Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: The idea that (non-human) nature has value, independently of its utility or harmfulness to humans, and is therefore deserving of respect and care, is a key tenet of environmental ethics and conservation biology. This idea, known as the ‘intrinsic’ (or ‘inherent’) value of nature, is also a cornerstone of contemporary wildlife law and policy at international and national levels. Several questions regarding this foundational concept have not yet received definite answers. The deepest one concerns the source of intrinsic value, in brief, the question as to ‘who says’ that nature has such value. That is the central question addressed in this article. The article understands the intrinsic value of nature to mean the value that nature has independently of its value to, or any valuing done by, humans, and which entails for humans a moral duty to respect and to care for nature. After concisely outlining several reasons why the alleged existence of nature’s intrinsic value matters, the article delves into the question of its source. Inevitably, the existence of nature’s objective value hinges on the existence of objective values as such. In particular, it supposes a source of value that is transcendent of humans. Thus, the extent to which a satisfactory foundation for nature’s intrinsic value can be identified ultimately appears to be a matter of worldview, or cosmovision. Worldviews denying a transcendent source of value seem incapable of offering a coherent foundation for nature’s intrinsic value, and vice versa. The article explores and illustrates this issue with reference to a variety of cosmovisions, with particular attention to Judeo-Christian and pan(en)theistic paradigms.
Author: Arie Trouwborst
Institutions: Tilburg University, North-West University
Language: English
Subfield: Nature and Landscape Conservation
Field: Environmental Science
Domain: Physical Sciences
SDG: Life on land
Open Access status: hybrid
Funder: North-West University
OpenAlex ID: W7138854866