Environmental philosophyThe second theme in Naess’s work, underpinning the first claim that
nature has intrinsic value, is a metaphysical argument about how the closer
identification of the human self with nature could provide a rationale for
nurturing a higher ecological consciousness. Naess rejects the Enlighten-
ment view that humans are separate from nature and that Man is controller
of nature; instead, he adopts a position that is rather similar to the ancient
Greek view of Man as part of nature (Nussbaum 1986 ). Naess favours ‘the
relational, total-field image’(1989: 28), which regards the ‘relational self’ as
having a wider understanding of identity based on the perceived continu-
ity between self and nature. He argues that by seeing ourselves as part of
nature and by identifying more closely with it, to the extent that the other
(nature) becomes part of our self, a self-realisation emerges upon which
wecan develop obligations to non-human nature. Thus the second theme
emphasises the importance of developing an ‘ecological consciousness’; by
changing the way we perceive and think about nature we can overcome the
ecological crisis.
Although both themes were of central importance in early ecocentric writ-
ing in the 1970s and 1980s, subsequently the focus has shifted from the
quest for an ethical code of conduct towards the second, ‘state of being’
approach. This shift represents an implicit acknowledgement that the pur-
suit of intrinsic value theory may be misplaced (Dobson 2000 : 46).
Efforts to construct a holistic theory of value have encountered three
notable obstacles. First, many writers express their unease about the explic-
itly intuitive basis upon which Naess accords intrinsic value right across
the ecosphere, to include mountains, rivers and cultures. Other holis-
tic theorists have sought to construct a more robust case based on sci-
entific arguments (Callicott 1986 ;Rolston 1991 ).^4 Callicott, for example,
draws on Hume and Darwin to elaborate a ‘bio-empathetic’ theory based
on the claim that moral sentiments are a product of the evolutionary
process. A holistic interpretation of sociobiology and quantum physics
holds that there is no significant distinction between the individual self
and the environment. If humans could identify more closely with other
organisms in the biosphere, they would recognise that they have com-
mon interests with non-humans and might then develop moral sentiments
towardsthem. The continuity of self and nature means that, if the indi-
vidual self is intrinsically valuable, then nature must also be intrinsically
valuable.
However, these less intuitive holistic arguments tend to draw rather selec-
tive – and contestable – lessons from modern scientific discoveries. For exam-
ple, contrary to the claims of the holists, the science of ecology does not
deny the existence of differences between the self and nature. Its study of
individual organisms ‘entails no radically holistic ontology’ in which ‘I and
nature are one’ (O’Neill 1993 :150). Brennan ( 1988 )offersthemore fundamen-
tal objection that ecosystems do not operate according to the principles of
holism and interdependence.