Abstract:

In his article, James Nash found little value in Scripture in addressing environmental ethics, particularly with regard to biodiversity. For example, he showed that the ‘wilderness’ in Scripture did not refer to the flora and fauna. Nash’s challenge, however, was not limited to environmental ethics, since he questioned the use of the bible in making any moral arguments. In making his case, he considered several approaches to utilizing the bible for moral argumentation and found them all inadequate. Nash ‘s alternative view of biblical interpretation appealed to Natural Law informed by the natural sciences as well as the bible.

This commentator agrees with Nash’s work regarding the wilderness and biodiversity in general. More use of Scripture, however, would have been helpful. Nash’s call for an alternative would have been further strengthened with a full range of interdisciplinary activity not just engagement with the natural sciences. Also, Nash’s emphasis on the ‘Bible is inadequate’ would have been more helpful if expressed as the ‘Bible alone is inadequate’ for making moral arguments. Finally, a tribute is offered for Jim’s life and his many contributions to social and environmental ethics.

Author: Norm Faramelli