This paper examines and compares the ontological and axiological character of artefacts – human creations – with nonhuman natural entities. The essential difference between artefacts and natural entities is that the former are always the result of human intention and design, while the latter are independent of human purpose. Artefacts have functions; natural entities do not.
The connection to human intentional purpose implies a different kind of value for artefacts. Artefacts are evaluated solely by their instrumental (and anthropocentric) use, while natural entities can be appreciated for their independent and autonomous existence.
AttfieldRobin1981. “The Good of Trees”, Journal of Value Inquiry15: 35–54.
2.
AttfieldRobin1983. The Ethics of Environmental Concern.New York, Columbia University Press.
3.
BrennanAndrew1984. “The Moral Standing of Natural Objects”, Environmental Ethics6: 41–4.
4.
FreyR.G.1979. “Rights, Interests, Desires, and Beliefs”, American Philosophical Quarterly16: 233–9.
5.
HargroveEugene C.1989. The Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
6.
JarvieI.C.1983. “Technology and the Structure of Knowledge”, in MitchamCarl and MackeyRobert (editors) Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology.New York, Free Press.
7.
KatzEric1992. “The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature”, Research in Philosophy and Technology12: 231–41.
8.
LeopoldAldo1949. “The Land Ethic”, in A Sand County Almanac.New York, Oxford University Press.
9.
MaserChris1988. The Redesigned Forest.San Pedro, R. & E. Miles.
10.
RolstonHolmes(III)1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World.Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
11.
TaylorPaul W.1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics.Princeton, Princeton University Press.
12.
VarnerGary E.1990. “Biological Functions and Biological Interests”, Southern Journal of Philosophy28: 258–62.
13.
WrightLarry1976. Teleological Explanations.Berkeley, University of California Press.
