My Ethics

           I will defend various stand points which cross my ethics and moral standing with today’s environmental ethics. The first view which has shaped my identity with nature and my environment is the understanding of value. In my last writings, “Lee’s Intrinsic values on Troika Thoughts (paper 1),” I discussed how value is recognized objectively and subjectively by writers J. Baird Callicott and Holmes Rolston’s. I also discussed how Keekok Lee successfully refuted how the source of locus is not generated by humans but rather recognized in articulated manner. This established the metaphysics that existences of instrumental Value in nature is independent of the existences of humans and the existence of intrinsic value in nature is also independent of the existence of humans. Now that I have established value as being pre-existing, I also want to get more into detail in discussing  my views in which are ratified by different types of value. Such values are recognized by anthropocentric (human centered-) and non-anthropocentric views. Keep in mind that subduing myself to such values as further described incorrectly can affect my moral stand considerations (environmental practices)  with the environment and also be used against myself by counter arguments. For example, I am a true believer in value 100% but to treat all things equally valuable is a hard task at the moment.  This would mean to me that I could not eat meat on the basis that I value the existence of life and to eat meat would be contrary to that belief because in doing so I am ending a life in which I recognize in having intrinsic value. Because this is the case, I will use Eugene Hargrove’s framework in which he discusses different types (1.Non anthropocentric instrumental value 2.Anthropocentric instrumental value 3 Non Anthropocentric intrinsic value 4. Anthropocentric Intrinsic value [Hargrove page 135]) of value and how I associated myself as being a weak anthropocentric.

       
            When I wrote my first paper, I discussed the source and locus to examine how we are not the center of value and where value generates from. My main conclusion was to establish that value is pre-existing and so forth. But this does not necessary mean we cannot generate other values aside of pre-existing values. Yes, intrinsic value is a self generating value that Lee bases on the integrity to strive and live. If you are reading my paper now, realize that you are sustaining life independently as a moral agent (means morally capable of making choices) and just simply being alive demonstrates self intrinsic value. Drinking a cup of water also demonstrates an example protecting that self intrinsic value. Your body needs water to regulate body temperature and to provide the means for nutrients to travel to all your organs. Water also transports oxygen to your cells, removes waste, and protects your joints and organs. Drinking water protects and keeps that intrinsic value alive (based on your integrity to live). Another type of value is instrumental value; this is value in the generating scene or could be describe as “for one’s own good”. Such example is X serves Z and in becoming that purpose can be described as instrumental. Callicott argues that all of these two terms are subjective terms and human generated. I disagree in Callicott’s thesis that instrumental/ intrinsic value is self generating by humans because it ignores pre-existing value Callicott also confuses this argument by extending this view that even as valuers we are all valuers of the same living community. He examines how this leads to the possibility that Humean/ Darwinian bio- moral metaphysics is correct and that values can be conferred by humans without being necessarily centered by humans/ or from an anthropogenic stand point. This is a clever attempt to separate him from being an anthropocentric. It also leads to a slippery slope. Counter parties would be free to eradicate non anthropocentrism’s existing frame work by simply saying “hey I’m a non-anthropocentric, because I come from the same material and we are all from the same nature,’ thus distorting the difference of both opposing views. Also, this fails to address objective recognized instrumental and intrinsic values and makes scientific findings arbitrary or none the less nonfactual by not recognizing pre-existing scientific evidence of value. This would also ignore the three point five millions years of value that has existed without humans. My ethics/ metaphysics leans towards Lee’s thesis that humans are not the only loci and bearers of intrinsic value. A lion has the ability to recognized its own integrity to live and strive; they do this when they choose their pray or thus as cubs would decide which types of lions they become (alpha male, single pack). Such ability demonstrates intrinsic value. It’s our special ability as humans to articulate this process vs. lions who lack certain cognition skills to see this process as clear as we do. This has allowed us to establish moral consideration for lions in the past, present and future. Now I do believe that Callicott is correct in the sense that we do generate and articulate some instrumental and intrinsic value, but this is aside pre-existing values in nature or in us. These values can be further expressed as aesthetic values. This is where my argument can be extended to Hargrove’s framework in which I consider myself a weak anthropocentric (slightly human based centered) because my views are both in moral consideration from a humanperceptive and non human point.
               
                 Though objective values pre-exist, we should also consider how value is recognized through the lens of both an anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric stand views. Anthropocentric views on value can be recognized as a value which serves humans or derives from a human stand view. For example, in our reader provided by Professor Bill Anelli on page 31, there are scriptures provided from Genesis which state “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish and the sea. And over the birds and the air, and over every living thing that lives upon the earth.” This is the mindset that what you’re doing is what you’re supposed to do. This view is an argument by authority, because their figure of authority “God” told them this is okay (fallacy of thought for enjoyment [fallacy I made up]) and also very anthropocentric based on the needs of humans dominating the earth. There are many people who are this way and do not realize that they are anthropocentric (kind of like fish don’t know they are fish). There are also non anthropocentric values which are supposed to be bias free of human self centered stand points. As Lee discussed in the “Source of Locus,” these views are not assigned by human judgments but can be recognized articulated values separated from a human judgments. Such example of an evaluated value would be a prey species to a predator. Both Hargrove and Lee meet eye to eye on this account. Now that I have explained the difference of APV and NAPV, I would like to emphasize that I made of both parties. I would like to place myself in a developing “weak anthropocentric” view, which in sense allows me to have the best of both worlds without limited my abilities to think only one way. This notion is expressed by Hargrove who believes that an anthropocentric intrinsic value theory is necessary to include non-living beings in the moral account. Hargrove states that “as long as a non anthropocentric theorist concentrate on the class of living objects, nonliving beauty will continue to be left out, and will require anthropocentric intrinsic value attributions in order to receive any protection at all,” (Hargrove pg 137) thus illustrating that we should take a degree of both worlds into account. This carries onto a being able to integrate ideas which are essentially aesthetic and how nature’s beauty should be valued intrinsically. From here, value can be assigned or attributed from the chart above. And when speaking aesthetically, I would relate to those terms with having respect for nature because of its pre-existing intrinsic and aesthetic value; not as Callicott describes as having respect for nature in a “subjective born” manner.

           As described above, my qualities are made up of different elements in which contain different positions by various philosophers. I understand that philosophers are at a constant wind trying to interpret how value originated (intrinsic and instrumental) without jeopardizing any existing framework in place.  I do appreciate how Lee draws his diagram of value and how it is existing without humans in a nonhuman world. This is not to say that subjective value cannot be created by humans aside its existing value already in place. I myself create subjective value in the very nature I love which has value already existing in itself. This is an anthropocentric view that takes existences only because that love for nature serves me and brings me pleasure as a human. Such unique positions can be seen aesthetically and objectively valued as Hargrove describes; to separate them completely would be ludicrous and as comparable to almost forcing our love out of nature by always remaining too objective. We can also reconnect through our objective reasoning and use this for moral standings- but having different cherishing views allows us to be more independent and makes us more individual.

               Value can also be shared amongst very both human and nonhuman. Value is the bridge in which crosses me into both worlds and allows me to have moral consideration for both sides of a human and nonhuman world. When a bridge of value falls, it marks a loss of value in a life that has either become threatened or extinct. In general cases, it’s normally nonhuman’s creatures that are at the constant threat of the humans who fail to see past anthropocentric views. Now, we may rebuild a new bridge of value to replace a fallen one, but will always have to bare the consequences for not having moral consideration for nature and the community of non nonhuman living species. And some bridges are of course irreplaceable. Other noticeable consequences today are global warming, the extinction of true habitats or natural forests and most importantly the loss of value from these consequences. Without value- we tend to lose both an objective stand and an aesthetic view for what we are fighting for. The very framework and threshold is centered on value, without value we can only imagine it as Callicott would in a subjective manner-dreaming of a world we once loved. Without placing individual ethics in place, we can become a world of humans without nonhumans around to value. In this worse case scenario, humans will exist without value vs. the constant debate that value cannot exist without humans. Perhaps the extinction of value is the real war and by saving value we can save everything else that comes in existence of value.