Is nature has intrinsic value

Sem. Jhon Mark Abit Jaradal Is nature intrinsically valuable or does it simply serve the purpose of man, hence only instrumental valuable? Introduction: In environmental ethics, the main concern was about the value theory, in which the main question was, where does the value come from? The discussion was about whether nature has a value itself or does it depend on the person itself. There are two distinctions in the argument of the value theory such as between the instrumental (it is a value assigned to something because of its usefulness, and a means to an end… like water) and non-instrumental value (this could be also called intrinsic value). Clare Palmer, “An overview of environmental ethics”, In Holmes Rolston & Andrew Light (eds.), Environmental Ethics, Blackwell, pp. 16, (2002). The concept of intrinsic value reflects the perspective that nature has value in its own right, independent of human uses. Intrinsic value opens us to the possibility that nature has value even if it does not directly or indirectly benefit humans. Intrinsic value is viewed from an ecocentric standpoint. In the discussion of intrinsic value, one question arises, is it created by human beings, or is it something already in existence in the world, that human beings recognize rather than bring into being? Now, it also triggered the dispute between value subjectivists and value objectivists. Value subjectivists argue that intrinsic value is something that humans create and attach to their own lives, the lives of other people, and to particular states of affairs or perhaps to qualities such as harmony, while value objectivists believe that non-instrumental value is not something that humans create, but something already in the world. Clare Palmer, “An overview of environmental ethics”, pp. 16-17. It was the claim of the objectivist too that valuing nature intrinsically was not creating or projecting value instead humans are just recognizing the value of nature that already existed. This is the common debate in environmental ethics, which until the recent discussion still problematic. In this paper, I would argue a simple perspective on how we properly treat nature. Man has a moral responsibility to nature because of the intrinsic value, which was revealed from the different manifestations of the value of nature towards man. Secondly, the development of technologies and machines should be minimized and a must learn the proper use of machines created by man so that it would not negatively affect nature but man take into consideration to acknowledge the value of nature. Lastly, the superiority of man and the improper use of new inventions impede man to transcend, recognizing the intrinsic value of nature, and being conscious of man's moral responsibility toward nature. Thus, the researcher firmly believes that man’s productivity impedes them from properly dealing with nature’s revelations regarding intrinsic value. Body The nature of man The nature of man was been divided into three characteristics. I do believe that man is an animal too, but what differentiates him from the other animals is found in three specific natures that they have. The existence of man can be found at the point in the process of evolution wherein the instinctive adaption has become low. There he emerges as different from all other animals and develops new qualities found in him. Man becomes aware of themselves as a separate entity, they become a rational animal who can understand the world, develops the ability to remember the past and visualize the future, etc. Their self-awareness, reason, and imagination have become the reason for their being in the harmony with nature which characterizes the animal’s existence. In this sense, man becomes subject to the laws of nature and yet they transcend the rest of nature. The reason, the blessing that man has, is also the curse that he possesses because it makes him deal with the task of solving his existential problems, that is, ingoing “back to the prehuman state of harmony with nature”. But then they can’t remain with the fact that they have only become aware, they must proceed to develop their reason until they become the master of their nature. Man is homeless: which means they transcend everything in nature, yet he is chained to the home they share with all creatures, they are also alone, alone in the sense that they are unique from all other animals in the animal kingdom. Yet, the existence of his reason causes him to develop makes create a world of his own in which he can feel at home. He and his fellowmen would be essential to this awareness. In this regard, man can be defined as well as a social animal. Though they are sometimes alone as a separate entity. They could not bear to be alone and to be unrelated to their fellow men. Their happiness depends on the solidarity he feels with their fellow man. This solidarity must be found in his striving for unity and oneness in all spheres of his being to find a new equilibrium because they are an entity endowed with mind and body. He must not react to his problem by thinking alone but by also living in unity with his fellow men. Man is also a productive animal because by his rationality man can become creative in producing things that they desire. They form different machines and they presume that those things would be helpful in their development. However, some of those machines, created by man would lead to the destruction of nature. This was a manifestation that man is only concerned about the benefits they would receive without considering the intrinsic value of nature because nature is part of the effect of the development of machines. As Lynn white claim that man has the feeling of being superior to nature because God granted the human the authority to take care of the environment and the animals within that ecosystem. However, man take this opportunity to abuse nature. In Lynn’s White argument, he also discusses the development of the sciences and technologies in past centuries, and he claims that As we enter the last third of the 20th century, however, concern for the problem of ecologic backlash is mounting feverishly. Natural science, conceived as the effort to understand the nature of things, had flourished in several eras and among several peoples. Similarly, there had been an age-old accumulation of technological skills, sometimes growing rapidly, sometimes slowly. But it was not until about four generations ago that Western Europe and North America arranged a marriage between science and technology, a union of the theoretical and the empirical approaches to our natural environment. The emergence in the widespread practice of the Baconian creed that scientific knowledge means technological power over nature can scarcely be dated before about 1850, save in the chemical industries, where it is anticipated in the 18th century. Lynn White, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," Science 155, no. 3767 (1967), 1203-1207, doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203. This statement of Lyn would probably claim that more science and more technological development does make us help to avoid the ecological crisis in the present day, instead, the researcher believes that more sciences and technologies in the present day lead us to be more complicated in the ecological crisis. Simply, because the development of technologies impedes man to recognize the present intrinsic value of nature. They are much concerned about the creative products that would benefit primarily humans and some of those products are disastrous for nature. The nature Nature plays an important role in the environment. It could be the source of the basic needs of all living beings. It could be a source of inhabitants, food, and fresh air for human animals and non-human animals. Nature itself can’t exist without those organisms who live within that ground. However, imagine an environment that has no nature at all. It seems impossible because nature has a function within the community. Thus, the researcher claim that nature itself has an intrinsic value. Nature is still valuable whether human animals or non-human animals benefit from it or not. Sometimes we human beings can’t apprehend the inner dimension of the value of nature. Now, the question is whether the totality of the intrinsic value of nature is knowable or unknowable. If it was knowable to humans then the next question was who will determine and give assurance that the totality of the intrinsic value of nature was exactly to the knowledge of the individual. The second question is if it was knowable, then Is there a hierarchical system of the value of nature? Thus, the totality of the intrinsic value of nature is unknowable by a human being, but because of the capacity of humans to rationalize, they can transcend their ‘I’ consciousness and can know at least a glimpse of the intrinsic value of nature. The intrinsic value within nature was partially revealed to humans, it was through the manifestation of a function of nature toward human beings and fulfilling the telos of nature itself. The different manifestation of nature to reveal its value to humans was that nature can be the source of the basic needs of man, nature can flourish and nature can exist without the intervention of man. However, most of the time we human animals feel superior to nature because of our rationality. We humans, proudly acknowledge that we are the higher hierarchical system of all living beings. Thus, human beings are not humble enough to recognize the intrinsic value of nature. Lynn white claims that St. Francis was a role model in the catholic church in having a perspective on how we treat nature properly. Lynn White directly claims that the key to an understanding of Francis is his belief in the virtue of humility--not merely for the individual but man as a species. Lynn White, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," pp. 1207. The researcher firmly agrees with this statement because it was the virtue of humility that man can transcend into himself, to look upon or recognize the intrinsic value that was already present in nature. We human beings want to conserve biology and nature because they can be the source of our basic needs. As Spash claims that conservation biology is a vital growing discipline, contributing not only to solving environmental crisis but also the real-world changes like revising economic theory. Clivie, Spash, Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in nature, Biological Conservation (2015), 541–551, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.037. This was possible if we could have a recognition of the intrinsic value, which is the foundation of conservation biology. Leopold also discusses in the land of ethics “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community, and it was wrong when it tends otherwise.” Aldo Leopold, A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LICERWI0YJYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&ots=4v5NotIytE&sig=RC3UU-6KAJM8r28kVZIrgtM3sHU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. This statement implies the action we will conduct should not exclusively benefit human beings but instead, the whole living organism within the community, simply because those living organisms and nature have an intrinsic value in themselves that we need to preserve. Thus, humans should be found within the circle of the intrinsic natural value, as is all life in the world and through this man would be able to recognize the value of nature too because they are living harmoniously with nature. As Leopold claims in the preface to A sand country almanac that “A conservation is getting nowhere because of our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong we may begin to use it with love and respect.” Ibid Hence, humans must not feel superior to nature itself and presume that we can use nature instrumentally, instead, we belong to this nature and not nature exclusively belong to us. There are some interpretations that the value of nature was dependent on the perspective of the human who takes care of it. If this was the case, it implies that nature's value was unstable and uncertain because it was instrumental to humans. Now, the researcher believes that the value of nature was intrinsically equal. Hence, man needs to recognize it and appreciate the relevance of nature in society. These are the basis why nature itself has intrinsic value, it is because nature can exist within the society without humans, nature has a function in the community, and lastly, nature is flourishing for the benefit of itself and humanity. The problem with the human nature Man as a rational, social and productive animal can disregard the intrinsic value of nature and forget to recognize the manifestation reveal by the nature itself. The development of technologies and machines extensively happened in the 21st century. those technologies hinder us to look upon the origin of the inner nature of an individual. This blinded us to be mindful that we human beings still belong to the animal kingdom, however, we are the higher type of animal because of the rationality that we have. The rationality and different thing that make man unique should not lead us to be arrogant toward nature. Eventually, the invitation is to go back to the ground and try to live in harmony with nature. The rationality, social, and productivity of man must be an instrument to deepen our understanding of nature, by acknowledging its intrinsic value. I suggest that the productivity of man should consider whether that machines and technologies will affect or not to nature. Simply, because if it always benefits humans and harms nature then I suggest lessening the production of unnecessary machines and technologies. This might sound paradoxical, however, if we can’t lessen production because it was the nature of man to be creative in thinking of different inventions that would lead to the cultivation of society, then perhaps man is not capable to be conscious of the intrinsic value within nature, instead, it was anthropocentric that man created the value of nature because the only concern of man is those things that are beneficial for themselves. If this was the case then we should have a well-oriented perspective on nature concerning the proper usage and managing of the new invention of technologies, to avoid or minimize the destruction and disastrous effect of machines against nature. Human should consider their ethical responsibility toward nature and co-human beings. the responsibility for nature implies that man is capable to be connected to nature and being aware of the value of nature. As Dobel stated that the rationality of man serves as being steward of nature in preserving the organized nature for the future generation, he directly said that “the stewardship imperative assumes that the moral and ecological constraints are respected and it adds the obligation to distribute the benefits justly. The steward must “give them their portion of the food at the proper time.” Mistreating his charges, gorging himself on the resources in excess consumption, and not caring for the resources will all cause the steward to be ‘cut off. True stewardship requires both respect for the trusteeship and covenanted imperative and an active effort to improve the land for the future and to use it in a manner to benefit others.” Patrick Dobel, “The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Attitude to Nature,” Christian Century, October 1, 1977, pp. 32. In this claim of Dobel, the researcher argues the responsibility toward nature is not exclusively for the future generation but instead we should focus on the present generation and try to polish the ecological crisis by cultivating the mentality of individuals. We turn our focus on the present, not on the past and the future generation. The responsibility toward nature would be a guiding way to recognize its intrinsic value of nature. Man as a steward of nature should use their rationality to protect nature and for the benefit of nature. The beneficial consequence that man can receive from being a steward was secondary. Conclusion: To conclude, this paper argues that nature has its intrinsic value, but it was unknowable to man. However, nature itself can reveal a glimpse of its value to humans through different manifestations such as nature has a function in society, nature is the source of basic needs of humans, and nature itself can exist without humans. Thus, man requires to be humble enough and to perform their responsibility as a steward to nature. Humility and being active in responsibility imply that man can transcend to recognize the intrinsic value of nature. On the other hand, the problem was that the nature of man was a rational animal and on that rationality of man they can socialize and be a productive animal. On the productivity of man, it impedes them to take into consideration their responsibility towards nature instead man is concerned about their advantages. Suddenly, man forget that nature plays an important role in their basic needs and those machines created by man sometimes produce a negative impact on nature. thus, the researcher believes that we should minimize the production and invention of new technologies and machines that directly affect nature or have at least a well-oriented perspective on the proper usage and management of technologies, to avoid the disastrous effect of machines on nature. if a man will be humbled, rationalize, and a true steward, they will also take into consideration nature in every time of production conducted because nature has intrinsic value that man should recognize.