Hi, my name is Dani, I use they/them pronouns and I am on the Environmental Ethics course. Today, we backpacked out of the Bob Marshall Wilderness after spending 7 nights and 8 days there. While in the Bob, we spent a large portion of our time hiking, completing around 32 miles. One thing our hiking brought us to was many incredible views. There was one in particular where we were coming down from our highest elevation, 7600 ft, and we rounded a peak approaching a valley. As we rounded the peak, gorgeous mountains came into view down the valley. It was one of the most scenic views that I have ever had. We could see peaks stretching as far north as Glacier National Park. To cap it off, we were standing in a beautiful alpine meadow with a patch of snow behind us.
On our ascent prior to the meadow, we also had amazing mountain views behind us. Those mountains formed a bowl shape with sharp ridges surrounding our previous night’s camp. I don’t think that I really appreciated how steep the ridges were until we tried to climb one. The day before, while on a rest day, we tried to climb up to the ridge but were forced to turn around because it was too rocky and steep. Those two days provided some of the most stunning views on the trip.
The views are one of the things that I appreciate most about nature. It makes me think about the main goal of many early environmental philosophers we learned about–to show the intrinsic value of nature. This refers to the inherent good of something without valuing it for its uses, which is referred to as instrumental value. Environmental philosophers have articulated the intrinsic value of nature in many different ways, including Holmes Rolston’s telos and Arne Naess’s Biospheric Egalitarianism. Rolston’s telos claims that non-human life has value from its ingrained end goal or purpose. He argues that life should be allowed to complete its goal. He then posits that because life has value, it should be considered ethically important. Naess, on the other hand, argues for Biospheric Egalitarianism. He describes this as extending “a kind of understanding that others reserve for fellow man.” This means that non-human life holds value in the same way that human life holds value. Therefore, we should respect human and non-human’s right to live and blossom. Regardless of how they reach it, most environmental philosophers end up agreeing that nature, including the views we saw, have intrinsic value. This leads them to argue for the protection of nature and the preservation of non-human life.
For me, it feels very right to value and protect nature. However, I think being able to articulate why and how nature holds intrinsic value has added an important layer to my appreciation of the views that we saw. Additionally, it allows me to articulate why I feel like nature should be protected beyond it feeling “emotionally correct”. My experience on the Environmental Ethics course has added a philosophical aspect to my appreciation of nature. I am really grateful that I was able to have this experience, both in the outdoors and in my education.
