Intrinsic Value versus Instrumental Value Essay Example

altruism, as we would expect from anyone who loves a living object (we might include biological systems and communities) will take an interest in its well-being or welfare” (Sagoff, 1991). The differentiation of the intrinsic versus instrument value of the earth about this analogy clearly shows why all human beings must be willing to conserve the environment.

The farmer, in this case, is forced to evaluate his moral standings with respect to undertaking actions that go beyond individual welfare and focus on other’s welfare. The question of the environment according to Sagoff must also be evaluated away from the individual welfare or personal gain but rather with the external implications that such an action may portend. Agreeably, while Zuckerman would have slaughtered the Pig for money, Charlotte would have lost a friend in the process, the moral of the analogy is the question of satisfaction internally versus satisfaction externally. Sagoff argues that the value of nature transcends the provision of water and other natural resources; according to Sagoff instrumental value is restricted to the argument that saving nature equals reaping the benefits such as medicines, wood, water and food (Sagoff, 1991). On the contrary, Sagoff suggests that "A moral argument describes obligations we have toward objects of nature insofar as we regard them with reverence, affection, and respect. Such an argument may contend that humanity confronts a great responsibility in learning to share the world with other species” (Sagoff, 1991).

Essentially, this argument reflects on the idea that reverence, love, and affection sets apart the difference between intrinsic values and instrumental values when discussing the environment; his view is that when human beings realize that other species

need nature equally then they tangible value of the natural resources will cease to count as important. According to Sagoff, it is improbable that animals can protect the environment, human beings as the better species must endeavor to preserve the environment for the environment’s sake and that of the other species.

Rolston

Ostensibly, the assumption is that human beings have the right to exploit natural resources to their benefits. Rolston, however, takes a unique yet similar perspective to that held by Sagoff. Ideally, when Rolston argues that everything under the earth from an astronomic perspective appears universal, he raises a major argument for nature as opposed to the nation. Rolston attempts to present an argument that views nature devoid of the boundaries and the limitations that human beings place on earth with the intention of being possessive and placing ownership to natural resources. Ideally, from an astronomic perspective, the earth is one big village "But our nations are united inescapably in sharing air, water, oceans, climate, natural resources, migratory birds, and wildlife; this inescapable interdependence can also divide them. There is one Earth; on it are nearly two hundred sovereign nations" (Rolston, 2006).

Arguably, unlike Sagoff, Rolston views the instrumental value that has been placed on natural resources from a national versus natural perspective. In essence, what Rolston argues is that the reason nature must be viewed away from boundaries is because such a perspective introduces an aspect of the selfish need to own and benefit from such resources. Arguably, the fact that nations share air, water catchments, animals, birds and other natural resources confirms the fact that all species on earth should be viewed as earthlings as

opposed to viewing such species at a national level.

In essence, the instrumental value attached to boundaries means that the intrinsic value of such resources may be undermined. The argument is that “Insofar as we care about an object for instrumental reasons, we would accept a substitute, for example, ball point pens in place of quills-if it performs the same function at a lower cost. The market price of any object should in theory not exceed that of the cheapest substitute” (Rolston, 2006). Agreeably, as long as a natural resource is protected due to the value it adds, the moment such a resource becomes useless or replaceable chances are there will no longer be any need for protection.

Conclusion

Ostensibly, Sagoff and Rolston agree on the fact that at the end of the day, it is only when their intrinsic value placed on natural resources that there will be unconditional care for such resources even when they do not have much value to the human kind. On the same note, Sagoff and Rolston share the perspective that intrinsic value for nature must go beyond the assumption that as long as there is individual satisfaction nothing else matters. The assertion is validated by Sagoff’s discussion of Fungibility and Rolston’s insistence on natural as opposed to a national view of the earth. In the end, both authors also agree fundamentally on the fact that the only way to view natural resources and the environment with an intrinsic perspective is to develop a unified world. A unified world where all individuals take a proactive role in safeguarding the environment, not because of the benefits that emanate from such protection but because

of the love and respect that human beings have for the natural resources.

References

• Rolston, Ill, H. (2006). Intrinsic Values on Earth: Nature and Nations. Retrieved from https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10217/40513/Intrinsic-Values-UNESCO-updated.pdf?sequence=1
• Sagoff, M. (1991). Zuckerman's Dilemma A Plea for Environmental Ethics. The Hastings Center Report, 21(5), 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3562889