Abstract

This work presents a case against the need for moral theory in nature ethics. A theory is not needed to bridge a gap between facts and values. One is not needed to handle crisis cases. Nor is one needed to extend the moral circle of care beyond human beings. Ordinary moral reasoning will suffice. To show this, moral cases are made for a vegan diet, and against the use of animals in research. The moral theorist is then left with this dilemma: either the details of a moral issue are enough to settle it, thus rendering a moral theory unnecessary, or the details are not enough, but neither is any moral theory. In place of theory, a moral vision is sketched, one which is at once contemplative, feminist, anarchist, pacifist, anti-capitalist, and pro-nature