Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
I speculate that things do not possess value in themselves, and acquire value only as means to another end. Example: money. It has no value if it cannot be used as a means to acquire other goods, like a car; which only has value as a means of transport; which only has value if the destination has value; and so on. But we cannot have means forever. There must be an end. What are these ends? They must be things that are desirable for their own sake, and not for the sake of something else. I can think of only three ends (and even then, I am not sure about the third one): (1) subjective pleasure, physical or emotional, (2) ethics or duty, and (3) necessity, like health and safety. To give an example of each:
(1) Watching a fiction movie is a means to the end of subjective pleasure. If the pleasure is gone, then there is no reason to watch the movie.
(2) Helping out a neighbour for free is a means to the end of ethics; for a good cause. If the cause is not perceived to be good (somehow), then there is no reason to do it.
(3) Working at a unpleasant job is a means to the end of necessity. Got bills to pay and mouths to feed. But if these ends were accomplished through another secured way, then one would stop working or find a lower-paid but more pleasant job.
Can you think of a thing that has value in itself, and not only as a means to one of these three ends?
EDIT 2017-10-22: I made a mistake by omitting the ontological values of things. If we believe that all things have an ontological value as per the Great Chain of Being, then all things have at least the ontological value as ends in themselves, and acquire additional value as means to another end.
(1) Watching a fiction movie is a means to the end of subjective pleasure. If the pleasure is gone, then there is no reason to watch the movie.
(2) Helping out a neighbour for free is a means to the end of ethics; for a good cause. If the cause is not perceived to be good (somehow), then there is no reason to do it.
(3) Working at a unpleasant job is a means to the end of necessity. Got bills to pay and mouths to feed. But if these ends were accomplished through another secured way, then one would stop working or find a lower-paid but more pleasant job.
Can you think of a thing that has value in itself, and not only as a means to one of these three ends?
EDIT 2017-10-22: I made a mistake by omitting the ontological values of things. If we believe that all things have an ontological value as per the Great Chain of Being, then all things have at least the ontological value as ends in themselves, and acquire additional value as means to another end.
Comments (41)
People.
That's cheating. People are not "things"
I don't think pleasure can be an end in itself, it has to hold hands with something else to be experienced.
Maybe duty can be an end, but if the outcome of what duty commands is bad, then was the act moral?
Self preservation may also be an end, but it is a biological end, like birth, death and so on, so not so much so much value as a non-cognitive necessity.
I was taking "things" in a broad philosophical sense.
So social constructs such as Justice, Freedom as ends
I just meant that people have value in and of themselves.
I am sure that I could find a coin or a paper currency that is no longer legal tender but some collector would love to keep.
And if it is dark and I do not have a flashlight, a dollar bill could be valuable as a light source after I strike a match or flip a cigarette lighter.
It's really not obvious these three stand on their own. Plenty of people will reduce (2) to (1). You could reduce (3) to (2) or (1). Some might claim that (1) and (2) are actually in the service of (3).
Plus foundationalism here has an odd result: the only things that will count as ends in themselves are things that serve no other purpose, that is to say, things that are, in some sense, pointless. People are inclined to reduce everything to pleasure-seeking because pleasure seems pointless to them, that is, something that is not desirable for some reason but just desirable as such. Avoidance of pain might have an even stronger claim than pleasure here.
For instance, I'm betting that you'll pick (1) from your list to explain this:
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Collectors derive pleasure from their collections. I'm not sure that's wrong exactly, but I'm also not sure it illuminates or explains the collector's behaviour more than just letting him say he sees these things as having value in themselves. "We love the things we love for what they are."
1. Instrumental value
And
2. Intrinsic value
I think happiness has intrinsic value. Everything else can be reduced to means for achieving happiness.
Also, truth has intrinsic value. Why does it deserve its own category? Because, truth and happiness are not identical. Some truths are sad e.g. the suffering extant in our world, yet, we feel it's necessary to know this truth. Paradoxical!
Another thing that has intrinsic value is life. It's different from happiness and truth because people continue to want to live despite suffering and ignorance. Suicidal people are exceptions.
All three can be reduced to the ends of propagating one's genes. This isn't to say that genes have ends and means. Genes are simply mindless things that behave in certain ways as a result of their structure which came about as a result of a natural mindless process that promotes genes to the next generation that leads to their propagation in the environment. It is we - the one's with ends and means - that project meaning and purpose onto the universe. In other words, the belief in objective means and ends is an anthropomorphic venture in explaining the universe.
Organisms with minds have ends and means as a result of them being able to make predictions (ends) and a strategy (means) for achieving them. Organisms acquire these skills as a result of living in their environment and learning to use the tools that they have available (their body which includes their hands, legs and sensory organs). A hammer is useful to drive nails, but is useless if you don't have any hands.
I don't see how duty can be reduced to a biologic fact or function. The actions we think we ought to do, are socially constructed. Their reality depends in our agreement, which changes over time, context, and the individual's historic development. Moral duty may rail against biologic functons.
That's a good one actually. Kant says to treat people as ends and never only as means. I think I would throw that in the ethics bucket (2), that is, social ethics.
In my movie example, it seems the end is only pleasure, as it is neither necessary nor morally good (or bad) to watch it. Is there another end?
Maybe not, but it is at least the perception of duty that will give value to the means; until the perception is gone, and at which point, the means no longer has the same value.
Does it not make it an end in its own right? People value safety. They are willing to spend more money on a car with safer features.
But why would they love to keep it, if not for the end of subjective pleasure? I am using the term 'pleasure' broadly here, to include interest, passion, curiosity etc.
Yes, but the light source is valuable only as a means to see something. If you did not care to see anything at that time, then you would not use the dollar bill.
Pleasure can only be experienced in doing something such as watching a movie, it is never experienced on its own, it never an end in itself, it is always experienced along with something else which is the end. If you go to view a movie, you take pleasure in the story, its aesthetic, the actors and so on, it is only experienced as a means, never as an end in itself.
Perhaps life is an end in itself, and the biological necessities of life are then are means to that end, but they not ends in themselves.
Regarding duty, I agree with Kant's depiction of man as a member of the kingdom of ends, but that is not to say that I agree with his sterile, over rational, theory of moral duty.
Reducing (2) to (1): While the thought of being good may result in a pleasurable feeling, I don't think this is the end goal for most people. In fact, some would argue that if personal satisfaction was really the goal, then the intention would be selfish, thus not really good.
Reducing (3) to (2) or (1): That is possible. There is sense in asking "What is the point of living if not for duty or pleasure?"
Reducing (1) and (2) to (3): Yeah maybe pleasure is for health, and social ethics is for the preservation of our species. But I find the end of surviving for the sake of surviving to be absurd. The word despair comes to mind. I am more inclined to reduce (3) to (1) and (2), than reducing (1) and (2) to (3).
Agreed. I guess seeking the end implies avoiding its opposite.
I think 'happiness' either means 'pleasure' (1), or 'blessedness', which is pretty much ethics (2). Do you mean another thing by 'happiness'?
Quoting TheMadFool
That's a good one. Aristotle says man desires truth for its own sake, entirely apart from its utility. I will think more about that one, and consider if it cannot be reduced to the other ends (1), (2), or (3).
Quoting TheMadFool
This fits into (3), does it not? Or if you include preserving other life forms in nature, then it might fit into ethics and duty (2), but I am not sure.
By the way, I like the terms 'intrinsic value' and 'instrumental value'.
But, it seems there's a difference between morality and happiness. Just as with truth, there are moral situations that are not fun e.g. sacrificing yourself for another. These examples provide enough grounds to make morality something with intrinsic value.
Interesting claim. So the most successful person in life is the one with the biggest and healthiest line of descendants? What reason do you have to believe that? It seems that the ethical behaviour of willing the good to everyone, not just family members, goes against that end.
Duty and morals are instilled by our social environment, which is merely a kind of natural environment that we find ourselves in and need to navigate and survive in - no different than any other natural environment. In order to survive in any environment, you must learn how it works and what actions you take that either benefit you or don't.
No. Utility is not morality
Successful as in successfully propagating your genes, sure. There are other kinds of success - but it all can be resolved down to surviving and passing on your genes.
Willing good to everyone that share a majority of your genes - like the rest of humanity - doesn't go against the end of genes propagating themselves. Saving lives, saves genes, and it is that kind of behavior that would be selected by nature in order for genes to have the maximum propagation. It's not a matter of saving your own genes as your genes are merely a fraction of the gene pool of your social group, family or species you find yourself a part of.
Actions that "benefit or don't". I understand as being based on utility.
If you grew up in Germany in the mid 1930s would subugating Jews, Gypsies and others not benefit you.
No, I don't think utility can be inherently good in itself. It must obtain moral direction.
It raises an interesting question. Do we perceive a thing to be good because it gives us pleasure, or do experience pleasure because we perceive the thing to be good? Here is my take: It is the former when it comes to subjective values, and the latter when it comes to objective values. The goodness of a movie is subjective, and so we perceive it to be good because it gives us pleasure. The goodness of justice and health is objective, and so we experience pleasure because they are good. As such, pleasure is an end when it comes to things with subjective value.
I agree. And even though being morally good can make give pleasure in the long run, that is usually not the reason why people are good. I.E., they would still be good even if it did not give them pleasure. Pleasure in that case is more of a side effect than an end.
Merely? lolno.
I see. So the end is preservation and propagation of the human species. This kind of fits into the bucket (3) of necessity, health and safety, if taken broadly enough. But I have an objection to this being the only end, and reducing (1) and (2) to means: If this was true, then the individual would be valued based on genes, where the one with desired genes would be at the top, and the undesired genes and infertile one would be at the bottom of the hierarchy. But this yields to eugenics, which goes against traditional ethics, to treat all individuals as having the same value and rights.
Damn man, Alexander the Great was so unsuccessful, he died at 32 and his only son died at 14 :D
Surely, you and I both know of one person that treats others as they want to be treated. It only takes one example to demonstrate that, at least once, somebody acted for the end goal of ethics in itself. And even if the moral good was not a real thing, it is at least the perception of a moral good that makes it an end in itself. Side note: I also happen to think it is a real thing.
Great! So we do it to survive, but there's actually no reason to survive. Welcome to the modern world.
Yeah, that's cool with me. I just think that people are the ultimate ends. What else is there, other than you and I and our experiences of life?
Ethics and morals are the same thing and I described morals as the rules of the society you find yourself born into. So to say that someone acted for the end goal of ethics in itself, is to say that they acted for the end goal of following those rules. The moral good are those rules that we follow as opposed to not following them. Being that different cultures have different rules, where you will be imprisoned for doing something that is encouraged in another culture (i.e. free speech), there is no moral good in the objective sense. We follow the rules in order to maintain our good standing within our social group so that we don't get imprisoned and that we continue to receive help, if needed, from other members. As a social species we are geared towards seeking out others of our kind for safety and survival. It is a survival strategy to follow the rules of the society your find yourself born into.
Reasons and purposes are anthropomorphic but humans exist and are part of the world. So to say that there is no reason to survive would be to say that humans, and their reasons and purposes aren't part of the world. One good reason for my survival is to ensure that my kids grow up into happy adults.
I have heard ethics being called "The three R's": Right Response to Reality, or else, treating things according to their proper values. People are ends because they have a high value, but they are not the only thing. If God exists, then he has the greatest value of all, and is thus the ultimate end. Then comes angels, then humans, then animals, then plants, and so on, if we follow the Great Chain of Being. With regards to ethics, each ought to be treated as ends, proportionally to their proper values.
You may be right about free speech, but it is not a representative example because it is by no means an absolute. Let's look at Justice. Imagining justice to be bad and injustice to be good is impossible, like imagining a square circle. It is thus a moral absolute, independent of cultures. That is not to say that everyone is just, but that everyone understands justice to be morally good and injustice to be morally bad.
I'd rather not think about "value" in relation to God or people. If people are "ends", then that precludes the concept of value, and the same for God. So the hierarchy that exists is one of being, in the sense that God is a supreme being, and we're finite. But that doesn't relate to value. If people had value, what would that value be in relation to? And the same for God. I just think it's a category error. People transcend value, and the same for God. When I hear "God...is thus the ultimate end", it makes me think of the Christian idea that man's purpose to is to glorify God. That makes no sense. In what way would God be an ultimate end? It's a conflation of the supreme nature of the divine with a sense of hierarchical value. Try as we might, we can't remove ourselves from our own experience, so the ultimate end for us has to be something that we can parse within our finite experience, and God as ultimate ends doesn't parse. It's rather that our ultimate end as people is to participate in creation with God. The creative urge is the divine urge. Participation with the divine is the noblest end possible.
If it is true that nothing has a value in itself except as a means to an end, then it follows that the means acquire value because the end must have value, and that if the end has no value, then neither does the means. Therefore, if beings are ends, then they must have value, because the means (like being just to all) has value.
Quoting Noble Dust
In relation to the value of other beings, like God, angels, other people, animals and plants. And the hierarchy of value is in the order shown. Thus we should treat plants as ends (that is, do good to them), as long as it does not conflict with the end of higher beings.
Quoting Noble Dust
I agree that 'ought' implies 'can', that is, our end must be achievable. But this does not mean that we cannot achieve the end of treating God as the ultimate end, by obeying his will, such as loving our neighbours as ourselves. Such act is within our reach.