In Clare Palmer’s “An
Overview of Environmental Ethics,” she highlights various central questions; in
particular, the value of certain components of the environment.
Palmer addresses two
variations of value: instrumental value, or value that can be used as a means
to an end, and non-instrumental (intrinsic) value, which is value that is, in
itself, an end.
These varying definitions
of value result in a dispute between value subjectivists and value
objectivists. As a subjectivist, value is something that we create and assign
to our lives. As an objectivist, value is something that already exists in the
world, independent of our existence.
The example used in the
text was water: water is seen as an instrumental value to humans, for it is
used to keep us alive, therefore making it a means to an end. It is valued
because it is necessary for us. Palmer states that “water…is of instrumental
value to humans because it helps in achieving another goal – that is, remaining
alive.” But what about for all of the people in other countries who do not have
access to clean water? For them, drinking water would be detrimental to their
health and, ultimately, their lives. The quality of the water does not change
the fact that they need it to live, but it does change the value of it: water
is no longer a means to an end (living), but an end in itself (sickness or
death).
I believe that all aspects
of the environment should be seen objectively. It should not matter that they
do not directly or indirectly aid us. For those with clean water to drink, we
are often not concerned with those who don’t have clean water, because we view
the environment subjectively; if it doesn’t affect us, why should we really
care? But if it were viewed in an objective way, the preservation of clean
water (and on the large scale, the environment) would be the end in itself, and
it wouldn’t matter which people (and ultimately, countries and continents),
benefitted, because we would be doing it in for the sake of the environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment