Does nature have value ?
Since Antiquity, multiple philosophers and religions like Shinto have speculated on the value of nature. Some think that nature only has instrumental value, others think that all of nature has intrinsic value.
So, what do you think the answer is? Does nature have any value, whether it is instrumental or intrinsic?
So, what do you think the answer is? Does nature have any value, whether it is instrumental or intrinsic?
Comments (42)
I don't believe personally nature itself has souls, thoughts or emotions to possess any type or kind of value.
So the question now extends to humans too
That still leaves a lot of things that could give nature value. For example, beauty could give nature value, and that's just for intrinsic value.
And? To me the difference this makes is twofold. 1) We don't need to see nature as something 'other' to exploit and damage 2) if nature is us, we may be more likely to treat ourselves with some respect and piss the instrumentalism off.
But does the rest of nature have the same value as us then?
Something important. Or do you have a proposition?
I have no idea. Is water more valuable than a human? Not if you are talking a few thousand gallons in a local swimming pool. But if you are talking all the world's water then it is as valuable. If you are looking for a rating system of value for the things in nature there isn't one, my guess is it's situational. Seeing nature as instrumental has very different implications if you have a shovel or a bulldozer.
To itself? Yes – intrinsic (dao)
To humans? Since, as pointed out already, humans are natural creatures, yes – intrinsic (yin) and instrumental (yang).
Hello Hello Human! What do you mean here, that beauty is intrinsic to beautiful things? It almost certainly isn't.
That's not a much better definition.
Suddenly, there are now two bacteria, each with its own flagellum. If I were the personification of anti-life (a being hell-bent on destroying all life), my worries have doubled - now there are two I have to kill. Lather, rinse, repeat and, after some time, billions upon billions of bacteria. I, the anti-life, am overwhelmed. Plus, the bacteria mutate and a weapon that killed them off in the millions is now useless. Everytime I build my perfect weapon, the bacteria adapt. For me, the anti-life, its fighting a losing battle.
The instrumental value of the flagellum, the feeding, the division/multiplication ( :chin: ), by extension every part/process of a living thing, is to perpetuate life for as long as possible. Life then, it seems, considers itself to possess intrinsic value.
Fastforward to the 1900's and we meet Albert Camus (1913 -1960) and life, in human form, asks the million dollar question, what is the meaning ([i]instrumental value) of life?"
[quote=Albert Camus]There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.[/quote]
It's absurd! Which, Albert Camus or Albert Camus, I don't know.
Nature: Anything that is alive.
Intrinsic value: desirable to attain, to protect, or preserve
Instrumental value: desirable as a means to an end
Now, a better way to word the initial question would be:
"Do living beings deserve protection/preservation, and can/should we use them to achieve our goals, whatever these goals are?"
But living beings generally tend to only assign value to themselves, but not other living beings. The question is whether or not they value not only themselves but also other living beings.
I was trying to give an example of a property that could give intrinsic value to an object.
Electric charge?
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." ~William Munny
And yeah – "use them" sustainably as they use each other in order to sustain their descendents and thereby our own too.
:ok: Survival of the [s]fittest[/s] luckiest!
The tortoise and the hare
Festina lente
:lol:
Nature is the only thing that has value, if it's appropriate to think of it as a "thing." What else is there that would?
I didn't get it. :sad:
That's an outdated idea as far as I can tell. The modern outlook is holistic in charater. Gone are the days when it was us vs them. Now, it's only US - it's either ALL or none. Look around you, do you see the evidence that humanity has extended its compassion, heretofore reserved for itself and that too only narrowly - to other living beings? Animal cruelty is a big issue in some parts of the world, so is deforestation, hunting, pollution and so on. All these are clear signals of a rapidpy growing global awareness that we're all in this together - any one of us, and by "us" I refer to every single living species, slips up and the entire ecology comes crashing down around our ears.
How does this relate to your question? Only to the extent that the global awareness I mentioned above is vital to life as a whole. Humans, by virtue of their intellectual prowess, is simultaneously the worst and the best candidate for the position of guardian of life - we can inflict great damage to the biosphere and we also have the smarts to not only reverse that but also shield the world from threats, greater ones I presume, that have nothing to do with human activity.
Why is this of any importance?
Mayhaps life can eventually, through us or other more intelligent species that may evolve later on, discover its own purpose. Possibly, the entire 4 billion years or so history of life that preceded the advent of humans was to get us to the point where one of the countless life-forms, us, formulates the question, "what is the meaning of life?" Another 4 billion years may need to pass before we can answer that question and it's our task to ensure life survives till that happens. We are, in a sense, like Morpheus in The Matrix waiting for the arrival of The One. Until The One arrives, we like Morpheus, need to keep Zion safe to the extent possible.
What's intriguing though is that the meaning of life seems to be more about instrumental value - what is the purpose of life? - rather than intrinsic value. Odd that!
Then there's this other bizarre fact we have to factor in. Instrumental value is ultimately about utility. What do you do with a broken cup at your home? Broken cups lose their instrumental value the instant they break. You collect the pieces and into the garbage can they go! At the risk of coming off as a cold-hearted person, I'd say there are a lot of people out there who are useless, I myself one of them. However, unlike the broken cup, we have serious misgivings about rounding up all useless people and treating them like garbage - life, in and of itself, seems to possess intrinsic value.
Frankly, I'm confused. You'll find me in the nearest landfill!
Yes, humanity has become more compassionate. But when it comes to individual living non-human beings, there doesn't seem to be any change, even though there are far more non-human living beings than human beings.
Furthermore, there is at least one very smart species that I know of that still actively hunts other living beings without questioning why. That is dolphins. They are not cruel, they're just carnivorous.
There are also less intelligent species that seem more compassionate. But it's not because they have beliefs about the sanctity of life, it's because they are herbivores.
Had humans been a carnivorous species, or on the contrary, a herbivorous one, the world would not have been the way it is today.
So, I don't think intelligence makes living beings more compassionate. Other factors, like our diet, are what cause a species to be more or less compassionate.
Really depends on what you mean by "value". You might say that nature is valuable insofar that we exist in nature. Secondly, nature provides us sustenance and the raw material in which to be creative.
:sweat: :sweat: Phew!
Quoting Hello Human
You can't have it both ways, you know. Either there's been change (for the better :sweat: :sweat: ) or no such change is discernible. I don't blame you though - it gets really weird sometimes, oh well, most of the time.
Quoting Hello Human
A distinction without a difference, friend. If killing is cruel, necessarily dolphins are cruel. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Quoting Hello Human
Morality = Reason
Life can't on the one hand be all about perpetuation (saving) and on the other hand be about extermination (killing)! It doesn't make sense.
Perhaps, life is trying to eat the cake and have it too! I'm much relieved!
Of course killing is wrong, so you could say that dolphins do is wrong.
However, saying they are cruel is different. Cruelty is the act of killing for pleasure. However, dolphins kill for food, not pleasure.
Quoting Hello Human
Why is it wrong but not cruel?
I'll set up a scenario for you. You're the good guy! Yaay!
Imagine yourself walking on the sandy dunes of a desert somewhere, deep in thought, pondering upon this very issue we're discussing.
Suddenly, your foot hits something. You look down and you see a bottle with its neck sticking out. You pick it up and curious you open it. Suddenly, out of the bottle emerges a genie and he says, "what is your wish, master?"
You've been worried to bits about cruelty, wrong, to name a few. This is my chance, you tell yourself. You look the genie in the eye and say, "I want
My question is, why are these two items - cruelty & dolphins hunting for food - on the same list?
Because they're both wrong ?
Exactly! You're under the impression that there's a distinction and even if there were one, it didn't matter to your decision - both were on the same list of things you wish you could wish away or make disappear with a wave of a magic wand!
quickest". :joke:
:grin: It sucks to be at the bottom of the food chain!
Everything exists because of and in nature. Everything we use has been derived from nature. Nature can live without us (us, who in our arrogance think we can judge/measure it), not vice versa. That ought to rest the case.
Well it seemed to have created you, this discussion, and the whole of human history. So the odds aren't looking so great.