Abstract

It is widely supposed that liberal political theory must exclude direct concern for nature, that its anthropocentric individualism can allow only indirect, instrumental value to the non‐human world. This is perhaps thought to be especially true of contractarian versions of liberalism. In this paper I try to show that this is not so by outlining an argument based on an analogy between the ‘neutrality’ of Rawls' political liberalism and the ‘otherness’ of external nature. I consider some possible objections to the argument, and try to explain why I think that the analogy is strong enough to justify modifying the Rawlsian approach to encompass direct concern for external nature (as other). If I am right then it is not necessary completely to abandon that approach in order to construct a more adequately ecocentric political theory.