Conceptual distinctions clarify the ethical landscape
Section 2 and Fig. 1 distinguish plural values from competing ethical positions, helping explain why recognising diverse values alone does not resolve normative disagreement.
↳ Section 2; Fig. 1
Crunching the numbers. Responsibly.
Limitation: This content is identified as Perspective / Viewpoint. Evaluation of this content might be partial, and should be treated as indicative.
Addressing the global extent of the current biodiversity crisis requires engaging with the existence of multiple equally legitimate values, but also with diverse ethical perspectives underpinning conceptions of right and wrong actions. However, western monist positions have mostly explicitly or implicitly directed conservation strategies by defining the space of legitimate arguments, overlooking solutions that do not fit neatly the chosen approaches. As ignoring diverse ethical positions leads to injustices and reduces the potential of conserving biodiversity, there is a need to recognise and navigate the ethical landscape. Ethical pluralism may provide opportunities to do so. However, the ethical underpinnings of pluralism have not been fully considered in biodiversity conservation. In this article, we elaborate the meaning, importance and limits of ethical pluralism while highlighting opportunities and challenges that the position may entail in biodiversity conservation science and practice. We argue that ethical pluralism allows recognising not only the existence of incommensurable plural values, but also that moral conflicts should embrace intra and inter-cultural criticism and the legitimacy of agonism and dissent, as opposed to monistic and relativistic approaches. We conclude by discussing how grounding ethical pluralism in environmental justice and environmental pragmatism may contribute to navigating the ethical landscape in biodiversity conservation. Particularly, we highlight opportunities to: i) promote (non-anthropocentrically understood) recognition and environmental justice in biodiversity conservation and, ii) move beyond theoretical debates seeking the single best ethical theory and focus on ethical diversity as a common source of possible solutions.
ethical pluralism allows recognising not only the existence of incommensurable plural values, but also that moral conflicts should embrace intra and inter-cultural criticism and the legitimacy of agonism and dissent, as opposed to monistic and relativistic approaches
conceptual distinctions and discussion of agonism substantiate the normative argument, although criteria for legitimate positions remain partly unresolved
both justice and long-term effectiveness in conservation necessitate embracing ethical pluralism
the conceptual design cannot establish that ethical pluralism is necessary for long-term conservation effectiveness
Ignoring diverse ethical positions leads to injustices and reduces the potential of conserving biodiversity
cited discussions support risks of exclusion, but the conservation-effectiveness implication is not established for ethical pluralism specifically
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths
Section 2 and Fig. 1 distinguish plural values from competing ethical positions, helping explain why recognising diverse values alone does not resolve normative disagreement.
↳ Section 2; Fig. 1
Section 3 links recognition, needs, and capabilities with shared mid-level principles and agonistic deliberation. This supplies a substantive orientation beyond simply endorsing diversity.
↳ Section 3
The paper explains how consensus-seeking can conceal power imbalances and why increased participation alone does not guarantee legitimate policy. It treats disagreement as a continuing feature of conservation governance.
↳ Section 3, final paragraph
Limitations
The Introduction cites a general ethics textbook for the dominance of western normative positions in conservation. The Conclusion additionally asserts that long-term effectiveness requires ethical pluralism without demonstrating that distinct practical effect.
↳ Introduction, paragraph 4; Conclusion, paragraph 2
The paper cites closely related work on conservation pluralism, pragmatism, and agonism but does not clearly establish which standing uncertainty the synthesis resolves beyond those accounts.
↳ Introduction; Section 3
Section 3 acknowledges that non-human nature's place in the framework requires fuller scrutiny. The Conclusion does not explain how this unresolved foundation limits the proposed move beyond anthropocentrism.
↳ Section 3, discussion of non-human nature; Conclusion
The paper's principal contribution is its integration of ethical pluralism with recognition-based justice and environmental pragmatism. Section 2 and Fig. 1 provide a useful conceptual map, while Section 3 engages power, participation, and the legitimacy of dissent. These features do not establish the Conclusion's stronger claim that long-term conservation effectiveness necessitates pluralism, and the Introduction's field-wide dominance premise is supported by a general ethics source. Limited differentiation from earlier pluralism arguments and incomplete treatment of non-human moral status further constrain the contribution.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Are you an author of this paper?
Limited2.9
Confidence mediumThe paper integrates ethical pluralism with recognition-based environmental justice and pragmatism while distinguishing it from plural valuation. Its incremental contribution is constrained by limited differentiation from closely related conservation-pluralism work.
The argument follows a traceable sequence and engages monist and relativist alternatives. Central field-characterisation and effectiveness premises are insufficiently supported, and no source-selection account is provided.
Definitions, section organisation, and the typology figure make the conceptual structure accessible. The conclusion's necessity claim about effectiveness blurs the distinction between normative justification and demonstrated conservation outcomes.
both justice and long-term effectiveness in conservation necessitate embracing ethical pluralism
The paper connects conservation ethics with justice, indigenous sovereignty, participation, and non-western traditions. It does not adequately trace its acknowledged uncertainty about non-human moral status through its non-anthropocentric conclusions.
Results consistent4 of 4 checks
The reported numbers and statistics are consistent with the stated results.
Competing interests and funding are disclosed. The statement that no data were used is consistent with the perspective format.
Conflict of interest: declared
94 references in manuscript 84 of 91 checkable references found in an index 3 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable
No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).
Sources: Crossref (incl. Retraction Watch) ✓
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
The contribution is a conceptual orientation rather than an operational decision procedure. The wildlife-trade illustration does not provide tested steps for resolving a particular conflict.
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.
Keep reading
Other papers Nabu has evaluated blind, starting with the same field.
2022 · Earth and related environmental sciences
We found that urbanisation in the surroundings of PAs in Spain has nearly doubled since 1990.
SupportedHobbs, Brehme · 2017 · Biological Sciences
It surpasses the detection ability of commonly used passive infrared (PIR) cameras for this application.
TentativeKimura, Driscoll, Cook, et al. · 2026 · Clinical medicine
Neither O₃ nor PM₂.₅ exposure predicted MCI/AD incidence nor core AD pathology.
Tentative