considered that different evaluation types fulfil different functions and can serve
thereby different purposes. The difficulty of accurately characterising and delimiting
grading, ranking, scoring, etc. can result from the fact that these expressions are
sometimes used with reference to the results of an evaluation or the process of
evaluation. Sometimes evaluation results are formulated qualitatively and sometimes
quantitatively. Thus, marks or points can be assigned, the price can be indicated, or
the evaluation result can be formulated with evaluative terms. Often scales are used.
Depending on the scale type, different arithmetic operations and comparisons are
permitted.
A distinction is to be made between axiology (values) and deontology/
normativity (norms). Evaluations can be carried out normatively relative to norms
(“According to environmental law, it is obligatory not to pollute waters”) and
axiologically relative to values (“According to strong sustainability, it is good to
restore nature”). Norms include, among others, correctness statements, right-tosomething statements and deontic statements (such as rules). Norms are instructions
for action or can refer to instructions for action. Right-to-something statements or
expressions such as ‘correct’ are normative, but not deontic, as they do not represent
clear instructions for action (an act can be right if it is permitted or required, or if
someone refrains from doing something that is prohibited). However, in one way or
another they are related to deontic statements (like rules). For example, right-tosomething statements can often be interpreted as rule clusters.
Axiological and normative expressions are evaluative expressions (Taylor 1961;
von Wright 1963). Paradigmatic examples of axiological terms are ‘good’, ‘bad’,
‘evil’, ‘super’, ‘successful’, ‘unÀ/just’, ‘suitable’, ‘reasonable’ and so on. The term
‘good’ represents a language game of attributions, such as ‘admirable’, ‘nice’,
‘awful’, ‘tasty’, ‘sexy’, ‘fancy’, ‘gorgeous’ etc. Axiological expressions differ
from deontic operators which prescribe or forbid different kind of actions. Deontic
expressions and operators are, for example, ‘required’, ‘ought’, ‘forbidden’ and
‘permitted’. Non-deontic but normative expressions are e.g. ‘duty to’, ‘right to’,
‘inÀ/correct’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
It can be argued that normative statements (e.g. norms and rules) are often
formulated in order to summarise diverse axiological evaluations. According to
such an understanding, norms play a central role because they act as a bridge
between the axiological evaluations and normative evaluations (Baurmann et al.
2010). Norms are formulated because otherwise it is not clear which specific
instructions for action are to be obtained from axiological statements. Norms
summarize the efforts of an axiological evaluation—they formulate what should
be done in view of the axiological considerations or prescribe the actions to be
performed in view of the axiological considerations (or allow and forbid others). The
bridge should be built between the axiological evaluation and the desire for clear
specific guidelines for action. (Deontic) norms are (relatively) clear guidelines for
action and via reasoning one can obtain individual norms which state what actions
should be carried out by certain actors in certain situations. So, norms and rules can
fulfil a bridging function. In formulating the norms, one tries to consider the various
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
135
thereby different purposes. The difficulty of accurately characterising and delimiting
grading, ranking, scoring, etc. can result from the fact that these expressions are
sometimes used with reference to the results of an evaluation or the process of
evaluation. Sometimes evaluation results are formulated qualitatively and sometimes
quantitatively. Thus, marks or points can be assigned, the price can be indicated, or
the evaluation result can be formulated with evaluative terms. Often scales are used.
Depending on the scale type, different arithmetic operations and comparisons are
permitted.
A distinction is to be made between axiology (values) and deontology/
normativity (norms). Evaluations can be carried out normatively relative to norms
(“According to environmental law, it is obligatory not to pollute waters”) and
axiologically relative to values (“According to strong sustainability, it is good to
restore nature”). Norms include, among others, correctness statements, right-tosomething statements and deontic statements (such as rules). Norms are instructions
for action or can refer to instructions for action. Right-to-something statements or
expressions such as ‘correct’ are normative, but not deontic, as they do not represent
clear instructions for action (an act can be right if it is permitted or required, or if
someone refrains from doing something that is prohibited). However, in one way or
another they are related to deontic statements (like rules). For example, right-tosomething statements can often be interpreted as rule clusters.
Axiological and normative expressions are evaluative expressions (Taylor 1961;
von Wright 1963). Paradigmatic examples of axiological terms are ‘good’, ‘bad’,
‘evil’, ‘super’, ‘successful’, ‘unÀ/just’, ‘suitable’, ‘reasonable’ and so on. The term
‘good’ represents a language game of attributions, such as ‘admirable’, ‘nice’,
‘awful’, ‘tasty’, ‘sexy’, ‘fancy’, ‘gorgeous’ etc. Axiological expressions differ
from deontic operators which prescribe or forbid different kind of actions. Deontic
expressions and operators are, for example, ‘required’, ‘ought’, ‘forbidden’ and
‘permitted’. Non-deontic but normative expressions are e.g. ‘duty to’, ‘right to’,
‘inÀ/correct’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
It can be argued that normative statements (e.g. norms and rules) are often
formulated in order to summarise diverse axiological evaluations. According to
such an understanding, norms play a central role because they act as a bridge
between the axiological evaluations and normative evaluations (Baurmann et al.
2010). Norms are formulated because otherwise it is not clear which specific
instructions for action are to be obtained from axiological statements. Norms
summarize the efforts of an axiological evaluation—they formulate what should
be done in view of the axiological considerations or prescribe the actions to be
performed in view of the axiological considerations (or allow and forbid others). The
bridge should be built between the axiological evaluation and the desire for clear
specific guidelines for action. (Deontic) norms are (relatively) clear guidelines for
action and via reasoning one can obtain individual norms which state what actions
should be carried out by certain actors in certain situations. So, norms and rules can
fulfil a bridging function. In formulating the norms, one tries to consider the various
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
135