20 found
Order:
  1.  24
    Weak Superiority, Imprecise Equality and the Repugnant Conclusion.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2020 - Utilitas 32 (3):294-315.
    Derek Parfit defends the Imprecise Lexical View as a way to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. Allowing for ‘imprecise equality’, Parfit argues, makes it possible to avoid some well-known problems for the Lexical View. It is demonstrated that the Lexical View has stronger implications than envisaged by Parfit; moreover, his assumption of Non-diminishing Marginal Value makes the Lexical View collapse into a much stronger view, which lets the two appear incompatible. Introducing imprecise equality does not address the latter problem. But it (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2. Millian superiorities and the repugnant conclusion.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2008 - Utilitas 20 (3):279-300.
    James Griffin has considered a form of superiority in value that is weaker than lexical priority as a possible remedy to the Repugnant Conclusion. In this article, I demonstrate that, in a context where value is additive, this weaker form collapses into the stronger form of superiority. And in a context where value is non-additive, weak superiority does not amount to a radical value difference at all. These results are applied on one of Larry Temkin's cases against transitivity. I demonstrate (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  3.  50
    Future Generations in Democracy: Representation or Consideration?Karsten Klint Jensen - 2015 - Jurisprudence 6 (3):535-548.
    This paper asks whether the genuine representation of future generations brings any added value that could not be achieved by institutions or procedures installed to supplement and support ordinary representative democracy. On this background, it reviews some arguments for genuine representation of future generations. The analysis reveals that they tend to overlook the democratic costs of such representation, while they seem to ignore the alternative of giving consideration to the interests of future generations within current democracy. It is concluded that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  22
    How Should Death Be Taken into Account in Welfare Assessments?Karsten Klint Jensen - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (5):615-623.
    That death is not a welfare issue appears to be a widespread view among animal welfare researchers. This paper demonstrates that this view is based on a mistaken assumption about harm, which is coupled to ‘welfare’ being conceived as ‘welfare at a time’. Assessments of welfare at a time ignore issues of longevity. In order to assess the welfare issue of death, it is necessary to structure welfare assessment as comparisons of possible lives of the animals. The paper also demonstrates (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  5. What is the difference between (moderate) egalitarianism and prioritarianism?Karsten Klint Jensen - 2003 - Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):89-109.
    It is common to define egalitarianism in terms of an inequality ordering, which is supposed to have some weight in overall evaluations of outcomes. Egalitarianism, thus defined, implies that levelling down makes the outcome better in respect of reducing inequality; however, the levelling down objection claims there can be nothing good about levelling down. The priority view, on the other hand, does not have this implication. This paper challenges the common view. The standard definition of egalitarianism implicitly assumes a context. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  6.  64
    The moral foundation of the precautionary principle.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2002 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):39-55.
    The Commission's recentinterpretation of the Precautionary Principleis used as starting point for an analysis ofthe moral foundation of this principle. ThePrecautionary Principle is shown to have theethical status of an amendment to a liberalprinciple to the effect that a state only mayrestrict a person's actions in order to preventunacceptable harm to others. The amendmentallows for restrictions being justified even incases where there is no conclusive scientificevidence for the risk of harmful effects.However, the liberal tradition has seriousproblems in determining when a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  7. Food safety and ethics: The interplay between science and values. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen & Peter Sandøe - 2002 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (3):245-253.
    The general public in Europe seems tohave lost its confidence in food safety. Theremedy for this, as proposed by the Commissionof the EU, is a scientific rearmament. Thequestion, however, is whether more science willbe able to overturn the public distrust.Present experience seems to suggest thecontrary, because there is widespread distrustin the science-based governmental controlsystems. The answer to this problem is thecreation of an independent scientificFood Authority. However, we argue thatindependent scientific advice alone is unlikelyto re-establish public confidence. It is muchmore (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  8.  85
    Unacceptable risks and the continuity axiom.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2012 - Economics and Philosophy 28 (1):31-42.
    Consider a sequence of outcomes of descending value, A > B > C >... > Z. According to Larry Temkin, there are reasons to deny the continuity axiom in certain ‘extreme’ cases, i.e. cases of triplets of outcomes A, B and Z, where A and B differ little in value, but B and Z differ greatly. But, Temkin argues, if we assume continuity for ‘easy’ cases, i.e. cases where the loss is small, we can derive continuity for the ‘extreme’ case (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  9.  44
    “Conflict over risks in food production: A challenge for democracy”. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (3):269-283.
    When it comes to conflict over risk management priorities in food production, a number of observers, including myself, have called for some sort of public deliberation as a means of resolving the moral disagreements underlying such conflicts. This paper asks how, precisely, such deliberation might be facilitated. It is shown that representative democracy and the liberal regulation that most Western democracies adhere to place important constraints on public deliberation. The challenge is to find forums for public deliberation that can operate (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  10.  36
    Measuring the size of a benefit and its moral weight On the significance of John Broome's: “Interpersonal Addition Theorem”.Karsten Klint Jensen - 1995 - Theoria 61 (1):25-60.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  11.  19
    BSE in the UK: Why the risk communication strategy failed. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4-5):405-423.
    The 2000 BSE Inquiry report points out that the most serious failure of the UK Government was one of risk communication. This paper argues that the government''s failure to communicate the risks BSE posed to humans to a large degree can be traced back to a lack of transparency in the first risk assessment by the Southwood Working Party. This lack of transparency ensured that the working party''s risk characterization and recommendations were ambiguous and thus hard to interpret. It also (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  12.  53
    Understanding Particularism.Karsten Klint Jensen & Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2005 - Theoria 71 (2):118-137.
    Adherents of particularism draw rather strong implications of this view. However, particularism has never been stated in a canonical way. We locate the core of particularism as a claim about how different reasons combine to generate the Tightness or wrongness of an action. Using the notion of an ordering of alternatives containing separable factors, we show that particularism can be stated more generally as the denial that there exist separable factors.With this definition in place, we show that, once subjected to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  13.  16
    Climate Change and Compensation.Karsten Klint Jensen & Tine Bech Flanagan - 2013 - Public Reason 5 (2).
    This paper presents a case for compensation of actual harm from climate change in the poorest countries. First, it is shown that climate change threatens to reverse the fight to eradicate poverty. Secondly, it is shown how the problems raised in the literature for compensation to some extent are based on misconceptions and do not apply to compensation of present actual harm. Finally, two arguments are presented to the effect that, in so far as developed countries accept a major commitment (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14. Climate change and motivation : the obstacle from conflicting perspectives.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2015 - In Dieter Birnbacher & May Thorseth (eds.), The Politics of Sustainability: Philosophical perspectives. Routledge.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  79
    Corporate responsibility: The stakeholder paradox reconsidered. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (6):515-532.
    Is it legitimate for a business to concentrate on profits under respect for the law and ethical custom? On the one hand, there seems to be good reasons for claiming that a corporation has a duty to act for the benefit of all its stakeholders. On the other hand, this seems to dissolve the notion of a private business; but then again, a private business would appear to be exempted from ethical responsibility. This is what Kenneth Goodpaster has called the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  27
    The idea of “ethical accounting” for a livestock farm.Karsten Klint Jensen & Jan Tind Sørensen - 1998 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (2):85-100.
    This paper presents the idea of a decision-support system for a livestock farm, called “ethical accounting”, to be used as an extension of traditional cost accounting. “Ethical accounting” seeks to make available to the farmer information about how his decisions affect the interests of farm animals, consumers and future generations. Furthermore, “ethical accounting” involves value-based planning. Thus, the farmer should base his choice of production plan on reflections as to his fundamental objectives, and he should make his final decision only (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  17.  55
    Egalitarianism: New essays on the nature and value of equality, Nils Holtug and Kasper lippert-Rasmussen (eds). Oxford university press, 2007, XI + 339 pages. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2008 - Economics and Philosophy 24 (2):275-282.
  18.  8
    Weak Superiority, Imprecise Equality and the Repugnant Conclusion – Erratum.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2022 - Utilitas 34 (2):237-239.
  19.  14
    The Social Dimension of Pluralism: Democratic Procedures and Substantial Constraints.Karsten Klint Jensen, Christian Gamborg & Peter Sandøe - 2011 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 14 (3):313 - 327.
    Ethics, Policy & Environment, Volume 14, Issue 3, Page 313-327, October 2011.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  1
    No Title available: Reviews.Karsten Klint Jensen - 2008 - Economics and Philosophy 24 (2):275-282.