PHIL 2270 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Brian Barry, Anthropocentrism, Objectivist Periodicals
14 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
IN DEFENSE OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM
By: W. Beckerman & J. Pasek
The authors are skeptic about giving intrinsic value to the environment because the
concept is highly ambiguous and vague.
● X has intrinsic value = degree of freedom. It is valued for its own sake
● X has instrumental value = degree of freedom. It is valued for its efficacy in bringing
about an objective
● Some objects may possess both kinds of value. (ex: a piece of music, flowers)
1) Objectivist approach – X has intrinsic value because of its objective properties
whether anyone recognizes these properties or not.
G.E. Moore was an objectivist. To elucidate his position, he proposed a thought
experiment:
● Suppose there are 2 worlds, W1 & W2. W1 is beautiful & W2 is ugly. No-one has ever
seen W1 nor W2. Moore argues that W1 is much more valuable than W2 since beauty in
itself is more valuable than ugliness. Thus, beauty (and value) is objective.
Brian Barry (1999): Moore’s thought experiment is ridiculous since it makes no sense to
say that one world is better (more valuable) than another based on a supposition such
as unexperienced beauty – Beauty, in other words, is in the eye of the beholder.
How do we know if X has intrinsic value?
2) Subjectivist approach – values cannot exist without a valuer – and the valuer may
ascribe either intrinsic or instrumental value to X (or both).
● From this perspective, Moore’s 2 worlds example doesn’t make sense since in neither
world does anyone exist to perceive beauty or ugliness.
● The authors clarify that subjectivism does not entail that x is universally valuable
automatically if someone values it.
● Their main concern in the article is to determine whether the environment can be
ascribed intrinsic value. This spans both objectivism & subjectivism.
● The subjectivist is just as capable of ascribing intrinsic value to x as is an objectivist.
● The environmentalist would argue that a subjectivist valuation of nature attributing to
it intrinsic value – is fleeting since people may one day stop valuing nature.
Last man argument: Suppose you are the last person on earth & you are about to die.
You have the power to press a button that would destroy everything beautiful before
you die. Would pressing the button be immoral?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The authors are skeptic about giving intrinsic value to the environment because the concept is highly ambiguous and vague. X has intrinsic value = degree of freedom. X has instrumental value = degree of freedom. It is valued for its efficacy in bringing about an objective. Some objects may possess both kinds of value. (ex: a piece of music, flowers: objectivist approach x has intrinsic value because of its objective properties whether anyone recognizes these properties or not. To elucidate his position, he proposed a thought experiment: Suppose there are 2 worlds, w1 & w2. Moore argues that w1 is much more valuable than w2 since beauty in itself is more valuable than ugliness. How do we know if x has intrinsic value: subjectivist approach values cannot exist without a valuer and the valuer may ascribe either intrinsic or instrumental value to x (or both).
