Imagine someone who thinks that wild things ought to be preserved and protected -- that it is humanity's moral duty to do so. She might even be one of those good people who manages to put these "green" moral principles into action. But suppose that she does not especially enjoy being around natural things. She might well prefer "civilization" to "roughing it", and she might not even find baby seals especially cute and cuddly. Perhaps she does not even derive any pleasure from the thought that there are wild places. They may leave her utterly unmoved, or they may even inspire in her fear and terror. (An astronaut might feel that way about the surface of the moon.) Such an individual might be described as respecting nature without liking it a whole lot.

By the same token, imagine someone who likes nature. She enjoys spending time in wild places and derives deep pleasure from her interactions with wild things. To find opportunities to commune with nature might even be one of her main lifelong pursuits. She might be as strong of an advocate for the national park system as the first person I mentioned, but simply because she would like there to be parks for her to enjoy, not because she feels any moral duty towards nature. Suppose that there is no moral component at all in her attitude toward nature. She does not think that nature is valuable in any objective or transcendent sense. She may take nature to be valuable to herself, since it is something she likes, but she does not believe that nature is somehow valuable in itself. She simply likes nature, just as I like ice cream but do not think that someone who is indifferent to ice cream is morally blind. Such an individual might be described as liking nature but as having no particular respect for nature.