Abstract
While biodiversity protection has become a widely accepted goal of environmental protectionists, no such agreement exists regarding why it is important. Two, competing theories of natural value – here called ‘Economism’ and ‘Intrinsic Value Theory’ – are often cited to support the goal. Environmentalists, who have recently proposed the articulation of a universal ‘Earth Charter’ to express the shared values humans derive from nature, have cited both of these theories as support for biodivesity protection. Unfortunately these theories, which are expressed as polar opposites, do not work well together and the question arises: is there a shared value that humans place on nature? It is argued that these two value theories share four questionable assumptions: (1) a sharp distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘instrumental’ value; (2) an entity orientation; (3) moral monism; and (4) placeless evaluation. If these four assumptions are denied, an alternative value system emerges which recognizes a continuum of ways humans value nature, values processes rather than only entities, is pluralistic, and values biodiversity in place. An alternative theory of value, which emphasizes protecting processes rather than protecting objects, and which values nature for the creativity of its processes, is proposed as a more attractive theory for expressing the universal values of nature that should motivate an Earth Charter and the goal of biodiversity protection.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen TFH and Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Anderson EN (1996) Ecologies of the Heart. Oxford University Press, New York
Arrow K, Bolin B, Costanza R, Dasgupta P, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson BO, Levin S, Maler KG, Perrings C and Pimentel D (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268: 520–521
Baxter W (1993) People or Penguins. In: Van DeVeer D and Pierce C (eds) The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, pp 303–307. Wadsworth, Belmont, California
Callicott JB (1989) In Defense of the Land Ethic. State University of New York Press, Albany
Common M and Perrings C (1992) Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecological Economics 6: 7–34
Dewey J (1910) The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. In: The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays in Contemporary Thought. Henry Holt, New York
Earth Charter Drafting Committee. ‘The Earth Charter’. See website http://www.earthcharter.org
Freeman AM (1994) The ethical basis of the economic view of the environment, In: Van DeVeer D and Pierce C (eds) The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, pp 307–315.Wadsworth, Belmont, California
Gadgil M and Berkes F (1991) Traditional resource management systems. Resource Management and Optimization 18: 127–141
Gunderson LH, Holling CS and Light SS (eds) (1995) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York
Holling CS (1977) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, London
Holling CS (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Schulze PC (ed) Engineering within Ecological Constraints, pp 31–44. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Lee K (1993) Compass and Gyroscope. Island Press, Covelo, California
Leopold A (1949) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Norton BG (1987) Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Norton BG (1992) A new paradigm for environmental management. In: Costanza R, Norton B and Haskell B (eds) Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management, pp 23–41. Island Press, Covelo, California
Norton BG (1996) Change, constancy, and creativity: the new ecology and some old problems. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 7: 49–70
Norton BG (1999) Ecology and opportunity. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and Futurity, pp 118–150. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Norton B and Hannon B (1997) Environmental values: a place-based theory. Environmental Ethics 19: 227–245
Norton B and Hannon B (1998) Democracy and sense of place values. In: Light A and Smith J (eds) Philosophy and Geography III: Philosophies of Place, pp 119–146. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland
Norton B, Costanza R and Bishop R (1998) The evolution of preferences: why ‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it? Ecological Economics 24: 193–212
Pimm S (1991) Balance of Nature? The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Pinchot G (1987) (reprint of 1947 edition). Breaking New Ground. Island Press, Covelo, California
Prigogene I and Stengers I (1984) Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam, New York
Regier HA and Kay JJ (1996) An heuristic model of transforamtions of the aquatic ecosystems of the great lakes-St. Lawrence river basin. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 5: 3–21
Rockefeller SC (1996) Global ethics, international law, and the earth charter. Earth Ethics 7: 1–7
Rolston H III (1994) Conserving Natural Value. Columbia University Press, New York
Shiva V (1993) Development, ecology, and women. In: Van Deveer D and Pierce C (eds) The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, pp 281–288. Wadsworth, Belmont, California
Stone C (1988) Earth and Other Ethics. Harper and Row, New York
Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive Management of Natural resources. MacMillan, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norton, B.G. Biodiversity and environmental values: in search of a universal earth ethic. Biodiversity and Conservation 9, 1029–1044 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008966400817
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008966400817