5.4 The Specific Adequacy Criterion
The criterion of specific adequacy concerns the derivation of non-acceptable individual norms. This criterion could also be added to the criterion of harmlessness.
Many farmers are dissatisfied with the fertiliser rules because they sometimes have
massive difficulties in implementing them—e.g. when storing liquid manure. If the
fertiliser ordinance leads to individual cases requiring exceptions, the rules should be
changed or compensation provided.
This illustrates that even if some rules are good relative to certain specified
criteria, the rules to be set cannot be evaluated relative to the sustainability theory
alone. They should satisfy further moral or political principles—like accountability
or principles of good governance. For a comprehensive moral appraisement of
environmental rule systems, one needs various criteria of appraisal. The scope of
the presented approach is limited by the choice of the four criteria. As was mentioned
before, the results of an evaluation are valid only relative to the used criteria. The
nearer and wider context is essential for the evaluation. In the case of the Fertiliser
Ordinance, we have to presuppose the political framework and the other fertiliser
rules and further laws. So, for the evaluation one has to be familiar with these facts.
So, it is hard work to judge that a particular rule or rule system has a high moral
quality.
5.5 To Obtain an Evaluation Judgment
How is the moral quality of the Fertiliser Ordinance to be evaluated in the light of the
examination of compliance with the applied and specified criteria?
The main argumentative steps in an evaluation are to conclude the degree
of fulfilment of the evaluation criteria on the basis of certain data on the properties
of the evaluandum and certain standards and to infer the quality, value, or goodness
of the evaluandum on the basis of the fulfilment of the criteria and the weighing of
the criteria. The selection of the criteria was not justified and the weighing and
interaction of the criteria were not discussed in this article. It was also not discussed
whether the criteria of effectiveness and harmlessness are related to the actual use of
rules or to such uses of rules that could be made by malicious or benevolent actors,
respectively. Rather, the aim was to make clear that the theory of strong sustainability can be used to evaluate environmental rules and regulations and that rough
evaluations of the currently applicable fertilisation rules are possible.
Even without a more detailed analysis (see for a more detailed evaluation of the
Fertiliser Ordinance Reinmuth 2020), it can be stated that the Fertiliser Ordinance
does not completely fulfil the criteria laid down. It was not clearly established to
what extent the criterion of specific adequacy is met. Although the Fertiliser Ordinance fulfils the effectiveness criterion, the deducibility criterion is only partly
124
K. C. Reinmuth
The criterion of specific adequacy concerns the derivation of non-acceptable individual norms. This criterion could also be added to the criterion of harmlessness.
Many farmers are dissatisfied with the fertiliser rules because they sometimes have
massive difficulties in implementing them—e.g. when storing liquid manure. If the
fertiliser ordinance leads to individual cases requiring exceptions, the rules should be
changed or compensation provided.
This illustrates that even if some rules are good relative to certain specified
criteria, the rules to be set cannot be evaluated relative to the sustainability theory
alone. They should satisfy further moral or political principles—like accountability
or principles of good governance. For a comprehensive moral appraisement of
environmental rule systems, one needs various criteria of appraisal. The scope of
the presented approach is limited by the choice of the four criteria. As was mentioned
before, the results of an evaluation are valid only relative to the used criteria. The
nearer and wider context is essential for the evaluation. In the case of the Fertiliser
Ordinance, we have to presuppose the political framework and the other fertiliser
rules and further laws. So, for the evaluation one has to be familiar with these facts.
So, it is hard work to judge that a particular rule or rule system has a high moral
quality.
5.5 To Obtain an Evaluation Judgment
How is the moral quality of the Fertiliser Ordinance to be evaluated in the light of the
examination of compliance with the applied and specified criteria?
The main argumentative steps in an evaluation are to conclude the degree
of fulfilment of the evaluation criteria on the basis of certain data on the properties
of the evaluandum and certain standards and to infer the quality, value, or goodness
of the evaluandum on the basis of the fulfilment of the criteria and the weighing of
the criteria. The selection of the criteria was not justified and the weighing and
interaction of the criteria were not discussed in this article. It was also not discussed
whether the criteria of effectiveness and harmlessness are related to the actual use of
rules or to such uses of rules that could be made by malicious or benevolent actors,
respectively. Rather, the aim was to make clear that the theory of strong sustainability can be used to evaluate environmental rules and regulations and that rough
evaluations of the currently applicable fertilisation rules are possible.
Even without a more detailed analysis (see for a more detailed evaluation of the
Fertiliser Ordinance Reinmuth 2020), it can be stated that the Fertiliser Ordinance
does not completely fulfil the criteria laid down. It was not clearly established to
what extent the criterion of specific adequacy is met. Although the Fertiliser Ordinance fulfils the effectiveness criterion, the deducibility criterion is only partly
124
K. C. Reinmuth