evaluations of cases. If individual norms which are used in such evaluations can be
gained from the rules, this will be often discovered by the rule users. So, we need to
consider the experience of the rule users which apply the rules themselves to
themselves.
And because expertise-based policy-making can be in contrast to consensusbased policy-making there is a possible tension between the criteria of effectiveness
and specific adequacy. So, we have to take into account the experiences of the rule
users and the actual grade of acceptance.
Because we should use different criteria we should rely on different sources for
evidence. Technocratic expertise shouldn’t undermine democratic feedback processes and for the evaluation of policies questions of rule uses and application
should not be left out. Therefore, one further evaluation criterion could be the
revisability of the rule system.
5 The Moral Evaluation of a Set of Rules Using the Theory
of Strong Sustainability
In this section, the theory of strong sustainability as developed by Konrad Ott and
Ralf Döring will be used as a yardstick for the moral evaluation of a set of rules and it
will be clarified how argumentatively substantiated evaluation statements can be
obtained with the help of a moral theory. The sustainability theory in the version
elaborated by Ott and Döring is a rule-centred moral theory: Ott and Döring establish
the central rules of the theory of strong sustainability. The objectives of the theory
are derived from the rules: The achievement of goals must correspond to the
observance of the rules (Ott and Döring 2008, 177).
The theory of strong sustainability is an anthropocentric approach, since the rules
are argumentatively substantiated above all by the intergenerational obligation to
leave necessary conditions for a good life to future generations. Since a certain
amount of natural capital is necessary for a good life and since there is uncertainty
about the right amount, we should preserve rich and diverse stocks and funds of
natural capital. Since, for example, we cannot foresee what significance or benefit
certain animal or plant species will have for future generations, we should preserve
them. The theory of strong sustainability is anthropocentric, but extremely powerful
and also far-reaching in its normative demands, since all necessary conditions for a
good life are to be ensured—the theory of strong sustainability regards not only the
conservation, preservation, and restoration of nature. And since there is also uncertainty about the right degree for these other conditions, some efforts are needed to be
able to provide the necessary conditions for a good life. The need for a certain
amount of natural capital for a good life is central to the theory of strong sustainability, which, unlike weak sustainability approaches, rejects the idea that natural
capital can be substituted by other types of capital (e.g. human capital) and that
people can live a good life with man-made or human capital alone.
A Framework for Evaluation of Normative Solutions to Environmental Problems
119
gained from the rules, this will be often discovered by the rule users. So, we need to
consider the experience of the rule users which apply the rules themselves to
themselves.
And because expertise-based policy-making can be in contrast to consensusbased policy-making there is a possible tension between the criteria of effectiveness
and specific adequacy. So, we have to take into account the experiences of the rule
users and the actual grade of acceptance.
Because we should use different criteria we should rely on different sources for
evidence. Technocratic expertise shouldn’t undermine democratic feedback processes and for the evaluation of policies questions of rule uses and application
should not be left out. Therefore, one further evaluation criterion could be the
revisability of the rule system.
5 The Moral Evaluation of a Set of Rules Using the Theory
of Strong Sustainability
In this section, the theory of strong sustainability as developed by Konrad Ott and
Ralf Döring will be used as a yardstick for the moral evaluation of a set of rules and it
will be clarified how argumentatively substantiated evaluation statements can be
obtained with the help of a moral theory. The sustainability theory in the version
elaborated by Ott and Döring is a rule-centred moral theory: Ott and Döring establish
the central rules of the theory of strong sustainability. The objectives of the theory
are derived from the rules: The achievement of goals must correspond to the
observance of the rules (Ott and Döring 2008, 177).
The theory of strong sustainability is an anthropocentric approach, since the rules
are argumentatively substantiated above all by the intergenerational obligation to
leave necessary conditions for a good life to future generations. Since a certain
amount of natural capital is necessary for a good life and since there is uncertainty
about the right amount, we should preserve rich and diverse stocks and funds of
natural capital. Since, for example, we cannot foresee what significance or benefit
certain animal or plant species will have for future generations, we should preserve
them. The theory of strong sustainability is anthropocentric, but extremely powerful
and also far-reaching in its normative demands, since all necessary conditions for a
good life are to be ensured—the theory of strong sustainability regards not only the
conservation, preservation, and restoration of nature. And since there is also uncertainty about the right degree for these other conditions, some efforts are needed to be
able to provide the necessary conditions for a good life. The need for a certain
amount of natural capital for a good life is central to the theory of strong sustainability, which, unlike weak sustainability approaches, rejects the idea that natural
capital can be substituted by other types of capital (e.g. human capital) and that
people can live a good life with man-made or human capital alone.
A Framework for Evaluation of Normative Solutions to Environmental Problems
119