Two (and a half) arguments for conserving biodiversity on aesthetic grounds

Abstract

Defending Biodiversity exposes various weaknesses in recent scientific and ethical defenses of species and ecosystem conservation in the hope that those arguments can be improved upon. Jennifer Welchman’s critical review of our book embraces this challenge, focusing specifically on our discussion of aesthetic value. We argue that the best available defense of conservation on aesthetic grounds involves an analogy to great works of art. Welchman is sensitive to certain limitations in this approach. She is more sympathetic with the scientific cognitivist position that every species possesses aesthetic value in virtue of having a unique scientific description. Normatively, she appeals to the welfare of future generations, and the role that aesthetic experiences could play in human flourishing, to defend the conservation of biodiversity. In this essay I expose some ontological and practical problems with scientific cognitivism. Moreover, the appeal to future flourishing cannot justify biodiversity conservation because people’s aesthetic appetites are more efficiently supplied by human artistic traditions (music, film, photography, and the like.) The argument from analogy to artwork thus stands as the best available justification for conserving at least some species and perhaps certain ecosystems on aesthetic grounds alone.