There are several reasons to consider beauty in more detail. First, it surfaces often in connection with intrinsic value, and relates to that notion, I have suggested, in ways importantly different from other of the environmentalist's concerns. Secondly, beauty in nature ties in, evidently, with beauty in art, and reflection on the one both illuminates and is illuminated by reflection on the other. Here, then, thinking about the environment ties up with other areas of philosophical inquiry. Thirdly, and most obviously, it figures large in our reactions to the environment. We think of nature, or of parts of nature, as beautiful, care deeply for that beauty and urge its preservation. A concern for the beauty of nature is probably as strong a motivation to environmental activism as an interest in either animal or human welfare, and so has practical as well as theoretical implications.

It can be considered in more detail because it is important, but it can be considered, also, because it is not straightforward. Some people will want to deny this, claiming that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that tastes vary from person to person and from time to time, and that room for philosophical engagement with questions of beauty is slight. And not only this, for on such a view, although we may need to take these fluctuating tastes into account, appeals to beauty will not afford any firm or important basis for dealing with the natural world; we need better reason for saving pandas than that some people think them cuddly.