| dc.description.abstract | In this thesis I aim to critically evaluate the ethical permissibility of Mars settlements. While often portrayed as necessary for humanity’s survival, technological progress, and scientific advancement, Mars settlements’ projects raise complex moral issues. Through a normative analysis, the thesis argues that the justifications typically offered, namely survival from existential risks, scientific and economic gain, and a spirit of exploration, are ethically flawed. Mars settlements constitute moral hazards, diverting resources and attention away from preventive solutions on Earth. They rely on an instrumental view of Mars, risking irreversible harm to its environment and undermining scientific inquiry. Moreover, these initiatives reflect hubris and a dangerous overconfidence in human capabilities, ignoring our epistemic and ecological limitations. The thesis further critiques Mars settlements through the lens of global justice, arguing that by enabling appropriation, whether de facto or de jure, they conflict with the non-appropriation principle and the ideals of equitable access,
sustainability, and peaceful use. Drawing on theory of the commons and space governance literature, I argue that current settlement initiatives reflect a shift from cooperative stewardship toward privatization and unilateral exploitation. This not only undermines the collective governance model envisioned by space treaties but also risks perpetuating global inequality and injustice. Drawing on international treaties and Rawlsian justice, it concludes that Mars settlements are not ethically permissible in their current form. | |
