Does the non-human natural world have an intrinsic value (independent of human interests)? What qualities or characteristics bestow value?

Authors Avatar

Chrystal Fortugno

Philosophy 102

April 29, 2003

Q: Does the non-human natural world have an intrinsic value (independent of human interests)? What qualities or characteristics bestow value?

        

When it comes to the question of non-human rights and the value of nature, there are adamant advocates, those who completely disagree with particular values and rights for the ecosystem, and those could care less. For myself, I believe I have fallen somewhat in between these extremes and have honestly never really considered the idea of intrinsic value and certain rights for the non-human natural world. Singer, Baxter, Steinbock and Callicott (with the words and ideas of Leopold) each have very different ideas about animal rights and the concept of the non-human natural world having a value by itself, regardless of human interests. I will briefly go over the ideas of Baxter and Callicott and add my own views to their ideas and my thoughts on their respective points of view.         

        Baxter’s focus and main idea in the essay “People or Penguins” is to say that the only value the natural world has lies in regard to how it benefits human interests. He says that only human interests should determine our obligations to the environment. The human interests he specifies include freedom, avoiding waste (not for the sake of the environment, but for human’s sake), regarding others as ends rather than means, and the each person should have the opportunity and incentive to improve his/her life. Baxter defends his views by saying that people truly think in these terms; it’s within human interests to preserve the environment and what’s good for us is good for them; only humans can participate in collective policy decisions and it would be nearly impossibly to appoint someone to represent animal interests and to decide how much, in relation to human interests, animal interests would count; and that because only human beings can raise these moral questions, they are the only ones worthy of making such decisions. His main belief centers around the fact that because animals and plant life have no ability to reason, they have no moral standing. Baxter believes that animal interests don’t and should not count and that the natural world has no intrinsic value beyond human interests.

Join now!

        In response to Baxter’s idea, I would first ask him exactly who the people are he’s talking to in his defense of this being the way people really think. I think it’s a bit of a rash assumption to say that because he thinks this way, many others must agree (as I sincerely doubt he has done any research on the subject). Although I do agree with Baxter that it is in human’s interests to preserve the environment, but this is because there are many essential functions that humans cannot perform themselves. For instance, the example of bees pollinating flowers, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay