Hailwood’s article starts off by reminding the reader that environmentalists often stress the continuity of humanity and the importance of being part of the natural community. This concept seems to imply that one should strongly identify oneself with nature. Further, Hailwood describes the alternative view which posits that the distinction between nature and humanity is not so much a distinction as a way of keeping nature’s otherness in focus.
Notably, Hailwood contended that if nature is valued for its otherness, then this value is considered an objective good, and therefore is considered to be ‘true’. Hailwood thought that nature’s otherness is not an unalienable concept. Instead, it is a guiding principle that informs how nature works and encourages humanity to adapt it into our human lives.
Another prominent focus in the article is the contention that nature’s strangeness is part of the community. This is an admittedly bizarre position. If nature is to be valued, its otherness should not be associated with the significances that it supposedly holds within local cultural landscapes. The familiarity that humans have to nature can give an insight into human predictability as well as morality. Nature’s indifference, as Hailwood would call it, is similar to a moral community. The concept of communities of causally interdependent parts, or causally interconnected parts, undermines the continuity implied in the idea of humans and animals participating in a network of mutual concessions necessary for ethical community.
Overall, it seems the purpose of Hailwood’s writing is to defend nature’s otherness and encourage readers not to disassociate from it, since it can act exemplary towards the human race. Humans consider themselves the superior species, but rather than ignoring the lessons nature can teacher, Hailwood argues that nature can help find the true morality of mankind within the other species among it.
Bibliography
Hailwood, Simon A. “The Value of Nature’s Otherness.” Environmental Values 9, (2000): 353-372.
