The Journal of Value Inquiry 36: 109–115, 2002.

ARNE NÆSS ON DEEP ECOLOGY AND ETHICS 109

© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Arne Næss on Deep Ecology and Ethics

D.W. LAUER
Université d’Ottawa, Department de Philosophie, 70, rue Laurier Est, Ottawa (Ontario)
K1N 6N5 Canada

Arne Næss coined the term “Deep Ecology” in “The Shallow and Deep, Long
Range Ecology Movement.”1 In total, Næss has authored more than two-hun-
dred publications in his long career as a scholar and researcher. But his
influence extends beyond erudite books and academic journals. After his
appointment in 1939 to the only philosophy professorship at the University
of Oslo, he went to work expanding the eksamen philosphicum or compul-
sory philosophy for university students. That in part helped him expand the
philosophy department itself. At last count, there were sixty-five permanent,
full-time faculty members in the department of philosophy at the University
of Oslo. As a result of these initiatives, the structure of higher education in
Norway was changed to bring about a more thoughtful and considerate stu-
dent body. His active engagement in Norwegian society is proof that one person
can make a difference.
Dean Lauer conducted the following interview with Arne Næss in the sum-
mer of 1999.

Lauer: Professor Næss, in the “World of Concrete Contents,” you state that
your philosophical investigation is a case of “ontology not ethics.”2 You ad-
vocate a reconsideration of what there is. How is it that you reconcile this with
what you say in Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle where you use and en-
dorse normative terms like “ought” and “should” as a point of departure for
Deep Ecology.3

Næss: In so far as I can see when you look at your spontaneous experience of,
say, two dogs at one moment you will see playing, at another fighting. In the
spontaneous experience of the dogs fighting, you have something that you
perceive as normative. The normative mixes in within the Gestalt of those two
dogs. You may see not only fighting but badly fighting, something negative
inside the Gestalt. There is this normative element in the Gestalt. This nor-
mative aspect for me, then, is still ontology. For we are examining what is,
and more specifically, what is bad. In the Gestalt experience you cannot ex-
clude the normative because it is, in fact, part of the spontaneous experience.
This is for me a very important thing. Normativity is already there in sponta-
110 D.W. LAUER

neous experience. There is a normative of yes-yes-no-no inside the Gestalt,

and therefore it belongs to themes of Gestalt ontology.

Lauer: Is Gestalt normativity why you can say that your philosophy moves
from ontology to ethics and ethics to ontology in this back and forth way?

Næss: My formulations may have been unclear in relation to what I have been
saying, namely that something normative can be part of ontology. We must
say that in relation to the usual way of using the term “ontology,” we may go
back and forth. The Gestalt ontology is such that there may be a normative
component of the spontaneous experience itself.
In relation to normal or usual definitions of “ontology” there may be a back
and forth, but not when you agree that there is a normative component inside
the Gestalt we call spontaneous experience. I make a lot of fuss here because
I think poets have shown the way. They can write ten pages on one single
spontaneous experience. Very good poets are able to articulate in words a single
experience. Ordinary persons may have very rich spontaneous experiences
as well, but they lack the talent unfortunately to articulate it like the poet.
Spontaneous experience can be enormously complex, and easily contain
normatives, for instance, ethical components. And there are spontaneous ex-
periences, therefore the description of them is part of the ontological accounts
about what there is.

Lauer: Normative components then might be something like what you call in
the “World of Concrete Contents” secondary and tertiary qualities of reality.
You seem to be arguing for an ontology by way of a stronger, more concrete
description of spontaneous experience.

Næss: That’s right. The components of spontaneous experience are at the same
time primary, secondary, and tertiary qualities and they are there in it.

Lauer: Perhaps we could discuss environmental philosophy in the Nordic

Countries.

Næss: Sure, please.

Lauer: In Norway, the love of nature and outdoor life seems to go beyond a
sort of trendy ecological consciousness. We don’t see this so much in Canada
even though it is a fellow northern land with low population density like
Norway.

Næss: I have said publicly that we must somehow include Canada in interna-
tional talks that involve Scandinavia. With Canada, being a very northern
 ARNE NÆSS ON DEEP ECOLOGY AND ETHICS 111

country, I think you can find the same kinds of attitudes as in Scandinavia
and especially in Norway. I am thinking of, specifically, Edmonton and the
northwest of Canada.

Lauer: Of course, the mountains!

Næss: Mountains and attitudes, my lectures have been successful in that area.
Anyway, it would be nice and also good for Canada, I think. Nordic talks get
the United States a little further away and connect Canada more with Scandi-
navia.

Lauer: Philosophy in Scandinavia seems to be similar to what it is in Canada.

It seems to be a meeting point of the two famous traditions of Continental
and Anglo-American thought.

Næss: Yes, that’s a fair characterization here. I think the bilingualism of Canada
is evidence of that.

Lauer: But let’s take up the idea of a Scandinavian nature ethic.

Næss: There is a special Norwegian attitude which they don’t have in Swe-
den, for instance. In Norway there is still more of a romantic relation to na-
ture than in Sweden. Denmark does not have wild nature except along the
coast, which is a wonderful coastline. So even if our political and ecological
policies are not very good in Norway, there is a unique kind of relation to the
mountains and fjords and even to look for death in nature rather than as bad.

Lauer: Norway has an old tradition with authors like Knut Hamsun.

Næss: Yes, and Ibsen and Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson.

Lauer: In Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle you translated the Norwegian

word friluftsliv as “treading lightly in nature.” Are you saying that friluftsliv
is a whole attitude, not just a slogan?

Næss: Yes, it’s proceed lightly. And more generally it means “seek a rich life
with simple means.” From early childhood we need to have access to areas of
nature not completely dominated by human activity.

Lauer: Yet it is amazing to see how technologically sophisticated the Norwe-

gian society is with so many cell phones and internet cafés, for example. Tech-
nology would seem to be a challenge to nature because the exclusively human
element separates us from the natural world. Yet, you don’t seem to have a
conflict here.
112 D.W. LAUER

Næss: Technology is so important; we must take it more seriously. Technol-

ogy must go together with philosophy; it must fit in together nicely with our
ontology. We must evaluate technology in many more ways than it is usually
done. The fact that you can make so many more items an hour is rather irrel-
evant. Technology must fit in with our basic norms and attitudes, and this must
be accounted for by philosophers. That’s why I say technology must be taken
more seriously. “Ah ha, is that what you mean?”, they say. I was thought to
have meant more machinery and such. No, no, I don’t mean that. So, I am all
for technology of any kind that helps us live in harmony with our basic value
priorities. Anything else should be considered plainly irrational. With tech-
nology, the possibilities are endless.

Lauer: Is that why in Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle you say approvingly
something to the effect that our current environmental crisis could trigger a
culturally integrated technology, economic progress with less interference and
a less restricted experience of life?

Næss: Yes, but don’t associate the word “progress” with me. I don’t like that
term. I have stopped using that term in the past ten years. It’s a very political
term here in Norway. I like to say advance. For example, when we say “eco-
nomic advance,” we are speaking more philosophically. Even saying “eco-
nomic growth” is not as neutral or descriptive as “economic advance.” With
“advance,” you get philosophy into it. You can see the relation to the basic
norms and descriptions you have in your life. “Advanced technology” is a
good expression, meaning for me not electronics, but advance in relation to
ultimate values.

Lauer: But with technology, the term traditionally has been associated with
the word “progress.” The Swiss philosopher Jean Gebser said that progress,
like technology, is a distraction or progression away from something, origin,
or perhaps nature in the broad sense.

Næss: The term “progress” is ruined completely. And it was ruined many, many
years ago I think. Now I never use the term “progress.”

Lauer: Is that because it is a political term?

Næss: No. Too often the term “progress” is used in the Third World meaning
changes in the direction of the completely unsustainable way of life as we
have in the rich industrial countries. That’s progress! It is just a manipulative
way saying “you should be like us!” For those who still use the term, you
should be suspicious. Americans in the 1950s said “Norway is so undevel-
oped.” That was a subtle way of saying be more like us. Well, that’s just ter-
 ARNE NÆSS ON DEEP ECOLOGY AND ETHICS 113

rible. Since 1960, we have been on the wrong path in the wrong direction. We
rebuilt the country from 1945 to 1960 after the German occupation. Then
beginning in 1960 the life quality was neglected in favor of a higher and higher
standard of life. I define “life quality” as “how you feel.” It has to do with
feelings. Since 1960 we scarcely have had clear gains in life quality.

Lauer: You once cited poll during the 1970s that claimed that over three-quar-
ters of the Norwegian people thought that their living standard was too high.
To a North American, this seems unbelievable.

Næss: The questions people answered were posed like this: “Would you take
less salary, if you could have more time off?” And most respondents said yes
they would sacrifice a drop in living standard. Norway says this but then
politically it continues voting for a different way and that’s unfortunate. Its
very difficult for people here to do what they sometimes do in the United States,
and send a lot of nice mail to politicians who say something radical, new, or
ecologically related. Here, they go back and vote for the politicians who they
then criticize vehemently.

Lauer: Perhaps the same thing happens in the United States. But, returning to
technology, do you think that it is completely neutral?

Næss: For me “technology” is a positive term. I invite my friends to use it as

a positive term. But it includes constant severe critiques of the technology of
the rich industrialized societies. What you cannot do with your hands mostly,
you do with very, very important devices of a technical kind. This is a good
way of talking to people: “technology, oh, yes” and then bang, explain. Ex-
plain that technology must be in harmony with your basic value priorities.
That means many things: in relation to nature, in relation to your children, in
relation to every aspect of your life.
I should add that I am a hyttemenneske or cabin person. That is my life-
style is that of a small cottage person not a city dweller or bymennske. So my
preferred life is such that technology is extremely simple. I can build a little
and do things around my cabin in the mountains above the treeline at Tvergastein.
But the point is that the technology is elementary. The hyttemenneske’s basic
programme here is rich life with simple means.
Yet, I want to add that I am for luxury. Sometimes, I see it written, “Arne
Næss, he is for the puritanical life.” No, not at all – I am for luxury. We need
luxury in our life. But luxury needs to be contrasted with the everyday and
the special days when you do things that you feel are luxurious. It has noth-
ing to do with price tags, what things cost at the market. When you are in the
mountains, you have a tin of fruits, delicious fruits. You have the tin and then
you open it – Woa! Now that’s Luxury. By definition, it is such that it is not
114 D.W. LAUER

everyday. Luxury is important and I am all for luxury. Am I puritanical? No,

I am not in the least puritanical.

Lauer: Does luxury bring us in touch with the normative components in spon-
taneous experience?

Næss: That is definitely one aspect of luxury.

Lauer: But then what about the norms, rules, and imperatives that you endorse
for the Deep Ecology platform? You argue for universals along the lines of
Kant’s Categorical Imperative, that you should never use a living being as a
means to an end. Yet, couldn’t such a maxim occlude personal choice, which
you say is very important? For example, you also say that it could be fatal to
circumvent ethical and philosophical problems. It would seem that you are
saying that ethical and philosophical problems need to be worked out by the
individual self but then, at the same time, it seems that you do endorse this
Kantian framework.

Næss: Let me first correct you. What I say is that you should never use a liv-
ing being merely as a means to an end. What is important for me to say at this
moment is that Ecosophy is a personal affair but that this doesn’t mean that
you should have to differ from everybody else.4 In this I have the same view
as the philosopher Spinoza. If you listen to your nature and essence as a hu-
man being you will find that nature or essence of the human being is such
that joy elicits joy and sorrow elicits sorrow. After birth, things can go very
wrong so that you can have what Spinoza called slave and passive affects,
that is to say affects that are not developing human nature but are developing
other affects like hatred and envy. Passive affects are in the sense that they
don’t develop human nature. Instead of “negative” the term “passive” is used,
which is a very curious choice. There, in light of Spinoza, I think I am an
optimist about human nature and essence. It is after birth that something hap-
pens to get people to be hateful.
I am not sure if I am answering what you are asking, but in an Ecosophy,
you start with norms that indicate where you stand and these norms are im-
peratives yet they are worked out on a personal level. Things happen after
birth and there are so many factors that enter in that it is fairly inevitable that
hatred and other what you call negatives develop. Meanwhile, it can be avoided
that someone becomes a slave under these negative feelings. Spinoza uses the
term “slave” under the passive affects and we can see that some people really
are lost in their negativity. But this occurs from factors after birth.

Lauer: Then might self-realization be an alternative to the passive affects?

 ARNE NÆSS ON DEEP ECOLOGY AND ETHICS 115

Næss: Yes, it would be a relation of the potentialities of human beings for

developing human essence.

Lauer: Would that essence imply a need to develop a conscience?

Næss: Yes, there is a need to have a conscience and also to rejoice in joy and
recoil from the truly negative. My interpretations of Spinoza here are in com-
plete harmony with the Ethics text of Spinoza. Essential for me is the dynamical
and optimistic view of human life and the future.

Lauer: Professor Næss thank you so much for this conversation.5

Notes

1. See, Arne Næss, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movement,” Inquiry
16 (1972).
2. Arne Næss, “The world of Concrete Contents,” Inquiry 28 (1985).
3. See, Arne Næss, Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle, trans. and rev. David Rotherberg
(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
4. See ibid., p.36.
5. I wish to thank Professor Næss and his wife Kit-Fai for their time and effort in bringing
this manuscript to publication. As well, I am grateful to the Royal Norwegian Embassy,
Canada, for the travel grant that made this conversation possible.
116 D.W. LAUER