Intrinsic Value?

strobe

Hey, this concept came up in a thread on the Christianity forum. I sense it is better suited here. I'm new to the idea so don't really have any opinion to offer of my own as of yet (apologies) so just wanted to throw the question out there.

Does intrinsic value exist?

Black Swan

Perhaps a philosophical definition is needed, as there are other disciplines like equity investments within economics that also claims the concept. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has in itself, or for its own sake, or as such, or in its own right.”

Moore in Principia Ethica finds intrinsic value central to ethics, but problematic to analyze. In isolation there may be some agreement, but once we review intrinsic values in real world contexts, the debate begins.

Max Weber in Economy and Society contended that no one is value free; i.e., that we are all biased in how we intrinsically value things: One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.

Often the intrinsic goodness or badness of something is proclaimed as a given. This has been challenged by many, including Jacques Derrida, when he notes the problems that occur with dichotomies, where they are not in reality at opposite poles, but rather in a hierarchy. One is preferred and endorsed over the other in an unbalanced and self-fulfilling way, often ignoring context and contrary evidence.

Joe1919

Christine Korsgaard wrote a paper called 'Two distinctions in goodness.' She tries to sort out the confusion between intrinsic/extrinsic and means/instrumental which are often conflated. Korsgaard is a Kantian and one of the conclusions of her long argument is that the 'good will' is the only thing of intrinsic value.

This idea that goodness lies in the will or our choices and actions would also be compatible with other philosophies like Stoicicm and Christianity.

The paper is also available at the commonsenseatheism website so presumably it has some appeal their also.

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3164346/Korsgaard_TwoDistinctionsGoodness.pdf?sequence=4

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Korsgaard-Two-Distinctions-in-Goodness.pdf

Black Swan

Joe1919 wrote: »

Christine Korsgaard wrote a paper called 'Two distinctions in goodness.' She tries to sort out the confusion between intrinsic/extrinsic and means/instrumental which are often conflated.

Max Weber (1922) in Economy and Society also discussed the differences between "intrinsic/extrinsic and means/instrumental" when he differentiated four types of rationality, two of which were labeled value rational and instrumental rational. Things value rational were sometimes in conflict with things instrumental rational; i.e., the most efficient and effective means to an end (means-ends) could sometimes violate what we consider fair play (value rational).

AhSureTisGrand

If I think that it is people who create and identify value (that value is dependent on humans), does that mean I do not believe in such a thing as intrinsic value?

Joe1919

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

If I think that it is people who create and identify value (that value is dependent on humans), does that mean I do not believe in such a thing as intrinsic value?

You could hold an 'informed desire account' of value mentioned here in section 4.2
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being

The Stoics claim that all external goods are 'indifferent' but some are preferable to others depending on circumstances. This could be called an 'informed desire' account of value. The only goodness is 'virtue' = 'excellence' = our ability to make 'good' choices.

Kant use this idea to place intrinsic goodness in the persons 'will' and not in any type of external good like pleasure or happiness which are conditional.

Interestingly, this make a good argument for the Libertarian. i.e. that freedom and our ability to choose and select value is intrinsically more valuable than the values themselves and hence perhaps liberty is more important than equality.

We cannot persue happiness unless we have the freedom of persuit in the first place and the pleasure is in the persuit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strobe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah this is sort of where I have got to in my understanding. At the minute I'm thinking that 'entities' (1. A thing with distinct and independent existence) would not have intrinsic value but that properties might, or could. By marking properties off I came to thinking perhaps life could be a property with intrinsic value but this didn't really hold up. So at the minute I am thinking maybe the only property I could think of that could have intrinsic value would be consciousness, ehh maybe.

One reasoning for this is that consciousness is a prerequisite for value (in the way I think the term is being used in the phrase 'intrinsic value') of any kind to exist. Therefore it is consciousness that allows extrinsic value (the only value all other properties and entities can have) to exist.

Ehh, so yeah. How's that sound? Does anyone know if anyone has written about anything along those lines I could read through? Anyone have any thoughts on the above? Am I overlooking an obvious problem with the above line of reasoning?

Black Swan

strobe wrote: »

One reasoning for this is that consciousness is a prerequisite for value (in the way I think the term is being used in the phrase 'intrinsic value') of any kind to exist.

This notion that "consciousness is a prerequisite" for (intrinsic) value to exist seems to agree with what John Stuart Mill suggested in Utilitarianism, Chapter 2 (1863). Further, it would appear that value was subject to a consciousness hierarchy, where higher intelligence was associated with higher valuations:

"Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification...

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

Must consciousness exist as a "prerequisite" for something to have intrinsic value? I would think not, if something has value, in and of itself. Consequently, I find consciousness as a "prerequisite" a bit problematic, given the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy conceptual definition of intrinsic value (quoted in post 2 above).

strobe

Must consciousness exist as a "prerequisite" for something to have intrinsic value? I would think not, if something has value, in and of itself. Consequently, I find consciousness as a "prerequisite" a bit problematic, given the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy conceptual definition of intrinsic value (quoted in post 2 above).

I was more suggesting that consciousness might have to exist as a prerequisite for something to have extrinsic value (or value of any kind, or simply value).

Then from that that consciousness itself could be said to have intrinsic value...

But looking at my first sentence there again I'm not so sure now. As maybe all that that is suggesting is that the supposedly intrinsic value of consciousness is actually value due to it by it's facilitation of other things to be valuable, and therefore again not value in and of itself?

That sort of has me back to the stance that intrinsic value in fact does not (or can not{?}) exist...

Well it's 19:30 on a Friday so my weekend has officially begun. That means I'll have to try to pick this back up later.

Cheers to the people who have contributed, interesting stuff.