Rolston and Hayes on Environmental Virtue Ethics: Intrinsic Natural Value, Moral Motivation, and Human-Nature Relationships

Robin Attfield

doi:10.21697/seb.5907

Published: 2026-09-14

Rolston and Hayes on Environmental Virtue Ethics: Intrinsic Natural Value, Moral Motivation, and Human-Nature Relationships

Robin Attfield

Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5907

Abstract

Environmental virtue ethics represents one of the major approaches within contemporary environmental philosophy, addressing the moral foundations of human relationships with the natural world. Charles Hayes recently presented a defence of environmental virtue ethics in response to criticisms of this stance from Holmes Rolston III. After an outline of Rolston’s criticisms, Hayes’ argument is depicted, including certain frameworks about motivation which he shows to be deficient, and which he also attributes to Rolston. I proceed to question Hayes’ implicit assumption that to act rightly is to do what the virtuous person would do, to contest his attribution of these deficient frameworks about motivation to Rolston, and to endorse Rolston’s account of what makes right actions right and meaningful lives meaningful. I also question the view that either virtuous lives or environment-oriented lives are self-justifying, since the actions performed by those who live such lives can (and often do) fail to be morally right.

Keywords:

environmental virtue ethics, environmental ethics, intrinsic natural value, human-nature relationships, moral rightness, motivating reasons, justifying reasons, anthropocentrism, Holmes Rolston III, Charles Hayes

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Attfield, R. (2026). Rolston and Hayes on Environmental Virtue Ethics: Intrinsic Natural Value, Moral Motivation, and Human-Nature Relationships. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae. https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5907

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Aristotle. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by Roger Crisp. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802058.
Google Scholar

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1953. Letters and Papers from Prison. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller. SCM Press.
Google Scholar

Broad, Charlie Dunbar. 1930. Five Types of Ethical Theory. Harcourt, Brace.
Google Scholar

Crisp, Roger. 2019. Sacrifice Regained: Morality and Self-Interest in British Moral Philosophy from Hobbes to Bentham. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Hayes, Charles. 2025. “Rewilding Anthropocentrism.” Environmental Ethics 47 (1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202513192.
Google Scholar

James, Simon P. 2006. “Human Virtues and Natural Values.” Environmental Ethics 28 (4): 339–353. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20062842.
Google Scholar

Jamieson, Dale. 2007. “When Utilitarians Should Be Virtue Theorists.” Utilitas 19 (2): 160–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820807002452.
Google Scholar

Jepson, Paul, and Cain Blythe. 2020. Rewilding: The Radical New Science of Ecological Recovery. Icon Books.
Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. 2005 [1785]. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Thomas K. Abbott. Edited by Lara Denis. Broadview Press.
Google Scholar

Rolston, Holmes III. 1994. Conserving Natural Value. Columbia University Press.
Google Scholar

Rolston, Holmes III. 1999. Genes, Genesis, and God: Values and Their Origins in Natural and Human History. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Rolston, Holmes III. 2005. “Environmental Virtue Ethics: Half the Truth but Dangerous as a Whole.” In Environmental Virtue Ethics, edited by Ronald D. Sandler and Philip Cafaro, 61–79. Rowman & Littlefield.
Google Scholar

Rolston, Holmes III. 2006. Science and Religion: A Critical Survey. Templeton Press.
Google Scholar

Rolston, Holmes III. 2012. A New Environmental Ethics: The Next Millennium for Life on Earth. Routledge.
Google Scholar