Keywords Evaluation · Rule systems · Sustainability · Means-end · Rules as tools ·
Rules and rule uses · Criteria pluralism · Environmental problems · Normative
discourse
1 Introduction: The Need for a Framework for Evaluation
If a certain sense of ‘challenge’ and ‘solution’ is presupposed, i.e. a difficult task, a
problem which is to be solved, and something which should be done, it is not
surprising that ‘challenges and solutions’ (or other terms such as ‘problems’) are
normally understood against a normative-evaluative background. We identify problems by using evaluations and we use evaluations for finding good or at least better
solutions. In order to evaluate in a methodically secure way, the role of normative
and axiological considerations is to be made explicit. We have to understand the
evaluation process for developing solutions to environmental problems.
Evaluations are made in different contexts and they accompany our actions in
various forms. We judge the actions of others, objects, states and much more. We do
so by taking different standpoints and applying different criteria and standards
(Fournier 1995; Lumer 1990; Taylor 1961; von Wright 1963). So, we can judge
the loss of biodiversity from a moral point of view, or the beauty of a forest from an
aesthetic point of view. And, for example, criteria for good rules may be validity,
effectiveness and harmlessness. To know whether these criteria are fulfilled, we rely
on evidence-based arguments in which normative or axiological premises are also
formulated. These premises are shaped on the basis of standards. Only if we make
explicit the normative-evaluative questions we can (1) make clear the differences
between facts and norms/values (and understand why facts are relevant for evaluations) and (2) have (hopefully and possibly) good arguments for specific normative
solutions.
Philosophy can play an important role here, since making the evaluation components explicit already helps to identify and locate possible points of (dis)agreement.
Furthermore, there are convincing ethical theories that can be used to specify the
evaluation criteria. Evaluations are widespread in everyday life and in the sciences
and they receive very high attention in social science and pedagogical disciplines
(Döring and Bortz 2016; Scriven 1999; Crabbé and Leroy 2008). There are also
diverse approaches to methodological questions of evaluations. In the following, the
logical aspects are more likely to be in the foreground.
The article is structured as follows: After some introductory remarks on the need
for a framework for the evaluation of rules and rule systems, the main components of
an evaluation will be presented. If a moral theory is to be used for moral evaluation,
it must be stated which evaluation criteria are to be applied. In the following, some
criteria of a moral evaluation of rules are introduced. In discussing the criteria, I will
briefly clarify the term ‘rule’, the components of rule formulations and the functions
of rules. Depending on which moral theory is used, the criteria can be designed
differently. Here, the theory of strong sustainability developed by Ott and Döring
108
K. C. Reinmuth
Rules and rule uses · Criteria pluralism · Environmental problems · Normative
discourse
1 Introduction: The Need for a Framework for Evaluation
If a certain sense of ‘challenge’ and ‘solution’ is presupposed, i.e. a difficult task, a
problem which is to be solved, and something which should be done, it is not
surprising that ‘challenges and solutions’ (or other terms such as ‘problems’) are
normally understood against a normative-evaluative background. We identify problems by using evaluations and we use evaluations for finding good or at least better
solutions. In order to evaluate in a methodically secure way, the role of normative
and axiological considerations is to be made explicit. We have to understand the
evaluation process for developing solutions to environmental problems.
Evaluations are made in different contexts and they accompany our actions in
various forms. We judge the actions of others, objects, states and much more. We do
so by taking different standpoints and applying different criteria and standards
(Fournier 1995; Lumer 1990; Taylor 1961; von Wright 1963). So, we can judge
the loss of biodiversity from a moral point of view, or the beauty of a forest from an
aesthetic point of view. And, for example, criteria for good rules may be validity,
effectiveness and harmlessness. To know whether these criteria are fulfilled, we rely
on evidence-based arguments in which normative or axiological premises are also
formulated. These premises are shaped on the basis of standards. Only if we make
explicit the normative-evaluative questions we can (1) make clear the differences
between facts and norms/values (and understand why facts are relevant for evaluations) and (2) have (hopefully and possibly) good arguments for specific normative
solutions.
Philosophy can play an important role here, since making the evaluation components explicit already helps to identify and locate possible points of (dis)agreement.
Furthermore, there are convincing ethical theories that can be used to specify the
evaluation criteria. Evaluations are widespread in everyday life and in the sciences
and they receive very high attention in social science and pedagogical disciplines
(Döring and Bortz 2016; Scriven 1999; Crabbé and Leroy 2008). There are also
diverse approaches to methodological questions of evaluations. In the following, the
logical aspects are more likely to be in the foreground.
The article is structured as follows: After some introductory remarks on the need
for a framework for the evaluation of rules and rule systems, the main components of
an evaluation will be presented. If a moral theory is to be used for moral evaluation,
it must be stated which evaluation criteria are to be applied. In the following, some
criteria of a moral evaluation of rules are introduced. In discussing the criteria, I will
briefly clarify the term ‘rule’, the components of rule formulations and the functions
of rules. Depending on which moral theory is used, the criteria can be designed
differently. Here, the theory of strong sustainability developed by Ott and Döring
108
K. C. Reinmuth