Holland and O'Neill, 3 walks - Narrative account of value 1) National Trust, Langdale, shaped mound, site of sig–should restore? 2) National Trust, Arnside Knott, local use -> butterflies, grazing reduced, butterflies reducing. Trust recently fenced off land & cut down natural trees to reintroduced grazing = hopefully increased butterflies 3) “A scar/eyesore”, workmans’ huts were still in place from the quarry - leave? Issue: how best to continue the narrative? Continue previous trajectory Q- How is this defined? Conservation = preserving future as a realization of past(potential) How to adjudicate conflicting trajectories? A (H&O): this is problem revealed by, not problem for narrative New World idea: given chance, do what we can to restore site to “natural state” Associated w/ wilderness view – authors still think Old World view works better Q: To which state? Q: Were human-caused changes bad? A: settle for what a site might be like, not would be. May ignore IP’s, etc that have been assimilated within the natural world. EH vs “minimal human influence” EH applied to human & nonhuman systems ← ? Reposaari walk) Postglacial uplift -> +Finland (over last 1k years) Ballast species -> ecosystem / “introduced?” Does the New World approach function well here? A(me): why would we desire to restore anyway? Wrt Tragedy: can only expressed adequately within the context of a history of nature Other, non-Narrative accounts: Metaphor, analogy, imagery Nature as Kripke’s rigid designator Natural is a spatiotemporal, not descriptive concept McShane - Challenges to narrative accounts of value def narrative = story N don’t separate descriptive:normative elements. Instead -> blend them N indirect communication of value judgements (example feeling created) Our stories tell us who we are And who others are through N N helps to avoid utilitarian/quant absurdities N offers a good description of how people understand and value environmental goods. Challenges for N wrt evaluating standard Conflicting N mediation, cont’d: N need evaluative standard to separate valuable from merely valued O’Neill & Holland: this problem doesn’t need solving Seduction of N Criticizes US History narrative from external view point Inherently selective, therefore exclusionary Lacks social context (soc) -> Generally ineffective, due to lack thereof N can misrepresent moral values Conclusions of McShane: - Difficult to both claim narratives -> value & evaluation(narrative) includes value Ultimately A) self vindicating or b) justified by appeal to non narrative source of value 1) not to have an evaluative standard (2) accept evaluative standard that only criticizes N for factual representations (3) to accept that we can’t argue for the appropriateness of the values in our evaluative standard—that is to say, to accept that they must be in some sense self-vindicating (4) to claim: (Only viable choice, per McShane) that not all values are given by their role in our narratives, that the evaluative standard in particular can be judged to be acceptable by appealing to values outside of our narratives. Possible options for evaluative standards: Truth-related standards (e.g. fit with facts ,etc) Aesthetic standards (coherence, compellingness, etc) see psychoanalysis Getting the values right -Usually, getting the values right involved appealing to mostly non-narrative - but can include narrative accounts of value Takeaways from lecture through this point Acknowledge certain narrative env values, which supplement non-narative values (biodiversity, etc) View narrative considerations as adding value to the env entities that are alread valuable for othe reasons This parallelling one way of construing elliot’s view o anturalness. Narrative as relevant to conception sof human well being that bear on env questions O’Neil & Scoville 2015) Narraite: can offer culturally sensative ways in which people can meet their needs. Narrative considerations as playing a role in adjudicating or reaching practical conclusions about env mataters E.g. ballast ecosystem in eposaari case Bernard Williams, "Must a Concern for the Environment Be Centred on Human Beings?." Answers of value are human answers Can human values represent nonhuman? Discusses conflicting values of x to different human groups Assume non animal things have interests, but not experiences E.g. a sick tree has an interest in becoming well Individual member of a species has interests Species is standard unit of conservation/ no interest Def Natural: Self-conscious concern for preserving nature != nature is Expression of a local culture Disappearance of species = natural Many of the things we want to preserve under an environmental interest are cultural products (e,g landscapes, parks) Kinds of creatures have natures And our is a predatory kind Paradox: rejection of humans as discontinuous from nature in virtue of reason; humans still have moral transcendence over nature -> uniquely able and obligated to detach ourselves. Not all env concerns are grounded in promethean fear Good warning device some grounded in need beauty No simple way to quantify virtues Paradox: “We have to use our power to preserve a sense of what is not in our power. Anything we leave untouched we have already touched.” The final expression of the inescapable truth that our refusal of the anthropocentric must itself be a human refusal