being human in a natural world. On reflection, however, one may cast doubts on the
idea that mere existence as such can be of value. If a person wishes to ground an
attribution of existence value to a natural entity, such grounding must go beyond the
statement “X exists”. Why would I miss X? Grounding existence value must refer to
cultural heritage, beauty, transformative value, widening identification etc. If so
“existence value” functions as a turn-table (“Drehscheibe”): It is an outer frontier
to economics but also an entrance doorway to environmental ethics.
The same applies to the category of option value, which falls within the pattern of
future ethics. The options should not only refer to future resources, but also include
future options for people who want to liberate their biophilic dispositions and live as
naturalists. Nature can be “optional” in many respects, as in eudemonic options. A
logical analysis of modes of dispositions in nature is still missing. Such analysis
might be a common focal research point for logicians and environmental
philosophers.
One can ask TEV and ESS how the abstraction of the inherent moral value within
ESS and TEV can be overcome. Might the category of existence value include a
gradually overcoming anthropocentrism or is the existence value entirely determined
by a preference-based mode of thinking? We see existence value as categorically
different from inherent moral value with no conceptual linkage in between. The
demarcation problem is not substitutable by existence value, spiritual encounter,
strong reliance, and intense beauty. Grounding the demarcation problem quests for
morally relevant properties of non-human beings, such as sentience and faculties to
communicate. If such faculties come in degrees, gradual sentientism may count as
proper solution to the demarcation problem, opening a contested casuistry.
ESS and TEV make the values of nature visible, but they do so for different eyes.
The quantification and monetarisation of instrumental values not only highlights the
ecological value of nature, but also provides information for market-oriented companies. Economic visibility is dialectical in itself. Economically, it cannot be denied
that natural sink capacities (atmosphere, ocean) have become scarce. The increasing
scarcity of ecosystem services is considered a loss. In many regions, fertile land and
freshwater resources have become critically scarce. ESS and TEV can make people
aware that nature has become scarce in many respects. If values change, the demand
for nature can increase. If so, holders of natural assets profit. In order to achieve a
new balance between supply and demand, enormous investments in nature capitals
could be necessary. Ecologically, such investments should be designed in terms of
ecological restoration.
Recognition of the scarcity of nature also provokes clever strategies in the real
economy, including investment brokers, portfolio designers, developers and business consortia, to acquire scarce natural resources through property rights (“assets”)
and mobilize the return on investments and payments accordingly. Recognition of
the scarcity of nature can draw attention either to issues of conservation, restoration
and distributive justice (however specified) or to rational, interest-based private
strategies to acquire scarce natural resources (land, water rights, concessions,
quotas). The business perspective implicitly recognizes the collective scarcity of
valuable nature but wants to use ESS privately.
152
K. Ott and K. C. Reinmuth
idea that mere existence as such can be of value. If a person wishes to ground an
attribution of existence value to a natural entity, such grounding must go beyond the
statement “X exists”. Why would I miss X? Grounding existence value must refer to
cultural heritage, beauty, transformative value, widening identification etc. If so
“existence value” functions as a turn-table (“Drehscheibe”): It is an outer frontier
to economics but also an entrance doorway to environmental ethics.
The same applies to the category of option value, which falls within the pattern of
future ethics. The options should not only refer to future resources, but also include
future options for people who want to liberate their biophilic dispositions and live as
naturalists. Nature can be “optional” in many respects, as in eudemonic options. A
logical analysis of modes of dispositions in nature is still missing. Such analysis
might be a common focal research point for logicians and environmental
philosophers.
One can ask TEV and ESS how the abstraction of the inherent moral value within
ESS and TEV can be overcome. Might the category of existence value include a
gradually overcoming anthropocentrism or is the existence value entirely determined
by a preference-based mode of thinking? We see existence value as categorically
different from inherent moral value with no conceptual linkage in between. The
demarcation problem is not substitutable by existence value, spiritual encounter,
strong reliance, and intense beauty. Grounding the demarcation problem quests for
morally relevant properties of non-human beings, such as sentience and faculties to
communicate. If such faculties come in degrees, gradual sentientism may count as
proper solution to the demarcation problem, opening a contested casuistry.
ESS and TEV make the values of nature visible, but they do so for different eyes.
The quantification and monetarisation of instrumental values not only highlights the
ecological value of nature, but also provides information for market-oriented companies. Economic visibility is dialectical in itself. Economically, it cannot be denied
that natural sink capacities (atmosphere, ocean) have become scarce. The increasing
scarcity of ecosystem services is considered a loss. In many regions, fertile land and
freshwater resources have become critically scarce. ESS and TEV can make people
aware that nature has become scarce in many respects. If values change, the demand
for nature can increase. If so, holders of natural assets profit. In order to achieve a
new balance between supply and demand, enormous investments in nature capitals
could be necessary. Ecologically, such investments should be designed in terms of
ecological restoration.
Recognition of the scarcity of nature also provokes clever strategies in the real
economy, including investment brokers, portfolio designers, developers and business consortia, to acquire scarce natural resources through property rights (“assets”)
and mobilize the return on investments and payments accordingly. Recognition of
the scarcity of nature can draw attention either to issues of conservation, restoration
and distributive justice (however specified) or to rational, interest-based private
strategies to acquire scarce natural resources (land, water rights, concessions,
quotas). The business perspective implicitly recognizes the collective scarcity of
valuable nature but wants to use ESS privately.
152
K. Ott and K. C. Reinmuth