approaches based on a non-scientific concept of nature. Here nature is conceived as
something other than a collection of mere objects that fall under general laws of
nature. Many thought patterns within contemporary environmental ethics take a
critical attitude towards a “purely scientific” interpretation of nature. In this interpretation, nature is nothing more than (a) the subject of scientific description and
explanation, (b) a warehouse of resources that can serve as an entrance into industrial
production, and (c) a hostile force against human longing for safety, health, and
comfort. Within environmental virtues ethics, it is accepted that certain attitudes to
and perceptions of nature are morally more appropriate than others. A general
attitude of dominance, mastery and control can be rejected for moral reasons, and
certain views of nature neglect morally relevant qualities or are morally subcomplex.
The idea of deep ecology, as conceived by Arne Naess, was to sidestep modern
ontology and replace it with “ecosophies”. Ecosophies are not in direct competition
with science. Ecosophies only assume that nature can show itself in its naturalness in
modes and ways beyond scientific observation, data mining, and causal explanation.
These ecosophies may have one thing in common: nature reveals itself in different
forms in different places for open-minded people. Nature shows up (eventfully) as
“physis”, “creation”, “kosmos”, “dao”, “wild” or “pacha”. ESS can address such
revealing of nature within the category of spiritual values, being a sub-category of
cultural values. ESS must hold contact with religious studies. Here, monetization
clashes with the logic of the sacred. This logic is not just about strict protection of
sacred sites and sacred groves, but goes beyond if entire ways of lives are seen in
perpetual spiritual encounter with ancestors, spirits and deities of land and sea. Seen
from the category of spiritual cultural values, the entire ESS and TEV schemes look
“Western”. The ongoing conceptual debate within IPBES is about Western biases
within ESS and TEV.
Environmental virtue ethics requires an appropriate attitude towards oneself,
others, time, and natural beings. Environmental virtues ethics evaluates arbitrary
characteristics of individual character and bases environmental virtues on moral
arguments. The virtue of sufficiency is based on resistance to the consumerist
excessiveness of human metabolism. Many (biophilic) virtues are based on
eudemonic values. Eudemonic values can have a transformative force, as Bryan
Norton argued (1988). Environmental virtue ethics demands with a future ethical
impact the prudential virtues of restraint and care, foresight and precaution. It also
means being aware of finiteness and mortality, since the earth belongs to the living in
usufruct (Thomas Jefferson). It can also justify the existential attitude of reverence
for life, located at the interface between biophilia and biocentrism. Values, virtues,
and moral obligations are often expressed in narratives, nature essays, proverbs,
chants, and consultative citizen juries. There are valid meta-ethical arguments why
not only voices in environmental discourse should be considered that meet Western
standards of logical thinking. Eye-opening modes of linguistic articulation, including “thick” phenomenological descriptions, can change attitudes towards natural
beings, including landscapes, and sensitize one to the many values of nature. After
all, environmental virtues can trigger new maxims such as “leave no trace”.
Eudemonic-cultural values, strong sustainability and the gradual overcoming of
150
K. Ott and K. C. Reinmuth
something other than a collection of mere objects that fall under general laws of
nature. Many thought patterns within contemporary environmental ethics take a
critical attitude towards a “purely scientific” interpretation of nature. In this interpretation, nature is nothing more than (a) the subject of scientific description and
explanation, (b) a warehouse of resources that can serve as an entrance into industrial
production, and (c) a hostile force against human longing for safety, health, and
comfort. Within environmental virtues ethics, it is accepted that certain attitudes to
and perceptions of nature are morally more appropriate than others. A general
attitude of dominance, mastery and control can be rejected for moral reasons, and
certain views of nature neglect morally relevant qualities or are morally subcomplex.
The idea of deep ecology, as conceived by Arne Naess, was to sidestep modern
ontology and replace it with “ecosophies”. Ecosophies are not in direct competition
with science. Ecosophies only assume that nature can show itself in its naturalness in
modes and ways beyond scientific observation, data mining, and causal explanation.
These ecosophies may have one thing in common: nature reveals itself in different
forms in different places for open-minded people. Nature shows up (eventfully) as
“physis”, “creation”, “kosmos”, “dao”, “wild” or “pacha”. ESS can address such
revealing of nature within the category of spiritual values, being a sub-category of
cultural values. ESS must hold contact with religious studies. Here, monetization
clashes with the logic of the sacred. This logic is not just about strict protection of
sacred sites and sacred groves, but goes beyond if entire ways of lives are seen in
perpetual spiritual encounter with ancestors, spirits and deities of land and sea. Seen
from the category of spiritual cultural values, the entire ESS and TEV schemes look
“Western”. The ongoing conceptual debate within IPBES is about Western biases
within ESS and TEV.
Environmental virtue ethics requires an appropriate attitude towards oneself,
others, time, and natural beings. Environmental virtues ethics evaluates arbitrary
characteristics of individual character and bases environmental virtues on moral
arguments. The virtue of sufficiency is based on resistance to the consumerist
excessiveness of human metabolism. Many (biophilic) virtues are based on
eudemonic values. Eudemonic values can have a transformative force, as Bryan
Norton argued (1988). Environmental virtue ethics demands with a future ethical
impact the prudential virtues of restraint and care, foresight and precaution. It also
means being aware of finiteness and mortality, since the earth belongs to the living in
usufruct (Thomas Jefferson). It can also justify the existential attitude of reverence
for life, located at the interface between biophilia and biocentrism. Values, virtues,
and moral obligations are often expressed in narratives, nature essays, proverbs,
chants, and consultative citizen juries. There are valid meta-ethical arguments why
not only voices in environmental discourse should be considered that meet Western
standards of logical thinking. Eye-opening modes of linguistic articulation, including “thick” phenomenological descriptions, can change attitudes towards natural
beings, including landscapes, and sensitize one to the many values of nature. After
all, environmental virtues can trigger new maxims such as “leave no trace”.
Eudemonic-cultural values, strong sustainability and the gradual overcoming of
150
K. Ott and K. C. Reinmuth