Transcript Three Problems for the Aesthetic Foundations of

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 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?