View of Natural Beauty, Ethics and Conceptions of Nature

S v e n A r n tz e n

N atu ral Beauty, Ethics and Conceptions o f N ature

T h e q u e stio n I will add ress is: To w h a t ex te n t, a n d in w h at sense, ca n n a tu ra l b ea u ty h e lp establish eth ica l c o n stra in ts o n o u r tr e a tm e n t o f th e n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t? I will assum e fo r my discussion th a t n a tu ra l b e a u ty is so m e th in g real o r objective.1 A q u estio n c e n tra l to m y discussion, b u t w hose answ er I will largely take fo r g ra n te d , co n c e rn s th e m arks o f n a tu ra l beauty, th e ch a rac te ristic s th a t a n a tu ra l re g io n m u st possess in o r d e r to b e b e a u ti­

ful. It seem s to m e th a t o n e su ch c h a rac te ristic is c o m p lex o rd e r. T h is im ­ plies th a t th e c a n d id a te fo r n a tu ra l b eau ty m u st b e a w hole o f in te g ra te d parts. T h e b ea u ty o f a n a tu ra l re g io n m u st re q u ire n a tu ra l b io lo g ic al diver­

sity, a lth o u g h th e d e g re e o f su ch diversity, a n d o f com plexity, will vary with lo c a tio n a n d clim ate. As these re m a rk s suggest, th e focus o f my d iscussio n will be th e beau ty o f n a tu re o r a n a tu ra l re g io n , n o t th a t o f ind iv id ual things.

A ccordingly, th e eth ic based o n n a tu ra l b ea u ty as I will discuss it will b e co n ­ c e rn e d w ith th e tre a tm e n t o f n a tu re o r a n a tu ra l re g io n as a w hole.

I. N atural Beauty and Preservation o f Nature

It is n o t u n u su a l in lite ra tu re o n en v iro n m e n ta l ethics to m a in ta in th a t th e ae sth e tic a p p re c ia tio n o f n a tu re can h e lp establish e th ic a l c o n stra in ts o n h u m a n actio ns affecting n a tu re . A ldo L eo p o ld sees n a tu ra l beau ty as o n e c rite rio n o f eth ics w h e n h e fo rm u late s th e p rin c ip le o f his la n d e th ic as »A th in g is rig h t w h en it ten d s to p re serv e th e integrity, stability, a n d b e a u ty o f th e b io tic c o m m u n ity . It is w ro n g w h e n it te n d s o th e rw is e .« 2 E u g e n e H arg ro v e th in k s th a t th e failure a m o n g a n c ie n t G reek p h ilo s o p h e rs to lo­

cate b ea u ty in th e n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t h elp s ex p lain th e ir lack o f c o n c e rn fo r th a t e n v iro n m e n t.8

1 For a discussion o f this issue and its relevance to environm ental ethics, see for exam ple E u g en e C. H arg ro v e, Foundations of Environmental Ethics (E nglew ood Cliffs, N.

J.:P re n tice Hall, 1988), Ch. 6.

2 A ldo L eopold, A Sand County Almanac.And Sketches Here and There (New York:Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 224-25.

3 E ugene C. H argrove, op. cit., pp. 26-29.

A c co rd in g to him , an a rg u m e n t estab lish in g an eth ical re q u ir e m e n t c o n c e rn in g th e p re se rv a tio n o f n a tu re o r so m e p a r t o f it ca n b ase d b e o n its b ea u ty in m u c h th e sam e way in w hich o n e can arg u e fro m th e b e a u ty o f a w ork o f a rt to th e necessity o f its p re se rv a tio n .4 To th e e x te n t a w ork o f a r t is b e a u tifu l a n d re c o g n iz e d as such, it is th o u g h t to possess a value w h ich is in d e p e n d e n t o f its b e in g useful to o b tain so m e e x tra n e o u s goal. F o r ex a m ­ p le, th e a p p re c ia tio n o f a p a in tin g as b ea u tifu l d oes n o t involve a co n sid ­ e ra tio n o f th e ec o n o m ic b en e fits o n e m ig h t derive from ow ning it a n d th e n selling it. T h e beau ty o f th e p a in tin g is c o n sid e re d an in trin sic value, a value th a t o u g h t to b e p re se rv e d fo r its own sake. T h e b eau ty o f a w ork o f a rt re ­ q u ire s th a t th e o b je c t b e p re serv ed in its c u r re n t state a n d th at, in case o f d a m a g e , it b e re sto re d to its o rig in al state. H a rg ro v e a n d o th e rs use sim ilar c o n sid e ra tio n s to a rg u e th a t we have a duty to preserv e th e n a tu ra l e n v iro n ­ m e n t o r p a rts o f it.5 N a tu ra l b ea u ty is a n o n -in s tru m e n ta l, in trin sic value w hich is lost in th e case o f d rastic ch an g e. F u rth e rm o re , if, as positive aes­

th etics claim s,1’ b ea u ty is so m e th in g o rig in al to a n a tu ra l re g io n a n d n a tu re u n a ffe c te d by h u m a n s has n o negative a e sth e tic ch a racteristics, th e n th e b e a u ty o f a n a tu ra l re g io n m akes it a c a n d id a te fo r p re serv atio n in a c o n d i­

tio n in w hich it is u n a ffe c te d by h u m an s. W ith th e a d d itio n a l p re m ise th a t n a tu ra l beauty is su p e rio r to th e beauty o f a rt,7 th e a rg u m e n t is th a t we o u g h t to p re serv e a n a tu ra l re g io n in its o rig in al c o n d itio n b ecau se it is b e a u tifu l in th a t c o n d itio n , a n d this b ea u ty is a value w hich som eh o w ex c eed s th e b e a u ty o f objects m a d e by h u m an s.

T h is a rg u m e n t, th e so-called » p re serv atio n a rg u m e n t« , calls fo r th e ex c lu sio n o f all h u m a n activity fro m th e n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t, w ith th e p o s­

sible e x c e p tio n o f low -im pact re c re a tio n a l activities. U n d e rly in g th e a rg u ­ m e n t is a d u alistic view o f m a n a n d n a tu re : m a n a n d n a tu re a re essentially distinct; all o r m ost h u m a n activity is d e trim e n ta l to the n a tu ra l en v iro n m e n t a n d its beauty. H a rg ro v e m akes this s u p p o s itio n ex plicit: »In d e f e n d in g n a tu ra l b eau ty a n d biodiversity, it is essential th a t th e a rg u m e n t be devel­

o p e d in term s o f a h u m a n -n a tu re re la tio n sh ip in w hich h u m a n s are n o t p a rt o f n a tu re , in w hich n a tu re is viewed as an o th er.« 8 W estern a p p ro a c h e s to

4 E u g en e C. H argrove, »The P aradox o f Hum anity:Tw o views o f biodiversity an d landscapes«, in K eC hungK im & R obert D. Weaver (eds.), Biodiversity and Landscapes:

A Paradox of Humanity (Cam bridge: C am bridge University Press, 1994), pp. 173-185.

See also his Foundations of Environmental Ethics, Ch. 6, esp. pp. 191-98.

5 See fo r ex a m p le R obin A ttfield, Environmental Philosophy: Principlesand Prospects (A ldershot: Avebury, 1994), pp. 183-202, esp. pp. 197-201.

6 F o r an ac c o u n t o f positive aesthetics, see A llen C arlson, »N ature a n d Positive A esthetics«, Environmental Ethics 6 (1984), pp. 5-34.

7 See H argrove, op. cit., pp. 185-191.

8 H argrove, ibid., p 183.

N atural Beauty, Ethics and. Conceptions o f Nature

n a tu re trad itio n ally fall in to e ith e r o f two ex tre m es, b o th o f w hich p re s u p ­ pose a duality o f m an a n d n a tu re . O n e is th e d rastic tra n s fo rm a tio n o f n a ­ tu re , w hich has re su lte d in to-day’s e n v iro n m e n ta l crisis. M an obviously re­

gards him self as essentially d istin ct from th a t w hich h e destroys o r drastically alters. T h e o th e r is th e p ro te c tio n a n d p re serv atio n o f n a tu ra l areas to the exclusion o f all activity d esig n ed to m e e t th e n ee d s o f h u m a n life. T h e p re s­

erv atio n a rg u m e n t is, th e n , an a tte m p t to ju stify th e latter. It seeks to estab­

lish a n eth ical re q u ir e m e n t th a t o n e re fra in from usin g u n d is tu rb e d n a tu ­ ral re g io n s o r ecosystem s a n d th a t o n e re sto re som e areas th a t have b e e n tak en o u t o f th e ir p ristin e c o n d itio n th ro u g h h u m a n activity. U n d e rs to o d in this m a n n e r, th e a rg u m e n t is in d iffe re n t to w h at h u m a n s d o o r how h u ­ m an s live o u tsid e n a tu ra l areas, p ro v id e d th e ir activities d o n o t adversely affect such areas, e.g. th ro u g h th e use o f fossil fuels with th e re su ltin g p o l­

lu tio n a n d clim ate ch a n g e. In o th e r w ords, the a rg u m e n t is n o t so m u ch c o n c e rn e d w ith h u m a n lifestyles as w ith th e c o n fin e m e n t o f h u m a n life a n d activity to c e rta in locations o r reg ions. T h e eth ic th a t this a r g u m e n t is d e ­ sig n ed to s u p p o rt do es n o t call fo r th e in te g ra tio n o f h u m a n life a n d activ­

ity w ith th e n a tu ra l en v iro n m e n t.

T h e a p p ro a c h to n a tu re s u p p o rte d by th e p re serv atio n a rg u m e n t dif­

fers fro m w hat can b e loosely c h a ra c te riz e d as su stainab le uses o f n a tu re , an a p p ro a c h to th e n a tu ra l en v iro n m e n t th a t takes a m id d le co u rse so m ew h ere b etw e en th e two tra d itio n a l ex trem es. A cco rd in g to A rn e Næss, eco log ical sustainability in w h a t h e calls th e »wide sense« en su res th e rich n e ss a n d di­

versity o f life fo rm s o n E a r th .9 In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is c o n c e p tio n o f sustainability, su stain ab le uses o f n a tu re can be u n d e rs to o d as p ra ctices a n d activities th a t h e lp m e e t th e n ee d s o f h u m a n life, yet a re c o n s is te n t w ith n a tu r e ’s own re q u ire m e n ts fo r its c o n tin u e d ex istence as a n in tric a te web o f diverse, in te rd e p e n d e n t things. H ere, o n e m ig h t th in k o f h u m a n s as so m e­

how living a n d actin g in n a tu re , in conform ity with n a tu r e ’s ow n co n d itio n s.

C an c o n sid e ra tio n s o f n a tu ra l b ea u ty s u p p o rt this m id d le co u rse a n d h e lp establish an e th ic re q u irin g su stain ab le uses o f th e n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t?

T h e p re se rv a tio n a rg u m e n t is w e a k e n e d by th e fact th a t th e re is an essential d iffe re n c e b etw een a rt a n d n a tu re , w hich in tu rn affects th e c o n ­ d itio n s u n d e r w hich ea ch is beau tifu l. A w ork o f a rt is in a n d o f itself static.

,J A rne Næss, »Deep Ecology for th e Twenty-second Century«, in G eorge Sessions (e d .), Deep Ecology fo r the Twenty-first Century (B oston & L o n d o n :S h am b h a la, 1995), p.

464.C ontrasted with sustainability in the wide sense is »narrow«, o r p erhaps »shallow«, ecological sustainability, which for Næss consists o f »the existence o f short- a n d long- range policies th a t m ost researchers agree will m ake ecological catastrophes affecting narrow human interests unlikely.«

T h e goal o f its p re se rv a tio n is to m ake its b e a u ty p e rm a n e n t, to p ro te c t its b e a u ty fro m e x te rn a lly ca u sed c h a n g e. N a tu re , o n th e o th e r h a n d , is dy­

n am ic; ecologists a n d geologists have e m p h a siz e d th e fu n d a m e n ta lly dy­

n am ic c h a ra c te r o f n a tu ra l pro cesses.10 If positive aesthetics is assum ed , this m ean s th a t n a tu ra l b ea u ty is n o t adverse to c h a n g e , b u t m u st itself b e c o n ­ s id e re d dynam ic. N a tu ra l c h a n g e , fo r ex a m p le th e g ra d u a l d ra in in g a n d even tu al elim in a tio n o f a b eau tifu l lake o r th e n a tu ra l d e stru c tio n o f a b e a u ­ tiful forest, is co m p atible with n a tu ra l beauty. N atu ral beauty c a n n o t b e m a d e p e r m a n e n t in th e m a n n e r in w hich th e b ea u ty o f a w ork o f a r t is m a d e p e r­

m a n e n t th ro u g h re sto ra tio n a n d p ro tec tio n . In a re c e n t article, K eekok L ee discusses th e m easu res o f th e N a tio n al T ru st in E n g la n d ’s Lake D istrict to re sto re a n d p ro te c t Yew T ree T arn fro m d e s tru c tio n cau sed by g eo lo gical processes, in o rd e r to m ake its b ea u ty p e r m a n e n t.11 However, su ch a m eas­

u re a m o u n ts to th e so rt o f in te rfe re n c e w ith n a tu re w hich th e p r o p o n e n ts o f th e p re serv atio n a rg u m e n t w ant to reject.

G iven its d y nam ic c h a ra c te r, n a tu ra l b ea u ty c a n n o t s u p p o rt n a tu ra l p re serv atio n in th e sense o f m a in ta in in g a n a tu ra l re g io n in its p re s e n t state.

R ath er, as a fo u n d a tio n fo r e n v iro n m e n ta l eth ics, n a tu ra l beau ty w o u ld d ic­

ta te th a t n a tu ra l processes be allow ed to ru n th e ir co u rse, o n n a t u r e ’s own term s. D oes this p re c lu d e all uses o f n a tu re fo r p ro d u c tiv e p u rp o se s to m e e t th e n ee d s o f h u m a n life? L eo p o ld d istinguishes b etw een evolutionary, n a tu ­ ral ch a n g e, a n d th e so rt o f ch a n g e h u m an s are cap able o f affecting by m ean s o f ad v a n ced technology. N a tu ral c h a n g e is usually slow o r local; a n th r o p o ­ g en ic c h a n g e , u sin g a d v a n ced technology, ca n be swift a n d g lo b a l.12 U sin g th e d istin c tio n , o n e can p e rh a p s say th a t a c tin g a n d living in a m a n n e r c o n ­ siste n t w ith n a tu ra l b ea u ty involves m a in ta in in g th e h u m a n im p a c t o n n a ­ tu re a t th e level o r scale o f n a tu r e ’s own ch a n g es a n d processes, slow o r lo­

cal. N a tu ral beau ty allows fo r h u m a n uses o f n a tu re in so far as those uses are n o m o re th a n form s o f p a rtic ip a tio n in n a t u r e ’s own dyn am ic processes.

10 For a discussion o f recent ecology’s view o f the dynam ic character o f natural processes, see J. Baird Callicott, »Do D econstructive Ecology an d Sociobiology U n d e rm in e L e o p o ld ’s L and Ethic?«, Environmental Ethics 18 (1996), pp. 353-372; D onald Worster,

»The Ecology o f O rd e r and Chaos«, in Worster, The Wealth of Nature (NewYork:Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 157-170.

11 Keekok Lee, »Beauty for Ever?«, Environmental Values4 (1995), pp. 213-225.

12 Ibid., pp. 216-217; cf. Callicott, op.cit., pp. 369-372.C allicott expresses th e distinction in term s o f th e ecological co n c ep t o f scale, a co n c ep t which is both te m p o ral an d spatial.

N atural Beauty, Ethics and Conceptions o f Nature II. Conceptions o f Nature

S om e ecologists a n d e n v iro n m e n ta l p h ilo so p h e rs view n a tu r e o r an ecosystem e ith e r as an org an ism o r as a co m m u n ity .1* In e ith e r case, n a tu re is re g a rd e d as a c o m p le x o rd e rly w hole, b e in g in som e sen se self-d eterm in - ing. It was su g g ested e a rlie r th a t n a tu re o r a n a tu ra l re g io n is n o t b ea u tifu l u nless it is a c o m p le x o rd e rly w hole. However, th e n o rm a tiv e im p lica tio n s o f n a tu ra l b e a u ty a n d th e status th a t h u m a n s are re g a rd e d as h av in g w ith re s p e c t to n a tu re will vary, d e p e n d in g o n w h e th e r n a tu re is view ed as an o rg a n ism o r as a com m unity, respectively.

I t follows fro m th e view o f n a tu re as a n o rg a n ism th a t th e w h o le o f n a tu re o r o f an ecosystem is re g a rd e d as hav ing p rim acy in re la tio n to n a tu ­ ral individuals a n d species. Since th e parts, like th e o rg an s, a re c o n sid e re d sig n ifican t o r valuable only as th ey c o n trib u te to th e w hole o r its w ell-being, th e p arts o f n a tu re , such as its species a n d individual organism s, d o n o t have in d e p e n d e n t statu s o r value a p a rt fro m th e w hole. T h e b e a u ty o f n a tu re view ed as an o rg a n ism seem s u n p ro b le m a tic . An in d iv id u al o rg a n ism c a n b e c o n s id e re d b e a u tifu l a n d can b e said to re ta in its b e a u ty th ro u g h th e co u rse o f its d ev e lo p m e n t. O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e o rg an ism view has im ­ p licatio n s w hich m ay be u n a c c e p ta b le , o r a t least p ro b le m a tic . S ince an y value o f th e p a r t o f a n org an ism d e p e n d s o n its fu n c tio n w ith in th e w hole, it is difficu lt to say o f a n a tu ra l ind ividual th a t it is b e a u tifu l in its ow n rig h t, in d e p e n d e n tly o f its c o n trib u tio n to th e n a tu ra l w hole. Yet, m an y n a tu re lovers seem to fin d b eau ty in individual p lan ts a n d anim als as such. A n o th e r im plicatio n co n c e rn s th e status o f h u m a n s w ith re sp e c t to th e n a tu ra l w hole.

If o n e h o ld s a m o n ist view o f m an a n d n a tu re , c o n sid e rin g m a n as p a r t o f n a tu re , th e n th e h u m a n individu al a n d th e h u m a n species c a n n o t b e re ­ g a rd e d as hav in g a status o r value in d e p e n d e n tly o f th e ir b e in g p a r t o f th e w hole. T h u s, o n e c a n n o t m ak e sense o f th e w orth o r dig n ity o f th e h u m a n in d iv id u al o r o f h u m an ity .14 F u rth e rm o re , o n e c a n n o t claim a u to n o m y o r m o ra l re sp o n sib ility fo r h u m a n p e rs o n s o r g ro u p s o f p e rs o n s, fo r every h u m a n action is co n sid ered p a rt o f the o rg an ic process. In o th e r w ords, view­

in g th e h u m a n b e in g as p a rt o f n a tu re co n ceiv ed as an o rg a n ism is in c o m ­ p atib le w ith th e status o f th e h u m a n p e rso n as a m o ral a g en t. H e re , a m o n ist

13 L eopold an d Næss te n d to view n atu re o r ecosystems acco rd in g to a com m unity co nception. Lovelock’s »Gaia hypothesis« is a version o f th e organism view. F o r a discussion o f these as two alternative, co m p etin g holistic m odels o f n atu re , see Eric Katz, »O rganism , Com m unity, an d th e ‘Substitution P ro b le m ’«, in Katz, Nature as Subject (L anham , MD: Rowman & Littlefield P ublishers, Inc., 1997), pp. 33-52.

14 In my view, th e idea o f h um an dignity o r w orth is too fu n d am e n tal to ethical a n d legal th in k in g to be sum m arily dismissed.

view o f m an a n d n a tu re , in u n d e rm in in g th e id e a o f m o rality alto g e th e r, ru le s o u t n a tu ra l b ea u ty as a fo u n d a tio n fo r m o ral o b lig atio n w ith re sp e c t to th e n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t.

T h e alternativ e, given th e o rganism view, is to m a in ta in a dualistic view o f m a n a n d n a tu re . If th e h u m a n b e in g is n o t p a r t o f th e n a tu ra l w hole, view ed as an o rg a n ism , it is possible to m a in ta in th a t th e h u m a n b e in g has in d e p e n d e n t status a n d value, a n d th a t h e has m o ral respo nsibility a n d so, as a m o ra l ag e n t, is su b ject to m o ral o b lig atio n . A n d it m akes sense to c o n ­ sid e r h u m a n activity as s o m e th in g d istin c t fro m a n d cap ab le o f b e in g c o n ­ trary to n a tu ra l processes a n d to pass eth ical ju d g m e n t o n h u m a n ac tio n s accordingly. E n v iro n m e n ta l ethics based o n n a tu ra l beauty, w h ere n a tu r e is co n c eiv ed as an o rg a n ism , supposes th a t th e h u m a n b e in g is essentially dis­

tin c t a n d se p a ra te fro m n a tu re . In th a t case, n a tu ra l b ea u ty im p o ses o n h u m a n s th e o b lig atio n to re frain from in te rfe rin g with th a t from w hich they a re essentially distinct. T his is in a g re e m e n t w ith th e p reserv atio n a rg u m e n t.

A n altern ativ e to th e org an ism view is th e view o f n a tu re o r an ecosys­

tem as a com m unity. F o r characteristics o f com m unity, o n e o ften looks to h u m a n co m m u nities: th e association o f p eo p le u n d e r som e political a u th o r­

ity, religious co m m u n ities, co m m u n ities based o n som e co re activity o r busi­

ness su ch as a fish in g com m unity, a n d so o n . Since n a tu re o r an ecosystem is n o t c h a ra c te riz e d by th e k in d o f c o o p e ra tio n a n d m u tu a l o b lig a tio n th a t o n e fin d s in h u m a n c o m m u n itie s, it m u st be c o n s id e re d su ffic ie n t fo r a n a tu ra l co m m unity th a t its m em b ers in te ra c t a n d in flu en ce o n e a n o th e r a n d th a t th ey sh are in th e sam e fu n d a m e n ta l co n d itio n s o f ex isten ce a n d life.15 Even if th e m e m b ers o f o n e species p rey o n tho se o f a n o th e r, this is n ec es­

sary fo r th e thriving o f th e anim als th a t survive, a n d th ey d o so u n d e r re ­ lated co nditio ns. T h e com m u n ity view o f n a tu re supposes th a t n a tu ra l things in th e ir g re a t diversity are som ehow c o n n e c te d . However, a co m m u n ity is a lo o se r association o f th in g s th a n an organism . A c o m m u n ity m e m b e r m ay have a sig nifican t fu n c tio n w ith re sp ect to th e w hole a n d yet have in d e p e n d ­ e n t status o r value. W hen co n tra stin g the co m m u n ity view o f n a tu re w ith th e o rg a n ism view, E ric Katz uses a university as an ex a m p le o f c o m m u n ity to m ak e this p o in t.1(i S tu d e n ts, faculty a n d staff w ho are essential to th e u n iv er­

sity co m m u n ity also have lives a n d activities a p a rt fro m it.

15 Jo h n Passmore, Man ’s Responsibility for Nature ( Ne w Yo rk : Sc ri b n e r, 1974), p. 116, objects to th e com m unity view o f n a tu re on th e gro u n d s th a t it is a necessary co n d itio n for th e re b eing a com m unity th a t those who co u n t as its m em bers recognize m utual o bligations. As C allicott p o in ts o u t in his In Defense of the Land Ethic. Essays in Environmental Philosophy (Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1989), p. 71, a com m unity view o f n a tu re m ust reject P assm ore’s condition.

16 Katz, op. cit., pp. 57-58.

N atural Beauty, Ethics and Conceptions o f Nature

If th ese c h a ra c te riz a tio n s o f c o m m u n ity a n d c o m m u n ity m e m b e rs are co rrec t, th e n this view o f n a tu re does n o t have the p ro b le m a tic im p licatio n s o f th e o rg a n ism view. It allows fo r th e individu al th in g in n a tu re to b e c o n ­ sid ere d b eau tifu l in its own rig h t, a n d n o t only in term s o f its fu n c tio n w ithin th e w hole. T his view also allows fo r a m o n ist view o f the re la tio n s h ip o f m an a n d n a tu re , a c c o rd in g to w hich h u m a n s a re m em b ers o f th e n a tu ra l co m ­ m unity, w ith o u t re lin q u ish in g th e view o f th e h u m a n p e rso n as valuable a n d as m orally re sp o n sib le. L eo p o ld re g a rd s h u m a n m e m b e rsh ip in th e n a tu ­ ral co m m u n ity as a p re su p p o sitio n o f his la n d ethic. H e co n stru e s th e evo­

lu tio n o f ethics as a g ra d u al d ev e lo p m e n t fro m its c o n c e rn w ith th e re la tio n o f o n e in d iv id u al to a n o th e r, th ro u g h a c o n c e rn with th e re la tio n o f th e individu al to society to a c o n c e rn w ith h u m a n s ’ re la tio n to th e la n d a n d th e th in g s living o n it, i.e., th e la n d e th ic .17 A c co rd in g to him , th e last stage will b e a reality w h e n h u m a n s, as m o ra l ag e n ts, view la n d as a c o m m u n ity to w hich they b elo n g , to g e th e r w ith all o th e r living th in g s.18 F o r L e o p o ld , th e h u m a n p e rso n is n o t p re p a re d to follow an eth ic based o n n a tu ra l b ea u ty unless h e realizes th a t h e is a m e m b e r o f a n a tu ra l com m unity.

III. N atural Beauty, Place and Landscape

O n e p ro b le m w ith th e c o m m u n ity view a n d th e id e a o f n a tu ra l b eau ty is th a t a c o m m u n ity is n o t th e s o rt o f th in g th a t is c o n s id e re d b e a u tifu l.

W hereas it m akes sense to sp eak o f n a tu re as a »b eau tiful o rg an ism « , it is n o t so obvious th a t it m akes sen se to c h a ra c te riz e n a tu re as a » b ea u tifu l com m unity.« If n a tu ra l beau ty can ju stify an eth ic c o n c e rn in g h u m a n s ’ re ­ la tio n sh ip to th e n a tu ra l en v iro n m e n t, th e q u estio n is how this is so, w h en th e co m m u n ity view o f n a tu re is p re su p p o se d . O n e re a so n why a c o m m u ­ nity is n o t th e so rt o f th in g th a t is c o n sid e re d beau tifu l is th a t it is n o t a m e re a g g reg ate o f its m em b ers. A c o m m u n ity also involves th e c o m p le x re la tio n ­ ships o f its m e m b e rs a n d th e c o n d itio n s o f th e ir co ex istence. S uch re la tio n ­ ships a n d c o n d itio n s are g ra sp e d intellectually; th ey a re n o t d ire c tly p e r­

ceived b u t in fe r re d fro m w h a t is p erceiv ed . W riters o n n a tu ra l a e sth e tic s g enerally ag ree th a t p e rc e p tu a l qualities o f n atu ra l p h e n o m e n a a re relev an t to th e ir b e in g b e a u tifu l o r objects o f ae sth e tic a p p re c ia tio n .19 If a co m m u -

17 L eopold, op. cit., pp. 202-203.

18 Ibid., p. viii.

1!l I m ake this claim on the basis o f writings by p eople o f diverse o rien tatio n s o n natural aesthetics:A rnold B erleant, »The A esthetics o f A rt and N ature«, in Salim Kelam &

Ivan Gaskell (eds.), Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts (C am bridge: C am bridge

nity is, a t least in p a rt, an intellectu ally g ra sp e d entity, n a tu ra l b ea u ty m u st p e rta in to p e rc e p tu a l aspects, i.e., w hat can b e seen, h e a rd , felt, etc., o f th e n a tu ra l com m unity.

As objects o f p e rc e p tio n , it is typically u n iq u e ly id en tifiab le p artic u la rs th a t are co n sid ered beautiful: individual anim als, p artic u la r places a n d la n d ­ scapes. P erh a p s o n e ca n also say th a t th e beau ty o f a p a rtic u la r n a tu ra l p h e ­ n o m e n o n is as u n iq u e as th e p a rtic u la r itself. If positive aesth etics is tru e, two n a tu ra l landscapes, sim ilar o r dissim ilar, a re b o th b ea u tifu l a n d th e re ­ fo re o f eq u a l ae sth e tic value. Yet, each is b ea u tifu l in its p a rtic u la r m a n n e r, by v irtu e o f its u n iq u e ch a rac te r, so th a t th e b ea u ty o f o n e is n o t e x c h a n g e ­ a b le fo r th e beau ty o f th e o th er. T h e e lim in a tio n o f o n e la n d sca p e w ou ld th e n be an absolute, irrep laceab le, loss. A place, lan dscap e o r n a tu ra l re g io n is d e p e n d e n t fo r its b ea u ty on th e kinds o f p lan ts a n d anim als a n d types o f soil a n d rocks th a t a re n a tu ra l to it. C allicott, w ith re fe re n c e to L e o p o ld , suggests th a t c e rta in species o f plants a n d anim als m ig h t be m o re c e n tra l to th e b ea u ty o f a re g io n th a n o th ers, such as th e ru ffe d g ro u se in th e n o rth w oods o f W isconsin a n d th e alligator in the L ouisian a swamps. H e calls these

»aesth etic in d ic a to r species«.211 Since, as ecology tells us, an ecosystem is an in tric a te web o f in te r d e p e n d e n t things, th e ae sth e tic in d ic a to r species re ­ q u ire th e ir s u p p o rtin g species a n d p h e n o m e n a . T h e u n iq u e b e a u ty a n d c h a ra c te r o f a n a tu ra l a re a re q u ire s th e p re se n c e o f all th e species o f p lan ts a n d an im als a n d all th e soil a n d rock types th a t are n a tu ra l o r o rig in a l to it.

H u m a n c o m m u n itie s w ere originally a tta c h e d to specific p laces o r re ­ gions, w hose c o n d itio n s w ere ce n tral to th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th e ind iv id ual c h a ra c te r o f th e com m unity. A sm all fishing village a t a p a rtic u la r coastal lo c a tio n has its c h a ra c te r to a g re a t e x te n t d e te rm in e d by th e c o n d itio n s o f th a t p a rtic u la r location: th e p re se n c e o f c e rta in species o f fish, p re v ailin g w e a th e r co n d itio n s, soil co n d itio n s, th e s u rro u n d in g lan d sca p e su ch as th e p re se n c e o r ab se n ce o f forests nearby, the p ro x im ity to o th e r villages, th e top o g rap h y , a n d so o n . A n d fo r its survival, th e co m m u n ity has o rg a n iz e d its activities so as tp be in a g re e m e n t w ith th e n a tu ra l co n d itio n s o f its lo ca­

tion. A n atu ra l com m unity is sim ilar in th a t it too is attac h ed to a certain place a n d re g io n , w hose p e c u lia r c o n d itio n s a n d ch a rac te ristic s h e lp d e te rm in e its u n iq u e ch a racter, in c lu d in g th e diversity a n d re la tio n sh ip s o f its m em -

University Press, 1993), pp. 228-243; Emily Brady, »Im agination and th e A esthetic A ppreciation o f N ature«, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 ( 1 9 9 8 ),pp. 139- 147; J. Baird Callicott, »The L and Aesthetic«, in Callicott (ed.), Companion to 'A Sand County Almanac’. Interpretive and Critical Essays (Madison: University o f W isconsin Press, 1987), pp. 157-171.

20 Callicott, »The L and A esthetic«, pp. 166-167; cf. L eopold, op.cit., pp.137-138.

Natural Beauty, Ethics and, Conceptions o f Nature

bers. A p a rtic u la r place, lan d scap e o r re g io n possesses diverse p e rc e p tu a l qualities, a n d it is a co m p lex o rd e rly w hole. T hus, a p lace, la n d sc a p e o r re ­ g io n satisfies a t least som e o f th e c o n d itio n s fo r possessing n a tu ra l beauty.

It is re a so n a b le to th in k , th e n th a t if n a tu re is viewed as a co m m u nity, n a tu ­ ral beau ty p e rta in s to th e place, lan d sca p e o r re g io n in w h ich th e c o m m u ­ nity is located.

A cco rd in g to dynam ic ecology, a place in n a tu re o r a n a tu ra l lan d sca p e has a history w hich acco u n ts fo r its u n iq u e ch aracter. As su ch , every place o r re g io n e m b o d ie s its distinctive n a rra tiv e , a sto ry o f its d e v e lo p m e n ta l stages a n d th e ir significance. T h e story is a b o u t th e re c ip ro c a l in flu e n c e o f re s id e n t species a n d th e places a n d re g io n s in w hich they a re lo cate d . H u ­ m ans can re la te to su ch a n arrativ e in e ith e r o f two ways. T h ey have th e ca­

pacity to d is ru p t th e n arrativ e so as to d isc o n tin u e it, o r th ey can , th ro u g h th e ir a c tio n s, c o n tin u e th e n a rra tiv e . N e ith e r N æ ss’ d e e p e c o lo g y n o r L e o p o ld ’s la n d e th ic p ro h ib its h u m a n h a b ita tio n in a n d in te ra c tio n w ith n a tu re . A c co rd in g to Næss, h u m a n activities o r h u m a n h a b ita tio n n e e d n o t b e in c o m p a tib le w ith w ilderness; only c e rta in lifestyles are, especially those o f W estern in d u stria l p e o p le .21 A n d ac c o rd in g to L eo p o ld , th e la n d eth ic does n o t o pp o se h u m a n activity in th e n a tu ra l enviro n m en t, only th e d estru c­

tion o f this e n v iro n m e n t.22 In d e ed , a truly holistic eth ic o f n a tu re , w hich seeks to in te g ra te h u m a n s in th e n a tu ra l w hole, c a n n o t p ro h ib it h u m a n uses o f n a tu re , p ro v id e d these uses are su stain ab le in th e re le v an t sen se a n d a re c o n fin e d in sco p e so as to b e in co n fo rm ity w ith n a tu r e ’s o rig in a l processes.

T h e id e a o f n a tu ra l beau ty can h e lp s u p p o rt th ese eth ica l c o n s tra in ts o n h u m a n activity in n a tu re .

If, as positive aesthetics holds, a place o r lan d scap e is n a tu ra lly o r o rigi­

nally b ea u tifu l, a n d , as dynam ic ecology ho lds, it is su b ject to c o n tin u o u s processes o r ev o lu tio n ary chan g es, th e results o f w hich a re also b e a u tifu l, th e n n a tu ra l b ea u ty re q u ire s o f h u m a n s th a t they c o n d u c t th e ir lives in a m a n n e r w hich is co n siste n t w ith n a tu r e ’s ow n processes. In o th e r w ords, a n th ro p o g e n ic changes, w hich are inevitable, given th e p re se n c e o f h u m a n s o n E arth , m u st b e su ch th a t they d o n o t u p s e t n a tu r e ’s ow n co u rse. H u m a n activity m u st b e g o v ern ed by a c o n c e rn fo r th e p artic u la r p lace o r lan d sca p e w here th e n a tu ra l com m unity is located. F or exam ple, forestry practices m ust b e d e te rm in e d ac c o rd in g to th e c h a ra c te r o f th e place, su ch as its to p o g ra ­ phy, soil c o n d itio n s, living c o n d itio n s o f re s id e n t species, a n d so o n . A ro a d b u ilt in hilly c o u n try m u st be n arro w a n d w inding. F arm in g p ra c tic e s m u st

21 Næss, »The T h ird W orld, W ilderness, an d D eep Ecology«, in G eorge Sessions (ed .), Deep Ecology fo r the Twenty-first Century, p. 398.

22 L eopold, op.cit., p. 204.

leave h a b ita t fo r re sid e n t species, a lth o u g h th e m a n n e r in w hich this is d o n e will d e p e n d o n clim atic arid soil conditions, o n w hat th e re sid e n t species are, a n d so on. S ince a place o r a lan d scap e is like n o o th er, its b eau ty re q u ire s o f h u m a n s th a t th e ir activities m a in ta in its u n iq u e n e ss. R a th e r th a n e x c lu d ­ in g h u m a n s from the n atu ra l en v iro n m e n t, an eth ic b ased o n n a tu ra l beau ty in this m a n n e r im poses re q u ire m e n ts o n h u m a n s ’ lifestyles, th a t h u m a n lives a n d activities b e d e te r m in e d by th e c h a ra c te r o f th e p lace o r la n d sc a p e , r a th e r th a n th e o th e r way a ro u n d .

A ccording to som e p ro p o n e n ts o f positive aesthetics, th e ae sth etic ap ­ preciatio n o f n atu re requires scientific know ledge, the know ledge o f a re g io n ’s o r la n d sc a p e ’s n a tu ra l history.23 Such a re q u ire m e n t seem s co u n terin tu itiv e a n d u n re a so n a b le , for it w ould im ply th a t p ersons w ith o u t th e p re req u isite know ledge o f a ce rtain re g io n are incapable o f aesth etic a p p re c ia tio n o f th a t re g io n .24 O n the o th e r h a n d , such know ledge is useful, a n d m ay even b e n e c ­ essary, fo r co n fo rm in g to th e re q u ire m e n ts im p o sed by n a tu ra l beauty. T h e re q u ire m e n t th a t h u m a n activity be in conform ity with n a tu re ’s own dynam ic processes is a re q u ire m e n t th a t h u m a n activity b e p a rt o f a n d a c o n tin u a tio n o f a narrative w hich is already p re s e n t as em b o d ie d in th e n a tu ra l en v iro n ­ m e n t. K now ledge o f th e history o f a place o r lan dscap e is relev an t to d e te r­

m in in g w h at is involved in com plying with th e ethical re q u ire m e n t.

T h e place o r la n d sca p e in w hich a p a rtic u la r n a tu ra l co m m u n ity is lo­

c a te d is n o t any place, d e te rm in a b le by m eans o f ab stract co o rd in a te s alon e.

R ather, it ho ld s a special significance to th a t c o m m u n ity a n d its m em b ers.

T h u s, th e re is a sense in w hich th e place o r la n d sc a p e o f a n a tu ra l c o m m u ­ n ity is h o m e to th a t c o m m u n ity a n d its m e m b e rs. As E d w ard C asey has p o in te d o u t, th e id e a o f h o m e signifies an in tim a te re la tio n sh ip th a t a p e r­

son o r g ro u p o f p e rso n s has to a p a rtic u la r p lace .25 H o m e is th a t p a rtic u la r place to w hich o n e belongs. It is p a rt o f o n e ’s identity, a n d th e distinctive c h a ra c te r o f th e h o m e itself com es fro m o n e ’s living in it. T h u s co nceiv ed, a h o m e is so m e th in g very d iffe re n t from a h o u se. W hereas o n e ’s h o m e is o n e ’s dw elling in a fu n d a m e n ta l sense, a h o u se is a co n stru c tio n , a d istin c t o th e r to w hich o n e has a m erely extern al relationship. T h e relatio n to a place as o n e ’s h o m e in this sense is a basis fo r o n e ’s ca rin g fo r it, m ak in g su re it persists in its distinctive ex isten ce a n d significance. Similarly, if th e id e a o f h o m e is a p p lie d to th e place o r re g io n o f a n a tu ra l com m unity, w hich in-

23 See fo r exam ple A llen C arlson, op.cit. Callicott attrib u tes a sim ilar view to L eopold, cf. Callicott, »The L and Aesthetic«, pp. 161-166.

24 F or an extensive criticism o f this view, see for exam ple Emily Brady, op.cit.

25 Edward S. Casey, Getting Back into Place (Indianapolis: In d ian a University Press, 1993), e.g. pp. 121, 175-77.

N atural Beauty, Ethics and Conceptions o f Nature

elu d es h u m a n s a m o n g its m em b ers, it m akes sense to e x te n d th e sam e c o n ­ sid era tio n s o f ca re to this place o r re g io n . T h e w o rd »ecology« is d eriv e d fro m th e a n c ie n t G re e k w ords »oikos«, o fte n tra n sla te d as » h o m e« , a n d

»logos«.20 A ccordingly, ecology is th e study o f th e n a tu ra l h o m e , in c lu d in g th e things in h a b itin g it a n d th e re la tio n sh ip s o f th e ir in te rd e p e n d e n c e . T h e n a tu ra l h o m e has its b ea u ty fro m all th e th in g s th a t n a tu ra lly live in it a n d b e lo n g to it. As an in trin sic value, n a tu ra l b ea u ty re q u ire s o f th e m orally ca p ab le m e m b e rs o f th e n a tu ra l c o m m u n ity th a t they care fo r th e h o m e o f all th e c o m m u n ity ’s m em b ers, th a t th ey act so as to e n a b le it to c o n tin u e to exist w ith its distinctive ch aracter.

IV. Conclusion

In o p p o sitio n to th e p re serv atio n a rg u m e n t, I d o n o t th in k th a t n a tu ­ ral b e a u ty p ro h ib its h u m a n uses o f n a tu r e a lto g e th e r, w h e n n a tu r e o r a n a tu ra l re g io n is viewed as a c o m m u n ity o f w hich h u m a n s a re m em b ers. It d o es n o t follow, however, th a t th e re is n o o b lig a tio n to p re serv e w ild ern ess areas in various p a rts o f th e w orld. S om e o f th e c o n sid e ra tio n s I hav e p re ­ s e n te d can also b e u se d in s u p p o rt o f w ilderness p re se rv a tio n . A lth o u g h n a tu ra l co m m u n itie s o r ecosystem s a re d istin g u ish ab le en titie s, th ey m u st still be c o n n e c te d . T h e d istin c t co m m u n itie s a n d th e ir respective m e m b e rs m u st som eh ow in te ra c t o r re la te to o n e a n o th e r across c o m m u n ity b o u n d a ­ ries, fo r they all exist in o n e in esca p ab le w orld, E arth . In so fa r as o n e can sp ea k o f a global n a tu ra l com m unity, th e b ea u ty o f n a tu re th u s co n ceiv ed is th e b eau ty o f E arth . If positive aesthetics is assum ed, th e n E a rth w ith its o rig in al biological diversity is beau tifu l. If n a tu ra l b eau ty is a fo u n d a tio n o f an e th ic o f n a tu re , th e n such beau ty o n a global scale im p lies th a t h u m a n s sh o u ld n o t, th ro u g h drastic in te rfe re n c e w ith n a tu ra l processes, u p s e t th e co n d itio n s o f E a r th ’s o rig in al b iolog ical diversity. F ailu re to p re se rv e vari­

ous k in d s o f w ilderness w ould d im in ish this diversity. T h u s, th e a p p e a l to n a tu ra l b ea u ty can su p p o rt an eth ic o f n a tu re at th e global level as well as at th e local o r re g io n a l level.27

2fi For an account o f the origin o f the word »ecology«, see for exam ple J. D onald H ughes, Ecology in Ancient Civilizations (A lbuquerque: University o f New M exico Press, 1975), pp. 2-3.

27 I am grateful to O tto M. C hristensen for conversations ab o u t issues o f aesthetics.