ABSTRACT
This chapter begins by establishing how the claim that nature is good is to be understood. It discusses difficulties which attach to any affirmation of nature’s goodness, and which remain for the version of the position being advanced. A defence of the claim that nature is good, in a sense which is both contingent and conditional, in no way precludes the possibility that many of nature’s creatures, and perhaps other components or features of the natural world, make claims upon us which are unconditional. It might be supposed that there are several potentially unwelcome consequences which follow from affirming the goodness of nature. It is possible that the inclination to deny that there can be a non-relative sense of ‘good’ rests on a failure to distinguish between two different sorts of relativity which may be involved in connection with assertions of goodness and badness – the relativity of perspective and the relativity of interest.
