ethics deals with values and commitments within human-nature relationships from
such reflexive ethical perspectives. Environmental ethics seeks to ground and justify
such goodness or rightness.
People usually identify environmental problems and challenges, such as the threat
to ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity, through complex evaluations. In evaluations, values and rules often blend into each other. Environmental ethics provides
standards for such evaluations. In order to solve environmental problems, activities
have to be coordinated and guided by general or specific rules, as in legal governance
schemes. Such rules can and should also be evaluated according to legitimacy,
feasibility, and effectiveness. Therefore, a consistent framework for the evaluation
of normative solutions to environmental problems, and ethical approaches to the
valuation of natural, semi-natural and artificial entities, are needed.
Rules (laws, standards, regulations etc.) are important means to overcome certain
ecological challenges. The use of rules can be justified by showing their quality. In
the evaluation of adequate rules, specific hurdles arise which can be identified if the
components of the presupposed evaluations are made explicit. The goal is to develop
a framework for the evaluation of rules or rule systems and to present the
corresponding evaluation components. Such considerations play an important role,
as the explicitness of the evaluation components already helps to identify and locate
possible points of agreement or disagreement. Furthermore, according to general
ethical theories, evaluation criteria can be specified. Different criteria can be
designed for the same issue, depending on the moral theory used.
Examples of evaluations of concrete normative solutions illustrate the high
cognitive effort of a systematic and transparent moral evaluation. The evaluation
of regulatory frameworks also involves considerable effort. It is possible to use a
moral theory to design a scale that provides plausible evaluation criteria. However, it
is sometimes not clear what further background considerations can be assumed. In
order to obtain plausible and balanced evaluation statements, the results of social,
natural and legal research might be taken into account when determining the degree
of fulfilment of the criteria. Successful assessments of normative solutions to
environmental problems are an inter-disciplinary undertaking. The hurdles that
arise when answering questions about the criteria, or checking their fulfilment, are
enormous. Policy-making is primarily a choice of rules within rules. Thus, we have
to look for rules that guide our evaluations, arguments and the use of evidence. The
measure should follow the goal. However, quite often in politics the goal is adapted
to the measure. When we talk about evidence in the context of policy-making, we
need to achieve a better understanding of rules and rule uses—for example, to
predict the possible side effects of certain policies. And—because the use of
evidence is embedded in the use of evaluation and argumentation—we need to
consider the theoretical background. Therefore, we should argue about the criteria
we want to use for evaluating policies. However, it is difficult to involve all those
concerned in corresponding discourses on the evaluation of rules. Without a clear
goal and robust discussion, it is impossible to find out which rules should be changed
and which alternative means could or should be used.
Land Use Change and the Future of Biodiversity
463
such reflexive ethical perspectives. Environmental ethics seeks to ground and justify
such goodness or rightness.
People usually identify environmental problems and challenges, such as the threat
to ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity, through complex evaluations. In evaluations, values and rules often blend into each other. Environmental ethics provides
standards for such evaluations. In order to solve environmental problems, activities
have to be coordinated and guided by general or specific rules, as in legal governance
schemes. Such rules can and should also be evaluated according to legitimacy,
feasibility, and effectiveness. Therefore, a consistent framework for the evaluation
of normative solutions to environmental problems, and ethical approaches to the
valuation of natural, semi-natural and artificial entities, are needed.
Rules (laws, standards, regulations etc.) are important means to overcome certain
ecological challenges. The use of rules can be justified by showing their quality. In
the evaluation of adequate rules, specific hurdles arise which can be identified if the
components of the presupposed evaluations are made explicit. The goal is to develop
a framework for the evaluation of rules or rule systems and to present the
corresponding evaluation components. Such considerations play an important role,
as the explicitness of the evaluation components already helps to identify and locate
possible points of agreement or disagreement. Furthermore, according to general
ethical theories, evaluation criteria can be specified. Different criteria can be
designed for the same issue, depending on the moral theory used.
Examples of evaluations of concrete normative solutions illustrate the high
cognitive effort of a systematic and transparent moral evaluation. The evaluation
of regulatory frameworks also involves considerable effort. It is possible to use a
moral theory to design a scale that provides plausible evaluation criteria. However, it
is sometimes not clear what further background considerations can be assumed. In
order to obtain plausible and balanced evaluation statements, the results of social,
natural and legal research might be taken into account when determining the degree
of fulfilment of the criteria. Successful assessments of normative solutions to
environmental problems are an inter-disciplinary undertaking. The hurdles that
arise when answering questions about the criteria, or checking their fulfilment, are
enormous. Policy-making is primarily a choice of rules within rules. Thus, we have
to look for rules that guide our evaluations, arguments and the use of evidence. The
measure should follow the goal. However, quite often in politics the goal is adapted
to the measure. When we talk about evidence in the context of policy-making, we
need to achieve a better understanding of rules and rule uses—for example, to
predict the possible side effects of certain policies. And—because the use of
evidence is embedded in the use of evaluation and argumentation—we need to
consider the theoretical background. Therefore, we should argue about the criteria
we want to use for evaluating policies. However, it is difficult to involve all those
concerned in corresponding discourses on the evaluation of rules. Without a clear
goal and robust discussion, it is impossible to find out which rules should be changed
and which alternative means could or should be used.
Land Use Change and the Future of Biodiversity
463