« Yo, Earthlings! Hot Enough For You? | Main | "And yet, humans can't seem to stop killing them" »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Maybe it's just the language being used, but I was struck by the attempts to describe the moral argument in terms of "value". Value is still an attempt to reckon a utilitarian argument. Intrinsic value is just some value we can't quantify to satisfaction. It still supposes that there's something for us to be gained, like the mere appreciation of nature, or a sense of wonder, or the avoidance of some harm we can't perceive, or what have you. It seems like most people, even Plumer, can't help themselves in that even when they try to frame a moral argument, it's utilitarian.

It seems to me a moral argument must be one that avoids discussions of value altogether. That, for instance, we are obligated to reasonably avoid interference with, or destruction of, other life on earth simply because it deserves it, due to the inherent dignity or grace, or a sense of our own humility.

But maybe it's just the language. Maybe "value" is just a poor choice of words.

The comments to this entry are closed.