A Deweyan Response to J. Baird Callicott’s Land Aesthetic

Abstract

J. Baird Callicott suggests in Land that the environmental community would be well served to focus on the aesthetic value of natural ecosystems as a source of intrinsic value in nature. But Callicott's own Humean and biological account of aesthetic value is inadequate as a basis for understanding the aesthetic appreciation of nature. This paper argues that John Dewey provides a holistic and transactional account of aesthetic value that is easily tailored to fit the ecocentric requirements of a rich environmental aesthetics.1. IntroductionJ. Baird Callicott's work, In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, and his subsequent philosophical essays on ethical obligations to the environment have had a significant impact on philosophers and their approaches to the environment. His work has turned philosophers' attention to Aldo Leopold's seminal work, The Sand County Almanac. He has made a compelling case for attributing intrinsic value to ecosystems. Finally, along with Holmes Rolston III, Callicott has been a central figure in developing an ecocentric philosophical approach to the environment. His writings have become essential readings within ecocentrism.Despite this, critics of Callicott's approach have raised significant concerns about his land ethic. This paper will outline Callicott's holistic and Humean approach to environmental ethics and discuss criticisms of this approach raised by Rolston and Hugh McDonald. Because, for Callicott, the land ethic is critically and explicitly associated with aesthetics, this paper then turns to analyze Callicott's analysis of beauty as discussed in his article, Land Aesthetic,1 arguing that Callicott's analysis falls victim to similar criticisms raised of his land ethic. These criticisms have the most force when addressing Callicott's discussion of intrinsic value and in particular the criteria of beauty, stability and integrity taken from Leopold's work. Finally, this paper presents and develops a reading of the aesthetics of John Dewey that complements and frames Callicott's land aesthetic. Dewey's approach, like Callicott's, is holistic and non-dualistic, but he avoids the dangers of homocentrism in aesthetic experience. Dewey emphasizes that experience is not a subjective term. As such, a Deweyan approach can preserve an ecocentric account of the aesthetic value of land without making aesthetic experience derivative of ecological or evolutionary knowledge.Dewey shares with Callicott an appreciation of the close relationship between ethical and aesthetic values. He comments favorably on Greek philosophers' appreciation of this relationship, writing, Greek emphasis upon Kalokagathos, the Aristotelian identification of virtue with the proportionate mean, are indications of an acute estimate of grace, rhythm and harmony as dominant traits of good conduct. Callicott also connects aesthetic value and ethical value. In the introduction to Land Aesthetic, Callicott argues that private landowners may prefer a land aesthetic to a land ethic because it emphasizes assets and rewards. Yet is also fosters conservation. He argues that ethical values, which he characterizes as a set of duties and obligations to an environment, are not appealing because they primarily emphasize prohibitions. Aesthetic values, values of harmony, diversity and beauty are more compelling and rewarding to landowners. But these aesthetic values also solicit ethically appropriate conservation of ecosystems.2. Callicott's Land EthicBecause of these close connections between aesthetic and ethical value, and because Callicott's (and Leopold's) land aesthetic is, at least in part, a means to achieving ethically appropriate conservation of ecosystems, a brief outline of Callicott's land ethic is necessary before focusing on his land aesthetic. Callicott has made a strong case that an environmental ethics must be based upon the intrinsic value of environments. …