The question of the morally relevant intrinsic value of the planet, the biotic community, nature, or the material world as such remains elusively open.
Here's a thought: suppose we grant the sensible proposition that morally relevant intrinsic value arises from the capacity to value in morally relevant ways. Suppose also, however, that the process by which these capacities arise is sufficiently integrated into nature that it is impossible to respect valuers without taking their environment very seriously. In other words, nature understood as an integrated system produces and contains all the morally relevant intrinsic value that there is (or perhaps we might say that MRIV is endemic to nature), so in that sense nature has (literally contains) intrinsic value.
Would it follow from this that nature as such is due the dignity of moral concern we owe to beings capable of valuing, those sentient and sapient centers of consciousness to whom we normally direct our moral attention? That question might still be open.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Sounds like a slippery slope to attributing MRIV to the entire universe (i.e., the necessary conditions for the existence of our planet/biosphere/etc.).
Perhaps it is. But what if the ecosphere as a complex and tightly integrated system (if it is in fact integrated in the relevant respects) has a claim to being more than a necessary (and sufficient) condition for the existence of sentient beings? If the ecosystem turns out empirically to be meaningfully analogous to an organism, we might have to reconsider.
There are individuals who see value in all beings, regardless of their rank. Everybody aims their moral value to something or someone that they intrinsically feel is worth it. For example, I know people who could care less about the value of a mountain. To me, this seems crazy, but it is just the differences in moral attitudes found amoung all people.
That there are differences in views tells us very little, since some or all of those views could of course be mistaken. Each opinion -- that mountains do or do not have moral value in themselves, that trees or lizards or dogs are or are are not deserving of individual moral consideration -- must stand or fall on the quality of the best evidence and reasons we can muster for its being true.
I believe that yes, it absolutely does follow that we owe nature the dignity of moral concern that we provide for ourselves and our fellow humans (those capable of valuing, those who we direct our moral attention.) In a nutshell, the Earth is our ancestor. We spawned and evolved over the course of this planet's existence, making it possibly our greatest ancestor. Without the basis of Earth itself, and everything it encompasses, we would not have entered our plane of existence. Further, without Earht's continued existence, humanity would cease to exist. How could any race of organisms so dependant on one thing not credit our provider with the morally relevant intrinsic value and dignity it deserves?
I agree with Greg on this, that the Earth as a whole holds morally relevant intrinsic value, simply because we live here. However, it is a point that people do or do not give it the dignity and moral attention it deserves. How are we to promote this fact that anything from a pond to a mountain to the entire Earth holds intrinsic value? Yes, it provides and sustains life, but how is one going to express this idea?
I think that many people are unaware of how much nature really provides and sustains their life. They think, "so what, I chopped down a tree so I can have the table I've always wanted" instead of, "I just ruined the habitat of a family of squirrels and potentially broke a few robins' eggs."
But like Professor Johnson said, this is a very slippery slop, when are do you draw the line? To the point where we can't walk out the door? Of course the ecosystem is analogous to the organism, it lives there, it will be affected when you chop down its tree, but distinguishing whether the organism is going to move on to another tree or cry about it is an issue of itself.
Indeed, people are part of nature (or at least arose from it), and have as much right to live in it as other critters. It would make no sense to say we ought not do anything (though Jainism trys to say something like that). Humans should to be able to live their lives, thrive, and be their exuberant selves. It doesn't follow that we are entitled to populate and consume the ecosystem out of existence, however. We can be way smarter than that, which means (given our awesome destructive power) that we must become responsible as a species.
Post a Comment