At the close of his essay, Carlson merely hints at the moral/ethical implications of arriving at a proper understanding of the natural environment as an object of aesthetic appreciation. What do you think they might be?
I think that Carlson means to hint at the morality of nature; human beings, who are meant to live symbiotically with their natural environment, have a moral obligation to treat the natural environment with care and love. However, with the advent of technology and the degradation of naturalism, the natural environment is suffering. One can see how the environment suffers just by looking outside, even in North Adams: there are cigarette discardings all over campus and throughout downtown. But this morality in nature is nigh impossible to achieve in the modern age.
Moreover, I think Carlson means to say that human beings should be moral and ethical in their observation of the natural environment as something that is aesthetically beautiful. One must be caring in observing nature and not abuse the privilege of being able to view something aesthetically beautiful as nature. On many trails, nature parks will tell the hikers to not abuse the trails or leave any trash which is one of the ideas at which Carlson is hinting. And overall, I think Carlson wants us, as human beings, to respect the natural environment and preserve it while appreciating nature as something aesthetically beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment