Three Problems for the Aesthetic Foundations of Environmental

Three Problems for the Aesthetic Foundations of Environmental Ethics Written by J. Robert Loftis Presented by Kelsey Ruben

Preview �Present 3 reasons why we should NOT rely on aesthetic foundations to justify the environmentalist program �Aesthetic value of nature can provide weak reasons for action at best �Not everything environmentalists want to protect has positive aesthetic qualities �Development can be as aesthetically positive as nature

Reasons to Investigate �Aldo Leopold writes that: �Aesthetics is a big part of his motive for adopting his environmental ethic �We seek contact with nature because we derive pleasure from them �Many philosophers have suggested that the value of nature is primarily aesthetic

Reasons to Investigate �Eugene Hargrove’s Foundations of Environmental Ethics �Philosophical argument to justify aesthetic motivations �Aesthetic considerations justify an environmental ethic (ethical imperative to preserve), and the existence of the environmentalist movement (political movement) �Actual existence of objects with positive aesthetic qualities is valuable apart from those objects being experienced we have a duty to preserve the existence of positive aesthetic qualities in nature, like our duty to preserve works of art with positive aesthetic qualities �Hargrove offers no indication that satisfactory nonaesthetic justifications exist now

Mission �Argue that aesthetic considerations do not have justificatory force (arguments that are likely to lead to the truth) that Hargrove claims �Environmental Ethic �Not conservationist, but preservationist �Goal of environmentalism: to leave much of nature in its original state or restore it to that state �Assumes that actions/demands of environmentalists represent what an environmental ethic demands

Mission �Aesthetics are not sufficient ground to an ethic of preservation of nature �We should find other justifications for environmentalism �Aesthetics should only play a limited role in foundations of environmental ethics �Does not rule out abandonment of environmentalist program �Why would a self-acclaimed ‘environmentalist’ neglect to rule this out?

The Superficiality Problem �Aesthetic Considerations involving nature are weak and cannot motivate the kind of substantial measures that environmentalists routinely recommend �People are asked to sacrifice jobs/economic well being for sake of environment � EX: Loggers, developers etc.

The Superficiality Problem �Compares duties generated by positive aesthetic qualities in nature to the duty to protect and preserve positive aesthetic characteristics in humans �It is likely that there is an evolutionary basis for both judgments of positive aesthetic characteristics of humans and landscapes �Western society acts to preserve positive aesthetic qualities in humans but recognize it as a silly waste of resources; while preserving beauty of nature is called virtue—But we have discussed instances when vanity in nature can be detrimental (gasoline lawnmowers/fertilizer)

The Superficiality Problem �“Environmental organizations are like clubs devoted to promoting the careers of models other people find unattractive” -- What do you think? �“We do not let human physical beauty play a role in decision making” – But environmentalists work to protect parts of nature which are commonly viewed as ‘ugly’ �EX: swamplands

The Superficiality Problem �If actions are superficial when regarding humans they are superficial when regarding nature �Compares Julia Butterfly Hill (spent 2 years in a Redwood to keep it from being cut down) to a psychotic stalker �Obj: Stalker is inappropriate analogy �Her actions can only be seen as noble, if she is motivated by more than aesthetics (which she was) �Resp: A relationship is deeper than mere aesthetic appreciation. Stalker is appropriate if aesthetics are motivation.

The Superficiality Problem �Obj: We only object to overvaluing the aesthetic qualities of humans because it obscures the deeper value that humans have �Resp: There are more problems than this (Tom Cruise being paid millions to look good) �Obj: If someone highly values the appearance of all humans equally, they are less superficial �Resp: Still focused on properties that we consider less important

The Range of Habitat Problem �If we are to preserve nature because it has positive aesthetic qualities, then it seems as though we should only preserve a limited range of landscapes – those that we find positive aesthetic qualities in �Typical environmentalist also wants to protect less attractive areas � Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not a particularly inviting place

The Range of Habitat Problem �It appears that the aesthetic foundations of environmental ethics will not justify the protection of the full range entities environmentalists are currently fighting to protect �Positive Aesthetics: all natural objects are beautiful because they are natural �Obj: The seemingly unattractive species and landscapes are actually full of aesthetic value – Much like humans are full of inner beauty as well as outer beauty?

The Range of Habitat Problem �One could argue in accordance with Allen Carlson �Appreciating a landscape requires understanding its ecology/geology & appreciating an animal requires understanding its biology �One can then argue that underappreciated parts of nature are full of aesthetic qualities �Resp: But there is no guarantee that a scientifically informed aesthetic will lead us to preserve the range of habitats and species that environmentalists want to preserve

The Range of Habitat Problem �Carlson: purpose of scientific knowledge is to provide the kind of background that knowledge of art history provides for the judgment of art �We must find the right categories under which to judge something � Rorqual whale as mammal vs fish � Criticizing ANWR for being desolate is like criticizing Pulp Fiction for being violent �But what if you don’t like barren landscapes/violent movies?

The Range of Habitat Problem �Response to Positive Aesthetics �If being natural eliminates all negative aesthetic qualities, then natural things with profoundly negative qualities are included �EX: animal eating its young, tapeworms, tornados �Obj: Instrumental value via Aesthetic value: argues for the preservation of the parts of nature that lack positive aesthetic qualities on the grounds that they are necessary for the parts that do have positive aesthetic qualities �Resp: Many endangered species cannot play big role in stability of ecosystem

The Range of Habitat Problem �Aesthetic foundations of environmental ethics cannot support the preservation of the full range of habitats and species environmentalist wish to preserve �Environmentalists overreaching their foundations �Trying to protect species that have no positive aesthetic characteristics and are not necessary for the survival of any other species that does—Do you agree?

The Technology-Is-Beautiful Problem �Because a well-designed piece of technology can have a wide variety of positive aesthetic qualities by technologically altering the landscape, one is not necessarily making it more ugly �Obj: The sort of development of landscape that angers environmentalists has no positive aesthetic qualites �EX: strip mines, suburban sprawl etc. �Resp: If we can bring seemingly unattractive ecosystems under the protective umbrella, why can’t we learn to love ugly culture?

The Technology-Is-Beautiful Problem �Obj: The loss of natural objects represents the loss of a particular kind of aesthetic value �Someone painting over all cubist canvases �Resp: This happens all the time. Not only do entire genres of art disappear, but whole media � EX: Panoramas before film

Conclusion �Aesthetic considerations cannot play a significant role in the foundations of environmental ethics �If we, environmentalists, are to adequately press our case, we need to find a better way to characterize the value we find in nature �As an environmentalists then, Loftis must believe that there is such a way to do this. Why not introduce it or renounce his stance as an environmentalist?