5). The idea of a uniform (“synthesised”) valuation scheme does not require a final
and perfect solution to the demarcation problem, but such scheme should not be
limited to anthropocentrism. In Sect. 6, we argue that the categories within TEV and
ESS can and should be integrated into the essential thought patterns of environmental ethics discourse. As we shall see, valuation schemes can either obscure or reveal
underlying philosophical and ethical problems. Our strategy is to use such schemes
for revealing.
2 Value Systems and Evaluations
Since ancient times, philosophy has reflected on the status on categories named
“values”. The philosophy of values is termed “axiology” since then. Sociology,
psychology, history, and economics affirm subject-based axiologies since the beginning of the twentieth century. Values are treated as social facts (Durkheim, Weber)
from the perspective of observers. The many differences in between values can and
should be explained by history, psychology and sociology, while philosophers quest
for validity and the (ultimate) grounding of values. Differences between values can
take different axiological correlations: peaceful coexistence, indifference, mutual
support, respectful tolerance, contrariness, conflict, clash, contradiction. Conflicts
over supreme values (nation, religion, socialism, purity of race) may lead to rebellions, civil wars, and revolutions. In Germany, values of natural monuments,
unspoiled landscapes, endangered indigenous species, wilderness areas etc. have
enriched the spectrum of societal values since the Romantic movement (Ott 2016a).
Nobody doubts that values of environmentalists conflict with those of a liberal
consumer culture. According to our modern lifestyles, values of different spheres
can be combined. Clearly, beautiful valleys, sparkling waterfalls and a sunset on the
beach can be valued as being “good” for naturalists. One can, however, also value a
robust car by which one can reach remote sites and can also enjoy a comfortable
hotel room with ocean view at the coastline. Most of us value a high-tech camera for
spots and sceneries. Economists argue that reasonable utility-functions would combine preferences to different goods and commodities as to maximize the individual
good. High-end tourism often combines natural sceneries with luxury accommodation. Such high-end eco-luxury lifestyles, however, look morally repugnant, because
not all people can realize them. In such cases, values come under moral attacks. Is it
unjust to enjoy a holiday season in the outdoors as long as not all working class
people on planet Earth can enjoy paid holidays? It seems fair to say that egalitarian
social movements have specialized on grounding such attacks on “privileged”
values, even environmental ones. Thus, appreciating values of natural entities does
not escape moral critique against unjust privileges.
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
131
and perfect solution to the demarcation problem, but such scheme should not be
limited to anthropocentrism. In Sect. 6, we argue that the categories within TEV and
ESS can and should be integrated into the essential thought patterns of environmental ethics discourse. As we shall see, valuation schemes can either obscure or reveal
underlying philosophical and ethical problems. Our strategy is to use such schemes
for revealing.
2 Value Systems and Evaluations
Since ancient times, philosophy has reflected on the status on categories named
“values”. The philosophy of values is termed “axiology” since then. Sociology,
psychology, history, and economics affirm subject-based axiologies since the beginning of the twentieth century. Values are treated as social facts (Durkheim, Weber)
from the perspective of observers. The many differences in between values can and
should be explained by history, psychology and sociology, while philosophers quest
for validity and the (ultimate) grounding of values. Differences between values can
take different axiological correlations: peaceful coexistence, indifference, mutual
support, respectful tolerance, contrariness, conflict, clash, contradiction. Conflicts
over supreme values (nation, religion, socialism, purity of race) may lead to rebellions, civil wars, and revolutions. In Germany, values of natural monuments,
unspoiled landscapes, endangered indigenous species, wilderness areas etc. have
enriched the spectrum of societal values since the Romantic movement (Ott 2016a).
Nobody doubts that values of environmentalists conflict with those of a liberal
consumer culture. According to our modern lifestyles, values of different spheres
can be combined. Clearly, beautiful valleys, sparkling waterfalls and a sunset on the
beach can be valued as being “good” for naturalists. One can, however, also value a
robust car by which one can reach remote sites and can also enjoy a comfortable
hotel room with ocean view at the coastline. Most of us value a high-tech camera for
spots and sceneries. Economists argue that reasonable utility-functions would combine preferences to different goods and commodities as to maximize the individual
good. High-end tourism often combines natural sceneries with luxury accommodation. Such high-end eco-luxury lifestyles, however, look morally repugnant, because
not all people can realize them. In such cases, values come under moral attacks. Is it
unjust to enjoy a holiday season in the outdoors as long as not all working class
people on planet Earth can enjoy paid holidays? It seems fair to say that egalitarian
social movements have specialized on grounding such attacks on “privileged”
values, even environmental ones. Thus, appreciating values of natural entities does
not escape moral critique against unjust privileges.
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
131