Center for Environmental and Technology Ethics - Prague | Centrum pro environmentální a technologickou etiku - Praha

Center for Environmental and Technology Ethics - Prague | Centrum pro environmentální a technologickou etiku - Praha

One New Zealand university told its staff all universities in New Zealand and Australia would "lose some degree of access" to the publisher's 1600 titles from the start of next year.

Explore an exciting academic career as a Assistant Professor in Environmental History (111009-1125). Don't miss out on other academic jobs. Click to apply and explore more opportunities.

Creating Podcasts

Konferenční portál Filozofické fakulty Univerzity Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem.

Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

Here, you will find the 2025-2026 programme, and general information about our seminar. The introductory post can be found here.ProgrammeThis year, we will meet each second Wednesday of each month, fr...

We cordially invite you to a public lecture by Professor Jonathan Wolff (University of Oxford). Many political philosophers happily repeat Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach (inscribed on his gravestone)...

This paper examines the role of intra-personal compromise in shaping support for climate policies. I argue that such support often requires internal compromise, whereby our willingness to...

The call for a planned phase-out is at the forefront of the political debate about animal experimentation. While authorities like the European Commission start taking a strategic approach to regulatory animal testing, they refuse to develop specific roadmaps for the phase-out of animal research. I articulate the central argument that is advanced against phase-out planning in animal research, the argument from avoidable harms: By restricting research, we may incur avoidable future harms and thus, while we may regret having to use animals in ways that harm them, for the sake of avoiding future harms we must not phase out animal research. The discussion of this argument yields two Conclusions: First, it applies only to ban-based phase-out plans, but not to plans consisting of a range of other interventions known from the literature on transformative governance. Second, the premises of the argument construe animal research as a necessary evil, thus as a conflict of unequal duties. But we have a duty not just to avoid avoidable harms, but also to avoid avoidable moral conflicts. This we can only do by taking a strategic approach. Thus, what initially looks like an argument against phase-out planning is in truth an argument for ban-free phase-out planning. This finding is important for practice because it shows that while government authorities’ reluctance to issue bans may be justified, their refusal to undertake strategic planning for the phase-out of animal research is not.