Abstract
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), like the sustainable development (SD) concept itself, are open to multifaceted interpretations, and the same is true for their ethical implications. While SDG values are widely accepted as universal, the ethical structure of the SDGs is complex, with differing interpretations and ideas, e.g., on how to regard and value nature. This article is a conceptual attempt to clarify and structure ethical interpretations based on an environmental ethics framework consisting of two branches: anthropocentrism and biocentrism. The aim is to provide an overview of SDG positions and locate them in the wider field of environmental ethics, addressing the human–nature relationship as a recurring topic in the SDGs. Section 1 of this article presents environmental ethics and briefly discusses anthropocentrism and biocentrism. Section 2 outlines ethical similarities of SD and the SDGs and locates representative SDG interpretations within the environmental ethics framework. Section 3 summarizes findings and suggests a possibility of integrating biocentrism and anthropocentrism with regard to the further interpretation and discussion of SDG ethics. Insights from this article will aid researchers in adopting a better overview on ethical positions in the SDG debate.
Highlights
Introduction to Environmental EthicsThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a future development agenda for 2015–2030 meant to encourage the international community to move toward a global sustainable future in the few decades
Some authors have stated that sustainable development concerns essentially the human–nature relationship and that SD should be entirely ground on ethics [19]
The biocentric and ecocentric SDG interpretations discussed in this article display a need for ethical justification
Summary
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a future development agenda for 2015–2030 meant to encourage the international community to move toward a global sustainable future in the few decades. Nature has to be protected as part of Sustainability 2018, 10, 829 the human environment, both for present and future generations This position implies a hetero-telos (other-purpose, as opposed to self-purpose) of nature and living beings as a basis for teleological or deontological arguments. Teleological anthropocentricism establishes moral action by referring to human interests, while non-rational living beings are assumed to have no interests, desires, and hopes Their value is assigned to them by humans if they become an object of interest, i.e., are regarded as valuable or as leading to something that is considered valuable. The following section attempts to provide an overview of ethical interpretations of the SDGs and their position in the environmental ethics framework
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
