Intrinsic Value
To have intrinsic value is to be desirable in and of itself, independently of whether it leads to anything else. The primary example of something that has intrinsic value is Pleasure. Hedonism is the Value-Theory that asserts that Pleasure/enjoyment is the ONLY thing that has intrinsic value. Can you think of anything else that has intrinsic value?
Comments (44)
Pleasure is only pleasurable in regards to something else...you take pleasure in a glass of wine...so it can't be intrinsically valuable. Also pleasure is always a becoming it is never an end in itself.
Human life.
that looks to me like a grammatical proposition that is true by definition and hence amounts to as much as saying "I like what I like". i.e. our language doesn't represent what we mean by value, rather our use of language expresses it.
Knowledge, virtue, justice (the distribution of goods based on merit), beauty. Hedonism is false because it misinterprets these other goods as being derivative from pleasure when in fact they stand independently of pleasure.
It is tempting to adopt hedonism, however, because sensuous experiences, particularly pain, seem to motivate people far more effectively than anything else. Other goods may be independently good, but nevertheless may require that there be a certain threshold of pain that is kept in check. We cannot pursue knowledge, or act virtuously, or distribute justice, or appreciate beauty when we are suffering. It does seem to be the case that, when push comes to shove, suffering and pleasure usually disable these other goods, and not the other way around.
Good point!
Though I think it does depend on what you mean by pleasure.
I sort of wonder about the phrase "in and of itself" to be honest. And "desire" too since it's a defining term of said term -- if something is desirable without leading to anything else then isn't that just what pleasure means? To satisfy desire, to find what one is lacking (at least in a usual sense of desire) -- isn't that just tautological to your definition of intrinsic value?
How about defining intrinsic value as value that's not derived from common agreement. Food, for example. The value of food does not depend on people believing in it, in contrast to things like dollars or bitcoin whose value is a function of society's belief in it.
If that's the definition of "intrinsic value," then I don't think it exists. Values that I would think of as intrinsic are those that are built into us as humans. Let's see - pleasure, ok. What else, avoidance of pain and fear; love for family; desire for human attachment; satisfaction of hunger, thirst, and sexual desire. I'm not sure of all of those and there are others not listed.
We desire pleasure, but pleasure is subjective and every person derives pleasure from whatever they desire. The point is humans, being naturally evolved creatures, have a set of genes that drives them to bear intrinsic values. Food is intrinsically valuable to us for obvious reasons.
The word "value" is a strange concept if you think about it. It seems like biological organisms are the only ones who bear this thing since we have this qualia we call "pain" and we rather steer clear of it.
We, humans, have more sophisticated values because we evolutionarily developed intellect. We value education, our personal hobbies, money... abstract things that go beyond basic animalistic instinct.
Other natural phenomenon don't bear this thing we like to call value, for example, does fire have "value"? when you steer a raging ember, fire doesn't long to stay ablaze. The flame is equally neutral to being oxidised or bereft of oxygen while living things have this natural propensity towards things that will help them survive.
Knowledge, love, persons, virtue, are other examples of things that have intrinsic value.
It can have instrumental value, no?
So, how does one differentiate from what has instrumental value over intrinsic value? After all one could say reasonably that everything is of instrumental value to the self interested man.
Well, the way I see it is as follows: It's not a matter of what I think or believe that makes something intrinsically valuable - if that were the case, then one could claim that injustice has intrinsic worth or value.
To me value is just what we value, not what we desire. The conflation of the two happens, for instance, in some versions of theories of choice, often consumerist ones: as if preferences, as expressed through desires, could be equated to value. This is a pejorative view of value in my world.
For example, to me heroism has 'intrinsic value'. It's one of those words that's in our language and other languages as an expression of evaluative good. Like 'glory'. Or 'good'.
Pleasure is something that is valued by humans, and there is an objectivity to the pleasure, so others can see it and participate in it. For example, people derive pleasure from music, we can objectively see it as we watch others, and we can experience it directly. Reality has intrinsic worth for us, at least much of it does - for example, watching a beautiful sunset. Without persons reality would have no intrinsic worth, because as you say, intrinsic value to whom?
I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact, I have argued so in print.
.
I think that there is a wider and a narrower sense of 'desire'. The wider sense tells us nothing about WHAT motivates us, but only THAT we are so motivated. This sense, for which we also use the term "want", is the one which we use when it is claimed that everything we do intentionally, we must have wanted to do in some way, other wise we wouldn't have done it. See Ways of Desire.
But, we only value or appreciate things like knowledge, justice, morality, and other things mostly when we need them.
How do you explain that?
Which brings us to a central question: "What is it to value something?"
Perhaps what we need to do is to tie intrinsic value to needs not wants.
But why is that the central question, with "value" being a verb and not a noun. That is, why isn't the real question, what is value? To ask it as you have triggers my same objection as before, which is that if you ask what is it to value something, you simply ask the subjective question, making the most logical response a psychological one, as in "to value something is to hold it in high regard." It's likely I value things of no value and ignore things of value, thus ignoring the deeper question of what value is.
I agree; but, then what is the value of philosophy?
If it's tied to needs (or wants), I'd argue it's not intrinsic, but dependent. That is, if my needs are better fulfilled by cheating, does justice now lack intrinsic worth?
Because when we value something we are viewing it in a certain way, as having certain features. This might help determine whether there is anything that objectively fits that way of thinking. And that would be "a value".
Hmm. I think of Philosophy as having both intrinsic and extrinsic value. Extrinsic value because, if done right, it leads to clarity of though, removal of biases, and a gradual approach to truth. For me, doing philosophy also has intrinsic value--because it is so much fun!!
The road to recovery is often paved with reevaluating how one is living one's life and steering themselves in the direction of valuing the truly valuable. And I use "recovery" here to mean from anything meaningless, even if it's just from living a previously unexamined life.
Would it not if it weren't fun? I'd think its value exceeds that of a good massage, even should the good massage be more fun.
And, if we all know what is intrinsically valuable why don't we show it in action and deed? Such as wanting a free education in the US or saving Social Security or increasing funding for education in general. In other words, why are our priorities misaligned with what is of intrinsic value?
Experiences are complex. The pleasure we take in a glass of wine, comes from its color, its vibrancy, its taste and its aftertaste, its terroir; all together the rhapsody of the sensations and memories, in which we may find pleasure. We don't experience raw, pure pleasures on their own and therefore we can't value them as such. We value experience as a whole, not its parts. Pleasure itself is never experienced on its own, it is always experienced in relation to something else, as a means to an end, but never as the end, therefore pleasure cannot be the good, since what is good always an end, which is always intrinsically valuable.
And what happened to pragmatism? Surely there are better and wose ways but then there's the matter of how efficient they may be and picking which method is best on that basis.
A two-party system is diverse?