Intrinsic Value or Relative Value?

[Prince_Imrahil]

Concerning things such as the value of animals and the environment and whether we should treat them well or not, do you think we owe consideration to animal welfare or environmental protection because these things have value in themselves or because of how it will affect us ultimately? (polluted water is bad for us)

A simple question this time.

 

[Perfection]

Relative mostly, though I might see some justification for limited intrinsic value to higher animals.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Why the constant threads on morality Imrahil?

And only humans have intrinsic value.

 

[Perfection]

And only humans have intrinsic value.

I sympathize heavily with this viewpoint but I have to disagree. An animal (of sufficient intelligent) not suffering is better then an animal suffering. This seems to be a basic truth in my value system.

 

[Brighteye]

I saw a thread made by Prince_Imrahil, and I thought to myself "That'll be a good 'un".

 

[Tee Kay]

I sympathize heavily with this viewpoint but I have to disagree. An animal (of sufficient intelligent) not suffering is better then an animal suffering. This seems to be a basic truth in my value system.

How do you determine whether an animal is of sufficient intelligence comrade Perf?

Animal suffering is better than human suffering, but only a very, very, very little tiny bit better. Animals have intrinsic value. Can't say the same for other aspects of nature though.

 

[Mureke]

Nature is the only real base of all existence. Man is only a part of nature. Denial of this reality is the most unbelievable madness ever to be conceived.

 

[Perfection]

How do you determine whether an animal is of sufficient intelligence comrade Perf?

I don't! My views on animal rights are incomplete!

Animal suffering is better than human suffering, but only a very, very, very little tiny bit better.

I disagree, animal suffering is much better then human suffering.

 

[Mise]

Had you not put the caveat, "valuable because they're useful to us" on the Relative option, I'd have picked that.

 

[Perfection]

Had you not put the caveat, "valuable because they're useful to us" on the Relative option, I'd have picked that.

What do you mean by relative value if not that?

 

[El_Machinae]

I sympathize heavily with this viewpoint but I have to disagree. An animal (of sufficient intelligent) not suffering is better then an animal suffering. This seems to be a basic truth in my value system.

I get what you're saying. If you have the choice between having a mouse with a broken leg and a mouse with no broken leg, you'd prefer the mouse to not be suffering. Close?

 

[Mise]

What do you mean by relative value if not that?

It doesn't have to be "useful" to have value, like a painting for example. That's why I don't care if we rape, skin and eat cows, but if the cute lil hare in Snatch didn't out-run the vicious dogs I'd have cried.

 

[Perfection]

I get what you're saying. If you have the choice between having a mouse with a broken leg and a mouse with no broken leg, you'd prefer the mouse to not be suffering. Close?

Bingo

It doesn't have to be "useful" to have value, like a painting for example. That's why I don't care if we rape, skin and eat cows, but if the cute lil hare in Snatch didn't out-run the vicious dogs I'd have cried.

I think utility covers that as well.

 

[Mise]

I think utility covers that as well.

I think if "useful" were to cover "cute", it would make it too much of a truism.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Intrinsic (in themselves valuable)

No such thing. The statement makes no logical sense. 'Value' has no independent existence. A thing is either valuable or not based on how its perceived.

 

[Swedishguy]

Relative. Mother Earth can screw herself if we find a loophole.

 

[puglover]

I believe God gave the Earth to us to take care of, therefore I see them as having intrinstic value.

 

[Bast]

Nature is the only real base of all existence. Man is only a part of nature. Denial of this reality is the most unbelievable madness ever to be conceived.

So true.

Plus animals and nature have never tried to harm me. People have. I'd rather see my enemies die than innocent animals and nature which forms a part of our environmental heritage.

 

[Bill3000]

Relative value is literally the only rational way to go, as it can justify why we consider other animals inferior (what Perf had said) but at the same time not place an intrinsic value of humanity - otherwise, it justifies a lack of value for other beings that are sapient.

 

[Bast]

It doesn't have to be "useful" to have value, like a painting for example.

LOL yes. I guess those people who voted 'no' doesn't know anything about art and literature.

I believe in preservation of flora and fauna as well as art, literature, language and architecture unique to our countries (especially western countries). It's far more important to hold on things that define who are as a people rather than sacrifice them for short term economic gains.