Valuing Humans and Valuing Places: “Integrity” and the Preferred Terminology for Geoethics

Abstract

What follows will support the centrality of appeals to the integrity of places as a plausible way of extending the concept of integrity in the light of our actual practices of valuing. The emphasis will, however, be upon practices of valuing rather than upon metaphysical claims about "inherent value". The latter are not dismissed, they are merely set aside. The guiding thought is that our ethical theory should not depart too greatly from our understanding of how and what humans actually do hold to be of value in any particular culturally-shaped context. Following an introduction to the concept of integrity (Section 1), the discussion will open with an attempt to show that we do sometimes value places non-instrumentally (Section 2), even though we tend to look elsewhere to justify our respect for, and valuing of, places (Section 3). It will then proceed through a defence of appeals to such valuing as ethically significant (Section 4), before moving on to a provisional account of integrity as an effective way of making sense of what it is that we value when we value places in their own right (Section 5). Unlike Rolston, who is strongly associated with the concept of integrity, the intention is not to go metaphysically deep and identify something akin to the moral properties of things. Rather, the concern will be with the kinds of considerations that agents would typically point to as a reason for valuing places without any deeper set of claims about inherent value. This provides a less troubling, more metaphysically "neutral", way of addressing matters. The paper is intended for an audience working on Geoethics; however, the norms of argument will be those associated more narrowly with philosophical ethics.

Social work in space: Expanding policy and practice into the cosmos

“…Central to this point is the distinction between instrumental value, or the value of something for its human utility (which is especially anthropocentric), and intrinsic value, or inherent value merely because a thing exists. As Milligan (2018) suggests regarding the value of places (e.g., rock formations, volcanoes, asteroids), a non‐anthropocentric vocabulary that directs attention to the places themselves rather than to humans is required (i.e., a place is valuable not just because or only if humans value it). Further, the deontological and neutral concept integrity establishes the duty to respect places and is thus an appropriate and pragmatic option that avoids the criticism of the rights of places.…”

“…Further, the deontological and neutral concept integrity establishes the duty to respect places and is thus an appropriate and pragmatic option that avoids the criticism of the rights of places. Rather than prohibiting human activities, the concept may influence them so that future regret, like that of the negative impacts of egregious mining on Earth's environments (Kvam & Willett, 2019; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d.), is averted (Milligan, 2018).…”

Concentrated lunar resources: imminent implications for governance and justice

“…We take it that stability is a desirable feature of any account of governance in space, perhaps even a necessary feature. Stability need not be ‘forever’ but should be ‘for long enough’ to limit the risks of the most damaging outcomes [87]. Such damaging outcomes may be thought of in terms of lunar development and lunar protection, both of which could go well or badly.…”

Basic Methodology for Space Ethics

“…Public justifications and real motivations may never fully align, we are too dissonant for that, but they should not be forced apart in ways that make them radically distinct and lead to concealment. Our ethical theory for space should not force us into what has been called 'moral schizophrenia' where the real motivations are hidden [22]. The policy-apt/precursordiscussion apt distinction may be understood as geared toward this consideration, with the latter retaining ample opportunities to set out what it is that really motivates our concern.…”