This paper explores the notion of ‘relational values’ from a phenomenological point of view. In the first place, it stresses that in order to make full sense of relational values, we need to approach them through a relational ontology that surpasses dualistic descriptions of the world structured around the subject and the object. With this aim, the paper turns to ecophenomenology's attempt to apprehend values from a first-person perspective embedded in the lifeworld, where our entanglement with other beings is not a theoretical construction but a palpable reality. Overall, the article's main purpose is to show that, in our direct and raw experience, values do not appear as subjective judgments or as objective properties but as events in which we participate alongside other human and non-human beings.
AbramD.1996. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World. New York: Vintage Books.
2.
AllenK.E., QuinnC.E., EnglishC. and QuinnJ.E.. 2018. ‘Relational values in agro-ecosystem governance’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability35: 108–115. Crossref.
3.
Arias-ArévaloP., Martín-LópezB. and Gómez-BaggethunE.. 2017. ‘Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems’. Ecology and Society22(4). Crossref.
4.
BannonB.E.2013. ‘From intrinsic value to compassion: a place-based ethic’. Environmental Ethics35(3): 259–278. Crossref.
5.
BannonB.E.2016. ‘Nature, meaning and value’. In BannonB.E., (ed.) Nature and Experience: Phenomenology and the Environment, pp. 53–68. New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
6.
BrownC.S. and ToadvineT. (eds). 2003. Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
CallicottJ. B.1999. Beyond the Land Ethic. More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
10.
ChanK., BalvaneraP., BenessaiahK., ChapmanM., . 2016. ‘Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113: 1462–1465. Crossref.
11.
DeLayS.2018. Phenomenology in France: a Philosophical and Theological Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
DíazS., DemissewS., CarabiasJ., JolyC., . 2015. ‘The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability14: 1–16. Crossref.
13.
GreavesT. and ReadR.. 2015. ‘Where value resides: making ecological value possible’. Environmental Ethics37(3): 321–340. Crossref.
14.
HessG.2018. ‘Cosmic consciousness and nature from a phenomenological point of view’. In MasaeliM. and SnellerR. (eds), Cosmic Consciousness and Human Excellence: Implications for Global Ethics, pp. 101–119. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
15.
KohákE.1987. The Embers and the Stars: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Moral Sense of Nature. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
16.
MaierD.S.2012. What's So Good about Biodiversity? A Call for Better Reasoning about Nature's Value. Dordrecht and New York: Springer.
17.
MariettaD.E.1997. ‘The concept of objective value’. In HartJ.G. and EmbreeL. (eds), Phenomenology of Values and Valuing, pp. 11–28. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Crossref.
18.
MaxcyD.J.1994. ‘Meaning in Nature: rhetoric, phenomenology, and the question of environmental value’. Philosophy and Rhetoric27(4): 330–346.
19.
Merleau-PontyM.2016. Le visible et l'invisible: suivi de Notes de travail. Paris: Gallimard.
20.
MoritoB.2003. ‘Intrinsic value: a modern albatross for the ecological approach.’ Environmental Values12(3): 317–336. Crossref.
21.
MuracaB.2011. ‘The map of moral significance: a new axiological matrix for environmental ethics’. Environmental Values20(3): 375–396. Crossref.
22.
MuracaB.2016. ‘Relational values: a whiteheadian alternative for environmental philosophy and global environmental justice’. Balkan Journal of Philosophy8(1): 19–38. Crossref.
23.
NeuteleersS.2020. ‘A fresh look at “relational” values in nature: distinctions derived from the debate on meaningfulness in life’. Environmental Values29(4): 461–479. Crossref.
24.
NæssA.1989. ‘Ecosophy and gestalt ontology’. The Trumpeter6(4): 134–137.
25.
NortonB.G.2005. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
PelluchonC.2018. Éthique de la considération. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
27.
PelluchonC.2019. Nourishment: A Philosophy of the Political Body (trans. from French by SmithJustin E.H.). London and New York: Bloomsbury.
28.
PiccoloJ.J.2017. ‘Intrinsic values in nature: objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy?’ Journal for Nature Conservation37: 8–11. Crossref.
29.
PlumwoodV.2002. Environmental Culture: the Ecological Crisis of Reason. London and New York: Routledge.
30.
PritchardA., RichardsonM., SheffieldD., McEwanK.. 2020. ‘The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis’. Journal of Happiness Studies21(1): 1145–1167. Crossref.
31.
RolstonH.III1994. ‘Values in Nature and the nature of values’. In AttfieldR. and BelseyA. (eds), Philosophy and the Natural Environment, pp. 13–30. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Crossref.
32.
RomanoC.1998. L'événement et le monde. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
RomanoC.2016. ‘Pour un réalisme du monde de la vie’. Revue de métaphysique et de morale90(2): 269–284. Crossref.
35.
RomanoC.2019. Les repères éblouissants: renouveler la phénoménologie. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
36.
SheremataM.2018. ‘Listening to relational values in the era of rapid environmental change in the Inuit Nunangat’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability35: 75–81. Crossref.
37.
SkubelR.A., Shriver-RiceM. and MarantoG.M.. 2019. ‘Introducing relational values as a tool for shark conservation, science, and management’. Frontiers in Marine Science6: 53. Crossref.
38.
UeharaT., SakuraiR. and TsugeT.. 2020. ‘Cultivating relational values and sustaining socio-ecological production landscapes through ocean literacy: a study on satoumi’. Environment, Development and Sustainability22(2): 1599–1616. Crossref.
