Aesthetics, Judgement and Deep Ecology (DE – part 2)

The idea that there is an intuition in humans to defend the integrity and beauty of nature is not a new thought. It was supposedly demonstrated in ‘The Last Man’ thought experiment which was conceived of in the early 1970s by Richard and Val Routley (Routley 1973), it is referred to at length by Aldo Leopold which has become commonly known as ‘green fire’ (Leopold 1949). But it is something that in modern human society it is often underdeveloped or pushed aside in favour of more ‘important’ demands which leads us to sometimes behave in ways which simply do not take the needs of the natural environment into account. The cultivation of this intuition is touched on throughout the work of Holmes Rolston III (2002), and Allen Carlson (2010) and is directly attributed the cultivation of virtuous character through poetry and art, as identified by David Carr (2004) as well as Lynch & Norris (2016). Each of these authors approach the same intuition in different ways, with Rolston and Carlson approaching it from a perspective of aesthetic appreciation – their idea is essentially that through greater scientific understanding we will come to regard nature with a high degree of moral considerability. Meanwhile Carr and Lynch & Norris seem to have adopted an approach relating to direct educability through an aesthetic education which cultivates the kinds of attitudes and perspectives needed to perceive nature in an appropriate way.

Each approach has something to offer here as we consider this intuition, because it does seem to be the case that increased understanding of the science of ecology for instance, leads to a greater likelihood that someone who appreciates it aesthetically will appropriately categorise what they are experiencing and formulate and understanding from a more appropriate and positive aesthetic lens. One objection to this point is that there is no reason except outside of personal interest and taste that one should find nature beautiful unless one ties this intuition in with the cultivation of character. For Carr (2004), this is not an issue since he makes no claim to the beauty of nature directly only that one should cultivate certain character traits and behaviours towards the natural world which lead one to an appropriate degree of care and respect. This approach is very interesting because it does not require that our judgements of nature be realist or matter of fact as Carlson (2010) and Rolston (2002) imply. This is not to say that aesthetic judgements are or should be regarded as entirely subjective either, only that aesthetic judgement are interpreted through personal experience and perspective. Meaning that we interpret our aesthetic judgements through our individual experiences, sensibilities and perspectives which can lead to varying opinions on the merits of a given object or scene. As such our judgements are subject involving but not necessarily subjective in the sense that anything will do. This is because not mean all judgements are equal some judgements can accurately be said to more accurately represent the reality of the object in question.

Nevertheless, aesthetic engagement is a contentious and often disregarded phenomenon of the human experience, it is often said to represent a highly subjective account of reality which is not representative of what is there as a matter of fact. However, this idea is only true however if one supposes that the basis of aesthetic judgements is not found in real world properties (ie – is that tree tall or short? Is it fat or thin?) – these judgements are not factual, they are relative, but relative judgements reflect the reality we exist in. It is also claimed that because there is a subjective element to aesthetics that all aesthetic judgements are questionable and therefore one cannot dismiss the person who likes shopping malls and mega highways any more than the person who once appreciated the forests which were levelled to make way for these monstrosities. This claim rests on two assumptions, 1) that all human experience is itself subjective because it necessarily involves subjective interpretation, and 2) that because of the highly subjective nature of aesthetic experiences, aesthetic judgements are trivial and unimportant compared to the needs of the modern economy.

The view expressed in point one presupposes that the experience of reality is itself highly subjective – our experience certainly involves an interpretation based on our knowledge and understanding – but this kind of subjective interpretation supervenes onto real world experiences and do represent an interpretation of reality. It is no surprise then that we find a significant degree of consistency in aesthetic judgements even if personal tastes and preferences may vary. Sane people interpret the physical properties of the world around them based on prior experience and understanding of the category our mind supervenes onto the object (i.e. – we each have an understand of what a tree is – but we may vary on what constitutes a tall tree – we make descriptive aesthetic judgements on this basis, is it large or small, wide or narrow) – from then we evaluate its aesthetic merits which depend much more on personal taste (i.e. is the tree beautiful or ugly?). Such judgements interpret reality through our own sensibilities, but there is truth to be found in them – where judgements differ in aesthetics, is in the focus or our attention, familiarity and understanding of the experience – a Hume (1757:1874) said, there is one beauty, but we each bring our own sensibilities, bias and understanding to the experience. As far as triviality goes, this at least partially depends of the justification of the subjectivity of aesthetic experiences, it supposes that the way we perceive reality and the meaning we assign to it.

It is typical for those that maintain a perspective of reverence towards nature, to also point to characteristics, properties and features as justification for their views, much the same as with aesthetic judgements in general. It would be a mistake to regard aesthetics as trivial since it is one of the key factors in shaping our worldview and psychological well-being as we navigate through reality. It is for this reason that a Deep Ecology that seeks to ‘remediate’ the cultural worldview, should not disregard aesthetics, since it provides a powerful motivating force behind environmental protection and conservation.

Carlson, Allen (2010) “Contemporary Environmental Aesthetics and the Requirements of Environmentalism”

Carr, David (2004) “Moral Values and the Arts in Environmental Education: Towards an Ethics of Aesthetic Appreciation”

Hume, David (1757:1874) “Of the Standard of Taste”

Leopold, Aldo (1949:1987) “The Land Ethic”

Lynch, Tony & Norris, Stephen (2016) “On the Enduring Importance of Deep Ecology”

Rolston, Holmes III (2002) “From Beauty to Duty: Aesthetics of Nature and Environmental Ethics”

Routley, Richard (1973) “Is There a Need for a New, An Environmental Ethic?”