Podcast Summary: New Books Network – Joshua Duclos on "Wilderness, Morality, and Value"
Date: December 1, 2025
Host: Kyle Johansen
Guest: Dr. Joshua Duclos, Instructor of Humanities and Philosophy, St. Paul's School
Book Discussed: Wilderness, Morality, and Value (Lexington Books, 2022)
Episode Overview
In this engaging episode, host Kyle Johansen interviews Dr. Joshua Duclos about his recent book, Wilderness, Morality, and Value, which scrutinizes the concept of wilderness, its moral standing, and the tensions between preserving wilderness and concerns about wild animal welfare. The conversation delves into philosophical definitions, the value of wilderness (intrinsic and anthropocentric), objections to its existence, and difficult questions about intervention in nature for ethical reasons.
Key Discussion Points
1. About Dr. Joshua Duclos and Motivations for the Book
- Dr. Duclos grew up in New Hampshire, is widely traveled, and has extensive experience as a philosophy instructor and outdoor guide.
- His combined experience in philosophy and wilderness guiding led him to question existing philosophical literature on wilderness, which he found unsatisfying and lacking in addressing core confusions and tensions (06:45).
Notable Quote:
“I found a lot of the literature on wilderness somewhat unsatisfying, that whatever I was seeing there wasn't quite resolving the confusions I had or getting at the questions that I felt were particularly important.”
— Dr. Duclos (08:00)
2. Defining the Concept of Wilderness
Wilderness "as wilderness"
- Duclos argues for a concept of wilderness based on the U.S. Wilderness Act: a condition of the natural world distinguished by a relative absence of human activity (14:03).
- He distinguishes wilderness from the broader concept of “nature” and notes that wilderness is a “vague concept that can get fuzzy at the edges,” yet it is vital to retain for meaningful moral discussion (13:30).
Notable Clarification:
“If we don't make [the distinction], it actually gets very hard to have some important moral conversations.”
— Dr. Duclos (12:50)
3. The Value of Wilderness: Instrumental and Intrinsic
- Duclos critiques how wilderness is often valued either only instrumentally (for resources or experiences it provides) or as a means to another good (democracy analogy at 11:24).
- He seeks to analyze whether “wilderness as wilderness” possesses intrinsic value on its own, not just derivative of its utility to humans (11:39).
- Advocates for understanding wilderness as having intrinsic value, albeit an anthropocentric and perhaps ultimately spiritual or religious kind (52:49, 55:07).
4. Can Wilderness Be Reduced or Enhanced?
- Expansion or reduction of wilderness is not strictly synonymous with habitat destruction—human activity or its absence can alter wilderness independently of ecosystem health (14:03, 16:51).
- The concept of “rewilding” and whether human actions can enhance wilderness remains philosophically complex and open to debate (16:51).
5. Objections to the Existence of Wilderness
Dr. Duclos outlines and refutes five main objections:
- Empirical: Claims wilderness no longer exists (18:19)
- Cultural/Ethnic/Racial: The term has been used in offensive or exclusionary ways (18:19)
- Philosophical: Supposedly untenable human/nature divide (18:19)
- Social Constructivist: Wilderness as a human social construct (18:19)
- Environmental/Political: Philosophy wastes time needed for activism (18:19)
Notable Analysis:
“Wilderness is a scalar concept instead of a binary concept. We can talk about things as being more or less wild, and that's perfectly sensible.”
— Kyle Johansen (25:01)
6. The Objection from Wild Animal Welfare
- Duclos’s key critique: Wilderness preservation may actually conflict with wild animal welfare, because wild animals in the wilderness typically endure immense suffering—starvation, disease, predation, etc. (26:28).
- Most conservation appeals rely on the idea that animal welfare is best served by preserving wilderness, but Duclos argues this is inconsistent with the actual conditions of wild animals’ lives (26:28, 29:15).
Notable Exchange:
“Animals rarely fare well in the wilderness. ... The overwhelming majority of wild animals are going to lead lives that are more nasty, brutish and short than anything Hobbes ever could have envisioned for humans.”
— Dr. Duclos (28:34)
“I think maybe one thing—I notice I'm not sure how much past thinkers, and by past I mean classical thinkers ... had as much appreciation for the implications of population dynamics for wild animal welfare. That's something that's a little more recent.” — Kyle Johansen (34:59)
7. Ecocentrism, Biocentrism, and Sentientism
- Duclos critiques biocentrism and ecocentrism, arguing that, even if true, they would amplify concerns about suffering in wilderness (37:58).
- Both positions would require moral concern for even more entities (plants, ecosystems) whose “welfare” is also grim in the wild, potentially strengthening rather than weakening the objection from welfare (40:31).
- Suggests that the default philosophical stance should favor sentientism (welfare of sentient beings).
8. The Types of Value Attributed to Wilderness
- Outlines intrinsic value as “ultimate value”—valued for its own sake, but fundamentally anthropocentric (42:58, 47:52).
- Challenges the idea that wilderness could possess “value in the absence of valuers,” such as asserted in some environmental thought experiments (e.g., “the last man” scenarios; 43:39-47:52).
Notable Analogy:
“I have an old hunting knife that I inherited from my grandfather ... The knife has value for me—just owning it, possessing it ... It's not a means to anything else other than the value that I derive from it. So this is a completely familiar concept. And I see no reason to think that wilderness doesn't possess that value. ... The trouble is, that's an entirely anthropocentric type of value.” — Dr. Duclos (47:52)
9. Analogies Between Bioethics and Environmental Ethics
- Duclos draws parallels between debates in bioethics (modifying human nature) and debates in environmental ethics (modifying or intervening in “wild” nature) (49:35).
- Points to inconsistencies: Some liberals are open to “tinkering” with humanity but resistant to interference in nature (49:35).
10. Sandel’s “Giftedness of Life” and the Spiritual Value of Wilderness
- Explores Michael Sandel’s argument about the “giftedness” of human nature and asks whether a similar reverent respect is due to wild nature (52:49).
- Suggests the defense of wilderness ultimately rests on a kind of spiritual or religious value, drawing on precedents in environmental writing and legislative history (55:07), but expresses concern about grounding political decisions on such non-public, non-universal reasons.
Notable Reflection:
“I do agree that there's a value in this giftedness of the world, but it doesn't evade the moral problem. … It has to be sort of a quasi-religious, spiritual valuation.”
— Dr. Duclos (52:49, 55:07)
11. Implications for Intervention in Wilderness
- Duclos believes we have a strong pro tanto reason to intervene in wilderness to reduce suffering—meaning, a strong reason that can be outweighed by competing considerations (60:08).
- Reluctant to endorse specific interventions but mentions sterilization and (controversially) genetic modification of predators (61:38).
- Calls for continued philosophical debate and openness to being proven wrong, rather than immediate activism (62:42).
Notable Quote:
“If there is a much better defense of wilderness or understanding of wilderness, I would love for someone to tell me why I'm wrong … Then I do think it's time to move towards some sort of activist program and begin thinking about ways to lessen wild animal suffering.”
— Dr. Duclos (62:51)
Memorable Moments & Quotes
On the tension between wilderness and wild animal welfare:
“It may well be the case that the issue of wild animal suffering ... could actually be the most overwhelmingly significant moral problem of which we're aware.”
— Dr. Duclos (31:13)
On the religious/spiritual defense of wilderness:
“It may be possible ... to engage in some kind of Kierkegaardian teleological suspension of the ethical, where you don't say, look, ethics doesn't matter, suffering doesn't matter ... But you say it just might be that ... there's another category.”
— Dr. Duclos (55:07)
On public reason and religious grounds:
“[I]f you slip into that world of the religious and the ineffable ... then it's not clear what debates about the future of wilderness look like. If you just claim, no, look, it's got a religious value. Leave it alone.”
— Dr. Duclos (59:13)
Timestamps for Major Segments
- 02:11 – Dr. Duclos’s background and teaching experiences
- 06:45 – Motivations for writing the book
- 10:01 – Defining “wilderness as wilderness”; distinction from “nature”
- 14:03 – Discussion on preservation vs. reduction of wilderness
- 18:19 – Review of five main objections to wilderness as a concept
- 26:28 – Introduction of objection from wild animal welfare
- 37:58 – Critique of ecocentrism and biocentrism
- 42:58 – The nature and type of value possessed by wilderness
- 49:35 – Bioethics analogy and the “giftedness of life” argument
- 55:07 – Wilderness as religious or spiritual value; concerns about such a defense
- 60:08–64:41 – Ethics of intervention in wilderness; limits of philosophical activism
- 66:07 – Dr. Duclos’s next project on the norms of statue removal
Closing
This rich, nuanced conversation unpacks foundational questions in environmental ethics. Dr. Duclos challenges the received wisdom that wilderness preservation always benefits wild animals and invites a more critical, even unsettling, rethinking of why and how we value “the wild.” His arguments provoke questions about the very frameworks—moral, spiritual, political—by which we justify our attitudes toward nature today.