Web Analytics Made Easy -
StatCounter

 

 

 

 

Negative Utilitarian Priorities

 

B.Contestabile      First version 2005   Last version 2021

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

Abstract

 

1.     Introduction

2.     UNO Sustainable Development Goals

2.1  Definition

2.2  Criticism

3.     Copenhagen Consensus

3.1  Definition

3.2  Cost-Benefit Analysis

3.3  Criticism

4.     Negative Utilitarian Approach

4.1  Definition

4.2  Cost-Benefit Analysis

4.3  Comparison with the Copenhagen Consensus

4.4  Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals

5.     Conclusion

 

Appendix: Quality Control of NGOs

References

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

 

Starting point

- The UNO Sustainable Development Goals are taken as a basis for defining global ethical priorities, because they represent the result of intense discussions among a considerable number of experts. The UNO experts are supposed to represent the majority of the world population.

- The Copenhagen Consensus uses welfare economics as a basis and criticizes the UNO priorities as being ineffective.

- Concerning the negative utilitarian approach see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice. The ethical priority increases with the level of suffering.

 

 

Type of problem

What difference does it make, if global ethical priorities are based

- on the goal to maximize total welfare (as suggested by the Copenhagen Consensus) or

- on the goal to improve the welfare of the worst-off (as suggested by negative utilitarianism)?

 

 

Result

On the government level the United Nations Responsibility to Protect – a global commitment to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing – asks for immediate action.

 

With regard to NGOs the following priorities have to be considered:

- Contribute to peacebuilding

- Eradicate torture

- Implement the right to palliative care and legalize voluntary euthanasia

- Improve ethical knowledge

None of these activities appears within the top 19 priorities of the Copenhagen Consensus.

 

The ethical ideal of childlessness is an issue in negative utilitarianism, but not in the Copenhagen Consensus. Given a still growing world population antinatalism and family planning are probably the most efficient long-term strategies to reduce suffering; see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction

 

 

Starting point

-      The UNO Sustainable Development Goals are taken as a basis for defining global ethical priorities, because they represent the result of intense discussions among a considerable number of experts. The UNO experts are supposed to represent the majority of the world population.

-      The Copenhagen Consensus uses welfare economics as a basis and criticizes the UNO priorities as being ineffective.

-      Concerning the negative utilitarian approach see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice. The ethical priority increases with the level of suffering.

 

 

Type of problem

What difference does it make, if global ethical priorities are based

-      on the goal to maximize total welfare (as suggested by the Copenhagen Consensus) or

-      on the goal to improve the welfare of the worst-off (as suggested by negative utilitarianism)?

 

 

 

2. UNO Sustainable Development Goals

 

 

2.1 Definition

 

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a proposed set of targets relating to future international development. They are to replace the Millennium Development Goals once they expire at the end of 2015. The SDGs were first formally discussed at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 (Rio+20).

 

As of March 2015, there were 17 proposed goals:

1.     End poverty in all its forms everywhere

2.     End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

3.     Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

4.     Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

5.     Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

6.     Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

7.     Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

8.     Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

9.     Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

10.  Reduce inequality within and among countries

11.  Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

12.  Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

13.  Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

14.  Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

15.  Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

16.  Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17.  Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

As at March 2015, there were 169 proposed targets for these goals and 304 proposed indicators to show compliance.

(Sustainable Development Goals, Wikipedia)

 

 

 

2.2        Criticism

 

The Copenhagen Consensus criticizes the UNO strategy on the following grounds:

 

-       The forces of the market should be used to improve economic, technological and social development.

-       The UNO does not focus on a manageable number of targets and indicators

-      The UNO targets do not consider the relation between cost and benefit.

 

 

 

3. Copenhagen Consensus

 

 

3.1 Definition

 

Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics, utilizing cost-benefit analysis (Copenhagen Consensus, Wikipedia)

 

Cost and benefit are calculated

-      in terms of US dollars or

-      as a percentage of the GDP.

 

 

3.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

 

The world will spend $2.5 trillion in development aid from 2015-2030, and the UNO targets will influence a large part of that spending. Making just one target better can do hundreds of billions of dollars worth of good (Copenhagen Consensus, Homepage)

 

According to Björn Lomborg – the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus – the UNO targets need to be trimmed:

“Having 169 targets is like having no targets at all.”

 

 

Reduction to 75 targets

Mr. Lomborg commissioned some 60 teams of economists, plus representatives from the UN, NGOs and business, to review the proposed targets to work out which would generate the most benefit per dollar spent (…).

 

Following the 75 targets with the most promising cost-benefit ratio:

 (Copenhagen Consensus, The Economist Jan 24th 2015)

 

 

Reduction to 19 targets

An Expert Panel including two Nobel Laureates reviewed above list and identified the 19 targets that represent the best value-for-money in development over the period 2016 to 2030, offering more than $15 back on every dollar invested:

 

People

Lower chronic child malnutrition by 40%
Halve malaria infection
Reduce tuberculosis deaths by 90%
Avoid 1.1 million HIV infections through circumcision
Cut early death from chronic diseases by 1/3
Reduce newborn mortality by 70%
Increase immunization to reduce child deaths by 25%
Make family planning available to everyone
Eliminate violence against women and girls

 

Planet

Phase out fossil fuel subsidies
Halve coral reef loss
Tax pollution damage from energy
Cut indoor air pollution by 20%

 

Prosperity

Reduce trade restrictions (full Doha)
Improve gender equality in ownership, business and politics
Boost agricultural yield increase by 40%
Increase girls’ education by 2 years
Achieve universal primary education in sub-Saharan Africa
Triple preschool in sub-Saharan Africa

 

For a graphic overview click here.

 

(Nobel Laureates Guide to Smarter Global Targets to 2030)

 

 

 

3.3 Criticism

 

Defenders of the Sustainable Development Goals argue that their greatest virtue lies in getting countries involved in any development scheme underpinned by proper reporting and peer review. Economic purity must sometimes be sacrificed to secure broad agreement on a set of global goals. Mr Lomborg’s work is “very naive”, says Jeffrey Sachs, another economist with strong views about what works in international development (The Economics of Optimism, The Economist, Jan 24th 2015).

In some cases the cost of political resistance is unclear or discarded:

Examples:

-      The proposal to liberalize trade faces political resistance. Overcoming such resistance increases the cost of implementation and makes it impossible to calculate a priority. Nevertheless, the issue is classified among the top 19 priorities (full Doha).

-      Higher standards of governance (better institutions, less corruption and bribery) are of paramount importance in our context. Again it is impossible to estimate the cost of implementation and calculate a priority. But interestingly – in this case – the Copenhagen Consensus decided to exclude the issue from the top 19 priorities.

-      The Sustainable Development Goals are difficult to implement in times of war and political instability. International peace and security should get an accordingly higher priority (chapter 2.1, goal 16). Again, the variables of this target cannot be quantified.

 

 

 

4. Negative Utilitarian Approach

 

 

4.1 Definition

 

In analogy to the Copenhagen Consensus (chapter 3.2) the negative utilitarian approach attempts to answer the following question:

 

What would be the best ways to reduce the worst kinds of suffering, supposing that $2.5 trillion are at disposal? [Gaucher].

 

The negative utilitarian approach presented in this paper does not raise claims (in contrast to the Copenhagen Consensus). It intends to induce a Socratic discussion about a different view on global ethical priorities, a view where the ethical priority increases with the level of suffering, see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice, chapter “Implementation”.

 

Traditional charities tend to maximize total welfare like the Copenhagen Consensus, but the negative utilitarian approach is gaining momentum. Following two examples:

-      The effective altruism (EA) movement has been biased towards charities whose outcomes are easily measurable, like health-based interventions. But it recently said it is broadening its scope [Howgego, 44-45]. The Effective Altruism Foundation, for example, implements projects aimed at doing the most good in terms of reducing suffering.

-      An organization for discussing ethical priorities is Algosphere Alliance, a global network dedicated to the alleviation of suffering through collaboration and political mobilization. Algosphere’s decision-making process is democratic and decentralized.

Suffering-focused ethics has become a distinct branch of ethics.

 

 

 

4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

 

 

4.2.1 Method

 

As opposed to the Copenhagen Consensus we maintain that the ranking of investments cannot be based on a calculus. The system is too complex and the activities depend on each other. Since there is no way to quantify variables, the priorities are presented in the form of theses.

Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are listed, which support the proposed priorities. The quality of NGOs can be controlled by means of charity navigators, see Appendix.

 

The following chapters are structured according to the permanent work areas of the UNO; see United Nations, Our Work

 

 

 

International peace

and security

(chapter 4.2.2)

 

Sustainable Development and Climate Action

(chapter 4.2.3)

 

Human rights

(chapter 4.2.5)

 

Humanitarian aid

(chapter 4.2.4)

 

 

The fifth work area is international law. It binds the previous four areas together (chapter 4.2.6).

 

 

 

4.2.2 International peace and security

 

Thesis: International peace and security is a prerequisite for social stability and any attempt, to improve the situation of the most suffering minority.

 

Wars make rational discourse impossible and activate the worst potential in many people. Torture in particular is difficult to eradicate as long civil and religious wars persist.

-      Examples of peace-building organizations: International Peace Institute, Interpeace, Swisspeace, ICAN

-      For a list of organizations that promote a global reduction in arms, see Arms Control Organizations.

 

A means to reduce the incidence of holy wars is the separation of church and state.

Such separation is e.g. promoted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Giordano Bruno Foundation.

The more general ideal of an ideology-free and pluralistic state is addressed in chapter 4.2.6.

 

 

 

 

Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.

 

Peter Ustinov

 

 

 

 

 

4.2.3 Sustainable Development and Climate Action

 

The efficiency of development aid is a controversial matter; see Short History of Welfare Economics, chapt.4.3.

-      Fair trade may be more efficient than development aid.

-      Innovations for Poverty Action funds research on the interventions that do the most good [Howgego, 46]

 

The most urgent problem is probably sustainability. The shortage of resources caused by global warming could trigger mass migration, social conflicts, wars, etc.

A number of scientists have argued that human impacts on the environment and accompanying increase in resource consumption threatens the world's ecosystems and the survival of human civilization (…). Some studies and commentary link population growth with climate change (…). A July 2017 study published in Environmental Research Letters argued that the most significant way individuals could mitigate their own carbon footprint is to have fewer children, followed by living without a vehicle, forgoing air travel, and adopting a plant-based diet (Wikipedia, Overpopulation).

 

Thesis: Family planning is the most efficient strategy to promote sustainability.

 

Globalization requires a discourse on population ethics. The obvious intuition, for example, (based on population density) that additional people are welcome in Australia, but not in India, is right locally, but wrong globally, because an average Australian consumes ten times more energy (see energy consumption per capita) and emits ten times more carbon dioxide (see carbon dioxide emissions per capita) than an average Indian.

 

Examples of organizations which promote sustainability:

Population Council, Population Action International, Population Matters, Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung, Aktion Regen.

Concerning the ethical ideal of childlessness see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering.

 

Continued population growth is also considered by some to be an animal rights issue, as more human activity means the destruction of animal habitats and more killing of animals (Wikipedia, Overpopulation).

 

 

 

4.2.4 Humanitarian aid

 

Thesis: A decent standard of nutrition and health care has a high short term evidence of return on investment (in terms of reduced suffering). This evidence justifies the high priority of humanitarian aid in a cost-benefit analysis.

 

The access to the victims of political and armed conflicts is the biggest challenge within the domain of humanitarian aid. There are two different strategies in this context:

       Political neutrality. In many cases this has proven to be the best strategy in order to get access to the victims of armed conflicts.

Example: International Committee of the Red Cross

       Analyze the causes of humanitarian catastrophes and combine aid with moral pressure [Jean].

Example: Médecins sans frontières.

 

 

 

4.2.5 Human rights

 

Thesis: Extreme suffering like torture can only be prevented by implementing human rights worldwide.

 

Prerequisites for the implementation of human rights are a free press and an efficient political opposition. Only a pluralistic political system guarantees the protection of minorities. Human rights organizations analyze the causes of human rights violations and put governments under moral pressure.

 

Examples of human rights organizations:

1)    General: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

2)    Specific:

-      Torture: World Organization against Torture, Association for the Prevention of Torture [Stover].

-      Slavery: Free the Slaves, Anti-Slavery

-      Freedom of opinion: Reporters without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN International

-      Women’s rights: AHA Foundation, FJS Foundation

-      Children’s rights: Save the Children, Terre des Hommes, UNICEF

-      Right to palliative care: HRW Palliative Care, OPIS

-      Right to die societies are locally organized, see World Federation

 

The negative utilitarian priorities suggested above are just one of many attempts to distinguish between more and less important issues within human rights. John Rawls focused on civil and political rights, i.e. the protection of minorities and the avoidance of totalitarian regimes [Rawls].

The unprincipled proliferation of human right claims in international documents (e.g. the right to periodic holidays with pay, stated in article 24 of the Universal Declaration) explains why Rawls began to pursue more austere approaches (Human Rights and Duties of Assistance, Aachen University).

 

 

 

4.2.6 International Law

 

Thesis: Preventing the abuse of power has the highest cost-benefit ratio in the fight against suffering.

 

In 2005 a global consensus has been reached on the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. This consensus, defined in the United Nations Responsibility to Protect, probably represents the most efficient short-term strategy to reduce suffering. The authority to use force rests solely with the United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.

In the following we will – in accordance with the Copenhagen Consensus – consider non-violent strategies to improve the state of affairs. For information on justified violence see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice (Rawls’ principles).

 

Following some NGO’s which develop and propagate knowledge about the abuse of power:

-      National Democratic Institute, International IDEA, Democracy International, Alliance of Democracies, Swiss Democracy Foundation, World Movement for Democracy work to prevent oligarchic, authoritarian and totalitarian governments, as well as defective democracies. Concerning the legitimation and criticism of democracy see democracy and [Brennan].

-      Human Rights Watch documents the abuse of surveillance tools and artificial intelligence to eliminate political opponents.

-      Global Integrity, Transparency International, Quality of Government Institute, Global Witness and Public Eye fight corruption and criticize the quality of governance.

-      The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential provides a comprehensive overview of the problem of corruption and the organizations that fight it.

 

Finally there is also an abuse of power by humans towards other sentient beings. Empathy leads to complex discussions how to weigh and balance human and non-human interests and how to extend the notion of justice to all sentient beings [VanDeVeer] [Garner].

-      Animal Charity Evaluators follows anti-speciesist principles and measures success by the amount of animal suffering that is prevented or reduced, see Evaluating Charities.

-      The Sentience Institute envisions a society in which the interests of all sentient beings are considered, regardless of their species or substrate. Two particularly important topics are the suffering of farmed animals and artificial sentience, see Mission.

 

 

 

4.3 Comparison with the Copenhagen Consensus

 

The main difference between the Copenhagen Consensus and the negative utilitarian approach is the following:

-      The Copenhagen Consensus seeks to increase global welfare, where welfare is measured in terms of the GDP. It is assumed that economic welfare correlates with life satisfaction.

-      The focus of the negative utilitarian approach is on the minority of the worst-off. The term utility refers to life satisfaction and is not reduced to economic welfare.

 

Following some practical examples to illustrate the difference:

 

From a negative utilitarian point of view an increase in the world’s GDP is (ethically) worthless

-      if it does not correlate with an increase in life satisfaction (see Short History of Welfare Economics)

-      if it is caused by expanding the population at the cost of the quality of life (see The Repugnant Conclusion).

-      if it has to be “paid for” by excessive risks (see The Cultural Evolution of Suffering)

-      if the number of the suffering people cannot be reduced (see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice).

 

The advantage of the GDP consists in being a measurable criterion. Humanitarian aid can comparatively easily be linked to an increase of the GDP, whereas the effect of peace and human rights activities are hard to calculate. The Copenhagen Consensus discards political in favor of economic priorities. The method dictates the result (see chapter 3.3).

 

 

 

4.4 Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals

 

 

Globalization

In the following we investigate what happens to ethical priorities, if we extend the planning horizon beyond the Sustainable Development Goals (2030). So far the priorities were stamped by the needs of underdeveloped countries, a result which can be justified as follows:

1)    Objective data suggest that underdeveloped nations suffer more than developed ones

2)    Subjective suffering correlates with objective suffering in underdeveloped nations

(see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice, Implementation)

If globalization progresses as it did since the last Millennium, then we have reason to assume that the prolongation of lifetime will gain in importance in each and every nation. Under these circumstances the ethical priority of medical research gets into the picture.

 

 

Medical research

We start with an example, where medical research already got resources within the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015).

The development of a vaccination against HIV/AIDS and malaria was weighted against emergency aid. Within the time frame of 15 years the development of a vaccination was realistic so that a part of the resources was allocated to the corresponding research.

 

Similarly, within the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030), a part of the resources for family planning will have to be invested in the development of better contraceptives and a part of the resources for palliative care will have to be invested in palliative research.

As life expectancy increases on a global level, the incidence of cancer, strokes, Parkinson’s disease and dementia increases as well. If we extend the planning horizon far enough, then in all these areas medical research has to be weighted against emergency aid. Should research get the entirety of resources because the prevented suffering in the future is much bigger than the necessary sacrifices in the present?

 

 

Skepticism

There are reasons for not extending the planning horizon into the far future. The effect of emergency aid is guaranteed and measurable, whereas the result of research is uncertain. The prolongation of lifetime may bring new diseases and prolong agony. There could also be a war, a social revolution or a collapse of the high-tech culture, destroying the whole effort of research. Whereas natural risks only change in large time periods, technological risks steadily increase [Birnbacher, 25]. Following two organizations which strive to prevent technology-induced disasters:

-      The EA Center on Long-term Risk informs policy-makers about the risks of emerging technologies.

-      The Open Philanthropy Project funds research on global catastrophic risks [Howgego, 45].

 

We cannot exclude that there is a technological solution to the problem of suffering [Bostrom, 16]. But it is a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that the future is uncertain and that the risks are immense. For that reason the fight against suffering should not be accompanied with the optimistic kind of messages we find in marketing and sales. Practical philosophy is not supposed to deliver another utopia which justifies actual suffering by future happiness. It may be impossible to improve the status quo, it may even be impossible to break the evolutionary trend towards higher levels of suffering; see The Cultural Evolution of Suffering.

 

This leads us back to population ethics. Negative utilitarianism asks for a reduction of the population size

-      if suffering cannot be reduced in a sustainable environment

-      if the shrinking population does not (durably) worsen the situation

For details see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering

 

An organization which aims at smaller populations is Negative Population Growth.

A movement which actively promotes childlessness is VHEMT, a like-minded organization is Antinatalism International.

For organizations which facilitate remaining childless see Childless sites.

A voluntary extinction of humanity, however, is unrealistic. There is only a choice between more or less suffering populations.

 

 

 

5. Conclusion

 

On the government level the United Nations Responsibility to Protect – a global commitment to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing – asks for immediate action.

 

With regard to NGOs the following priorities have to be considered (chapter 4.2):

- Contribute to peacebuilding

- Eradicate torture

- Implement the right to palliative care and legalize voluntary euthanasia

- Improve ethical knowledge

None of these activities appears within the top 19 priorities of the Copenhagen Consensus.

 

The ethical ideal of childlessness is an issue in negative utilitarianism (chapter 4.4) but not in the Copenhagen Consensus. Given a still growing world population antinatalism and family planning are probably the most efficient long-term strategies to reduce suffering; see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering.

 

 

 

Appendix

Quality Control of Non-Governmental Organizations

 

 

Percentage spent on overhead

The traditional metrics for ranking charities is the percentage of the organization's budget that is spent on overhead, i.e. charity evaluators focus on the question how much of the contributed funds are used for the purpose claimed by the charity (Charity Assessment, Wikipedia).

Examples:

-      Austria: Österreichisches Spendengütesiegel

-      Germany: DZI

-      Switzerland: ZEWO

-      USA: BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, Great Nonprofits, GuideStar, ImpactMatters [Howgego, 45]

 

 

Cost effectiveness

More recently some evaluators have placed an emphasis on the cost effectiveness (or impact) of charities.

Examples:

-      GiveWell is an American non-profit charity assessment and effective altruism-focused organization. It focuses primarily on the cost-effectiveness of the organizations that it evaluates, rather than traditional metrics such as the percentage of the organization's budget that is spent on overhead (GiveWell, Wikipedia).

-      Giving What We Can conducts research to determine which charities it recommends for members and other people to support. It differs from other charity evaluators in terms of the importance given to metrics of charity performance. While evaluators such as Charity Navigator use the fraction of donations spent on program expenses versus administrative overhead as an important indicator, Giving What We Can solely focuses on the cost-effectiveness of the charity's work. It believes that the variance in cost-effectiveness of charities arises largely due to the variance in the nature of the causes that the charities operate in, and therefore makes evaluations across broad areas of work such as health, education, and emergency aid before comparing specific organizations. In practice, it recommends a selected few charities in the area of global health. Its work is therefore similar to that of GiveWell (Giving What We Can, Wikipedia)

The assumption that charitable activities are effective is not self-evident, see Myths About Aid.

 

 

Complex assessments

GiveWell has by its nature been biased towards charities whose outcomes are easily measurable, like health-based interventions. But it recently said it is aiming to begin investigating philanthropy where the outcomes are less easy to measure [Howgego, 44-45].

Also the following organizations are less biased towards charities whose outcomes are easily measurable:

-      Giving Evidence [Howgego, 44]

-      The Life You Can Save [Howgego, 44]

-      NGO Advisor uses a journalistic approach to research and reporting

-      Philanthropedia, a division of GuideStar. Rankings are based on a combination of in-depth surveys and conversations with experts, including academics, funders, grant makers, policy makers and consultants.

 

 

 

References

 

1.     Ash Timothy Garton (2016), Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World, Yale University Press

2.     Birnbacher, Dieter (2006), Natürlichkeit, Verlag de Gruyter, Berlin

3.     Bostrom, Nick (2005), A history of transhumanist thought, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol.14, Issue 1

4.     Brennan Jason (2016), Against Democracy, Princeton University Press

5.     Copenhagen Consensus (2015), Post 2015 Consensus 

6.     Garner Robert (2013), A Theory of Justice for Animals, Oxford University Press, New York

7.     Gaucher, Renaud (2021), How to Optimize the Relationship Between Public Spending and Happiness, International Journal of Community Well-Being, Springer

8.     Howgego Joshua (2019), How to do Good, New Scientist, 7 December, 42-46

9.     Jean Francois (1993), Helfer im Kreuzfeuer, Verlag Dietz, Bonn, Germany

10.  Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

11.  Stover Eric and Elena Nightingale (1985), The Breaking of Bodies and Minds, Freeman, New York

12.  VanDeVeer Donald (1994), Interspecific Justice, in The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, edited by Donald VanDeVeer and Christine Pierce, Belmont, Wadsworth, 179-193