Abstract
Holmes Rolston III attempts to get us to recognise nature as an objectively independent valuational sphere with its own activity of defending value. But in inspiring our '...psychological joining (with) on-going planetary natural history...' what his account ultimately does is assimilate nature to the human. For, on his account, we find value in nature through a recognition that something that goes on in us (namely, defending value) also occurs in the natural world. That, it is argued, is far from the authentically deep form of biocentrism that is implicitly his ideal. The real depth to a biocentric viewpoint is to be found through a route other than the one taken by Rolston. Moreover, it is a route that has nothing to do with advancing the idea of what I call a 'naturogenic' value – a value generated by nature. Rather, it relates to seeing nature as other than the human (as illustrated with reference to Emerson), in a way that is genuinely unsullied by the claims of self – which, in the case of human beings, are the most elemental supports for a species perspective