates the potential for dilemmas and conflicts. In the present article, we adapt the well-known trolley problem thought experiment to a conservation context. Exploring variations in how the problem is framed enables us to highlight key concepts that need to be considered in decision-making (uncertainty; asymmetry in numbers, victims, and impacts; temporal and spatial asymmetry; causal relationships and stakeholder involvement). We argue that the trolley problem offers a simplified but flexible framework to understand and predict the factors underlying differences in moral stances across diverse conservation issues, foster communication, and facilitate informed decision-making in conservation practice.
期刊介绍:
BioScience is a monthly journal that has been in publication since 1964. It provides readers with authoritative and current overviews of biological research. The journal is peer-reviewed and heavily cited, making it a reliable source for researchers, educators, and students. In addition to research articles, BioScience also covers topics such as biology education, public policy, history, and the fundamental principles of the biological sciences. This makes the content accessible to a wide range of readers. The journal includes professionally written feature articles that explore the latest advancements in biology. It also features discussions on professional issues, book reviews, news about the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), and columns on policy (Washington Watch) and education (Eye on Education).