Intrinsic vs instrumental value

[jn56uytrx]

OK philosophers, instrumental value vs intrinsic value. Go.

Spoiler: Why I am asking

I love the idea of intrinsic value of human life. I hold the inherent worth and dignity of people as a very high value. I think in many ways I engage with people in a way that displays my respect for their worth and dignity no matter their utility. Yet, if I am honest with myself and step away for a moment from my idealistic view of how I want the world to be, I lose touch with it. That is not, in reality, how I see the world operate. I see people across the board make differential value judgment about people all the time. These people are given more respect and included because they offer something a society values; these people are condemned and excuded because they don't-or even drain the resources of a society. I really want to hang on to an idea of inherent worth; it is such a comforting ideal. Yet, how is worth determined? Is there something concrete and unchanging outside of shifting societal norms that determines worth? Or is it just a changing societal norm that would only exist if society collectively decided inherent worth was valuable, kind of flipping it back to instrumental in that very process? I want someone to be able to make an argument I can buy for inherent worth, so badly. I have my suspicions it may not actually be a thing.

Practically, what is the sense of worth we experience day to day? Appreciation for our gifts by others as a measure of the value/worth of us to society? Is there a "gold standard" for worth? If so, what more stable measure beyond changing social norms is that tied to? I am open to Christian theology arguments related to our worth as created by divinity, but I am not sure I believe that premise, so arguments grounded in other perspectives might help me to latch on more firmly to intrinsic value. Yet, I'm not looking for arguments that make me feel better; I want ones that feel true, even if it feels insecure and uncomfortable.

Curious to see what bubbles up.

 

[Wyote]

All of the "utility" judgements we place upon others are based on selfish desires. The economic infrastructure obfuscates the reality of intrinsic value of human life, all life really. If we can free ourselves of an economic structure, we can more clearly view the reality of the preciousness of all life.

 

[Pin]

I presume human life is inherently valuable. However, value is lost when people do bad things. There's some monsters out there.

Spoiler: Real Monsters.

 

[Sandie33]

If we can free ourselves of an economic structure, we can more clearly view the reality of the preciousness of all life.

Truth!

When we let go of attachments life becomes much more noticable. ♡

 

[Deleted member 16771]

OK, there are a few aspects to this as I see it:

Existential
In the infinite vastness of space and time, a sentient creature like a human being is a natural marvel: something that is able to experience existence. We ought to be struck by how incredible that fact alone is. I'll not expand upon this much further, because it lacks the social quality you're looking for.

Evolutionary
Altruism is hard-wired into human beings for reasons of group selection. This is the basic hard fact of our/your instinct, which is only tangentially related to the moral case, however. Human communities have always cares for the sick and elderly despite their relative 'uselessness', with only some notable exceptions. I think this is related to the next point, too:

The Principle of Human Dignity
Individual human lives have intrinsic value because of how that manifests as a desirable principle in human societies. You might say that this is utilitarian/instrumental, too, though.

What people have feared throughout history is arbitrariness - the sense that, at any moment, for any reason, a despotic lord could decide that your time is up; that anyone's time is up. Respecting human life as intrinsically valuable is a great counter to arbitrariness on principle because it applies equally and generally to all members of society. It brings that sense of security and the inherent right to live to everyone. Even infrequent instances of utilitarian judgements being made on human lives tend to fill people with absolute dread for this reason (and, instinctively, the evolutionary reason) - because these judgements challenge the universalist principles upon which most societies are founded. Human beings live with the feeling that everybody has a 'right to life', and this is self-evident essentially no matter which society you look at.

The Empathetic Reason
Human beings generally recognise that life is valuable. They recognise this because their lives are valuable to them. However, human beings also have a curious tendency towards empathy (and altruism), which means that, in a certain sense, human beings feel that other lives are their lives; the pleasures of others are their pleasures; the pains of other are their pains. The universal is the singular and vice versa. As empathetic creatures, what applies to one applies to all - if my life is valuable, then so is yours. Of course, there is a utilitarian sense to this, too, on very-long term evolutionary grounds, but is that such a bad thing? It does not make it morally invalid just because it happens to also work.

A better way to look at this might be to say that human beings live simultaneous individual and vicarious lives. The pleasures and pains we experience in others are not just approximations or facsimiles; we literally feel their experience, albeit often to a lesser extent (though sometimes to a greater extent, it must be noted). In this sense, life has intrinsic value because we live in all living things.

 

[Impact Character]

"if your life is valuable, then so is mine" (self) empathy: why not as zweckrational/instrumental as well as wertrational/intrinsic

 

[Fidicen]

I think there are no intrinsic values that could be defined outside of how our minds construct them. However, I choose to believe the values are real nevertheless, because otherwise we'd just be nasty to each other. I find that many positions of philosophy are like this; it's okay to think the world is like this or that, but if one consistently believed in it and behaved accordingly, one would be a monster. Most importantly this applies to nihilism.

Kant wouldn't have expressed it like this, but his ideas are still present in the above proposition; we can never know the thing-in-itself, and yet he seemed to believe it's possible to ascribe intrinsic value to human beings and define universal morals. I'm not an expert on Kant, but I interpret this contradiction to mean that whatever the ontological/epistemological position is, when it comes to ethics we just have to take certain things as given. And what those things are will always be a subject of debate, hence I suspect there won't be a final answer to the question.

 

[Headstorm]

I think life is intrinsic to the self (as a person). But the value of life becomes instrumental as soon as that life belongs to someone else.

But as another mans life is an instrumental value to a person, is it not that valuing someone elses life in general is intrinsic to the human race?

I hope my english was well enough to make this understandable

Edit: i tried to make it better

 

[jn56uytrx]

Thank you all for giving this a go. I am reading and reflecting.

Thoughts so far:

The Principle of Human Dignity
Individual human lives have intrinsic value because of how that manifests as a desirable principle in human societies. You might say that this is utilitarian/instrumental, too, though.

What people have feared throughout history is arbitrariness - the sense that, at any moment, for any reason, a despotic lord could decide that your time is up; that anyone's time is up. Respecting human life as intrinsically valuable is a great counter to arbitrariness on principle because it applies equally and generally to all members of society. It brings that sense of security and the inherent right to live to everyone. Even infrequent instances of utilitarian judgements being made on human lives tend to fill people with absolute dread for this reason (and, instinctively, the evolutionary reason) - because these judgements challenge the universalist principles upon which most societies are founded. Human beings live with the feeling that everybody has a 'right to life', and this is self-evident essentially no matter which society you look at.

"if your life is valuable, then so is mine" (self) empathy: why not as zweckrational/instrumental as well as wertrational/intrinsic

I think there are no intrinsic values that could be defined outside of how our minds construct them. However, I choose to believe the values are real nevertheless, because otherwise we'd just be nasty to each other. I find that many positions of philosophy are like this; it's okay to think the world is like this or that, but if one consistently believed in it and behaved accordingly, one would be a monster. Most importantly this applies to nihilism.

Kant wouldn't have expressed it like this, but his ideas are still present in the above proposition; we can never know the thing-in-itself, and yet he seemed to believe it's possible to ascribe intrinsic value to human beings and define universal morals. I'm not an expert on Kant, but I interpret this contradiction to mean that whatever the ontological/epistemological position is, when it comes to ethics we just have to take certain things as given. And what those things are will always be a subject of debate, hence I suspect there won't be a final answer to the question.

I think so far, I can get on board with the "both" as opposed to either/or, with instrumental being the core, but individuals/society choosing to believe in and behave as if inherent worth exists because that is a useful choice making both true in that act.

The Empathetic Reason
Human beings generally recognise that life is valuable. They recognise this because their lives are valuable to them. However, human beings also have a curious tendency towards empathy (and altruism), which means that, in a certain sense, human beings feel that other lives are their lives; the pleasures of others are their pleasures; the pains of other are their pains. The universal is the singular and vice versa. As empathetic creatures, what applies to one applies to all - if my life is valuable, then so is yours. Of course, there is a utilitarian sense to this, too, on very-long term evolutionary grounds, but is that such a bad thing? It does not make it morally invalid just because it happens to also work.

A better way to look at this might be to say that human beings live simultaneous individual and vicarious lives. The pleasures and pains we experience in others are not just approximations or facsimiles; we literally feel their experience, albeit often to a lesser extent (though sometimes to a greater extent, it must be noted). In this sense, life has intrinsic value because we live in all living things.

I think I want to find inherent worth as the core and instrumental a selfish illusion our vision is clouded by. Beliefs about oneness I think are my path to that, but I haven't been able to find that perspective clearly enough yet to ground in it.

All of the "utility" judgements we place upon others are based on selfish desires. The economic infrastructure obfuscates the reality of intrinsic value of human life, all life really. If we can free ourselves of an economic structure, we can more clearly view the reality of the preciousness of all life.

In my mind, I absolutely agree with utility judgements being based in selfish desires. I so, so, so want to buy into the second part of your post, and become a better person by shedding an economic illusion, but...

Devil's advocate (cringing a little as I go here), but I want to explore all the possibilities. What if inherent worth is the illusion and universal selfishness (instrumental worth as the only answer) is actually the truth. What if that truth is so unpleasant given our chosen social norms that we bury a universal experience of selfishness in our unconscious. What if our work is actually to integrate that universal selfishness into our conscious experience?

Yet, your comment also feeds back into my above thought that getting grounded in oneness takes away any illusion of a self to be selfish with, so there is a part of me that very much thinks this is true...

Or more accurately, I think what my gut says it's another "both." I tend to believe in a universal oneness of all things AND a human experience that is about developing and experiencing an individual self; then eventually, once individuality is fully experienced, letting that individual self disintegrate back into the oneness through the process of death.

Which might lead into...

Existential
In the infinite vastness of space and time, a sentient creature like a human being is a natural marvel: something that is able to experience existence. We ought to be struck by how incredible that fact alone is. I'll not expand upon this much further, because it lacks the social quality you're looking for.

The one thing is inherently worthy and valuable. The experience of self is inherently selfish and views other selves in a utilitarian way, even when for utilitarian reasons they choose to buy into and behave according to inherent worth belief systems. Unless, of course, they are close enough to returning to oneness that the veil of self is lifted for them and they are able to see the inherent worth of the one thing.

Yes, I guess I will choose all of the above.

This last bit is how I think, actually, but my grasp on it feels fragile. It's hard to hold together for me. Probably, if one buys into my existential belief system, because I am not ready for that veil to be fully lifted yet.

I think life is intrinsic to the self (as a person). But the value of life becomes instrumental as soon as that life belongs to someone else.

But as another mans life is an instrumental value to a person, is it not that valuing someone elses life in general is intrinsic to the human race?

I hope my english was well enough to make this understandable

Edit: i tried to make it better

I think it made sense and I think it added another flavor to the discussion, but I want to check out my understanding and make sure I got it first.

For example, my life is inherently valuable and worthy to me. I am of worth to myself just in existing. My worth to someone else is more utilitarian/instrumental. It depends on how my life interacts with theirs and what value I bring to them. Yet, because this tendency to value others differentially as our lives touch each other is universal, and so... it points to an inherent worth to individuals in their lives existing and interacting with each other?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Cool reflections, tovlo. I see what you're trying to achieve here - you want your instinct to be more firmly grounded in logic/moral reasoning; it's almost like the answer is just in front of you, but only just out of reach.

I should say, though, that this question eventually drove the population geneticist George Price mad, and ultimately he took his own life by cutting his carotid artery with a pair of scissors.

Devil's advocate (cringing a little as I go here), but I want to explore all the possibilities. What if inherent worth is the illusion and universal selfishness (instrumental worth as the only answer) is actually the truth. What if that truth is so unpleasant given our chosen social norms that we bury a universal experience of selfishness in our unconscious. What if our work is actually to integrate that universal selfishness into our conscious experience?

I think a good way to approach this question might be to design some thought experiments, and we could try them out here on the forum. I'll have a think.

 

[Wyote]

Or more accurately, I think what my gut says it's another "both."

Your (any) gut still has a sense of self preservation and selfishness. It's difficult to imagine a perspective that is outside the realm of what we conceive as essential for survival, but if we assume these are no longer "in play" then all life becomes clearly valuable. Life is life. Occam's razor and all that. The act of prolonging life then becomes what is valuable in a utility sense. Prolonging life without subjugation or dimming of other life. And so we sort of come full circle here because these are the sorts of things that are generally already seen as having significance and utility.

Life itself is precious, the continuation of life is a precious act.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I once toyed with this idea:

Since existence itself is self-evident, there is a natural bias towards existence and against non-existence.

= creation over destruction, life over death, &c. is in accord with existence itself.

However, it doesn't really work as a moral axiom, because how would we know if 'destruction' isn't, after all, the 'right' thing to do (e.g. Some antinatalist positions [thanks @Pin] which argue that suffering is worse than life is worthy, and therefore we should try to limit the instances of life to reduce suffering)?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I should say, though, that this question eventually drove the population geneticist George Price mad, and ultimately he took his own life by cutting his carotid artery with a pair of scissors.

By the way, if you're interested in this story, I recommend the very excellent Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, episode 3/3 I think. I'll try to find it, but it basically explains the story of how human altruism was proved to have an evolutionary/genetic basis and the odd effects that discovery had on the people who discovered it and the world itself.

 

[Headstorm]

it points to an inherent worth to individuals in their lives existing and interacting with each other?

Short answer, unfortunately I don't have much time today:

I think interaction is the key word indeed. What I wanted to add was that we have to determine our perspective before we can answer the question.

 

[Wildfire]

I participate in a "recovering from religion" style private Facebook group where this topic comes up, and I'd say that just about everyone there identifies as secular humanist at this point. Although there's more than one version of the humanist manifesto to choose from, if you haven't already looked I'm wondering if you might find some answers there.

Anyway, a member of this Facebook group recently shared an article about an individual who decided to turn to religion because they felt that the concept of intrinsic value wasn't supported by science and therefore not something one could build upon. While respecting the author's choice but disagreeing with her reasoning we started pulling at the strings and picking it apart. One of the things that stood out to me this time around was how off it seemed to view this as a dichotomy that needs resolving. It's not about deciding whether we have intrinsic or utilitarian value, because we all have both. Instead it's recognizing the utility of intrinsic value. Intrinsic value has value as a foundation for society as a whole.

Utility gets to keep its utility, in all its forms, and intrinsic value gets to be the beautiful thing that it is, based on an understanding of the humanity that we all share.

I love this topic by the way.

 

[Wyote]

Intrinsic value has value as a foundation for society as a whole.

Utility gets to keep its utility, in all its forms, and intrinsic value gets to be the beautiful thing that it is, based on an understanding of the humanity that we all share.

 

[jn56uytrx]

Reflecting...

Btw, waaay over my head here, so I will keep reading and taking in the wisdom, but please feel free to take this anywhere you all feel you want to take it. Please don't let the angle I am coming at it from define where it can go.

I see what you're trying to achieve here - you want your instinct to be more firmly grounded in logic/moral reasoning; it's almost like the answer is just in front of you, but only just out of reach..

Yes!!!

should say, though, that this question eventually drove the population geneticist George Price mad, and ultimately he took his own life by cutting his carotid artery with a pair of scissors.

Yikes!!

By the way, if you're interested in this story, I recommend the very excellent Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, episode 3/3 I think. I'll try to find it, but it basically explains the story of how human altruism was proved to have an evolutionary/genetic basis and the odd effects that discovery had on the people who discovered it and the world itself.

I have time tomorrow and this will be on the viewing list.

Short answer, unfortunately I don't have much time today:

I think interaction is the key word indeed. What I wanted to add was that we have to determine our perspective before we can answer the question.

Yes, I admit, I hadn't thought much about that and how it would impact things, but I agree. I am very much looking forward to hearing that fleshed out when you have more time.

Although there's more than one version of the humanist manifesto to choose from, if you haven't already looked I'm wondering if you might find some answers there.

I have casually, but I will look deeper on this thought.

One of the things that stood out to me this time around was how off it seemed to view this as a dichotomy that needs resolving. It's not about deciding whether we have intrinsic or utilitarian value, because we all have both. Instead it's recognizing the utility of intrinsic value. Intrinsic value has value as a foundation for society as a whole.

Utility gets to keep its utility, in all its forms, and intrinsic value gets to be the beautiful thing that it is, based on an understanding of the humanity that we all share.

I think that the "both" answer is what is becoming clearer for me from this discussion, too. And "both" from multiple angles. Basically, as you said, the dichotomy is not needed.

Yet, I still am learning so much from all the different angles people are taking at it, so loving the answers from different starting perspectives and goals in engaging.

Glad you like the topic. Me too!

 

[Headstorm]

By the way, if you're interested in this story, I recommend the very excellent Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, episode 3/3 I think. I'll try to find it, but it basically explains the story of how human altruism was proved to have an evolutionary/genetic basis and the odd effects that discovery had on the people who discovered it and the world itself.

I will watch it if I have time. I think the selfish gene theory is very interesting. The only problem I experience with these kind of theories is that it implies a goal. I don't think there is a goal to survival or selfishness, it's just that anything that doesn't survive simply isn't there anymore. So from all variations and exceptions in nature (whether it be genes or organisms or even dead matter) only the survivors will survive .

 

[Headstorm]

Yes, I admit, I hadn't thought much about that and how it would impact things, but I agree. I am very much looking forward to hearing that fleshed out when you have more time.

I would like to, and I will, but time is not on my side right now.

 

[Ren]

Practically, what is the sense of worth we experience day to day? Appreciation for our gifts by others as a measure of the value/worth of us to society? Is there a "gold standard" for worth? If so, what more stable measure beyond changing social norms is that tied to?

Personally, I am more of a relativist in regard to value, simply in the sense I do not think it possible for statements about value to have the strength, say, of logical truth. But for someone who (nobly) wishes to defend the idea of absolute human worth, I think the work of Kant provides a fascinating starting point. Let me briefly see how I would articulate it, if I were tempted to hold that position.

One way to show that something is absolutely true — in this case, that human beings have inherent worth — is to show that it is true a priori, that is, prior to empirical observation. Kant distinguishes between two kinds of propositions: analytic and synthetic. The truth of analytic propositions can be derived from their structure, rather than from the empirical observation of their content. This includes mathematical and logical truth, but also tautologies, such as "A French person is French". These propositions are true a priori. Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, have a truth value that depends not only on the internal structure of the proposition, but also on whether the proposition represents states of affairs that do obtain in the world. For example, "Paris is the capital of France" is not true by virtue of its internal structure, but because Paris is indeed the capital of France. If another French city was the capital of France, the proposition would be false. So it is not true a priori.

Now, long story short, but in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant asks the following question: "Are synthetic a priori judgements possible?" — In other words, he's asking if it possible for a non-analytic proposition, whose truth does not depend on its internal structure only, to still be true a priori, like the truths of logic. The Critique of Pure Reason shows that they are possible (I am not expert enough in Kant's work to give a summary of his argument). This is crucial, because from the moment that he has shown that synthetic a priori judgements are possible, he has opened the possibility for ethical judgements, such as: "Human life has inherent value", to be true a priori! And thus, for it to be the case that human life has absolute, inherent value. At this point, he has not shown that it is the case, but that it is possible for it to be the case. It's already a huge step forward, because it suggests that statements about valuation can be absolutely true.

Then, in his ethical works, and by way of the formulation of the categorical imperative (itself an a priori true synthetic proposition), Kant arrives at the Formula of Humanity: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end" (Groundwork). For him, this is akin to a moral law, true a priori (that is, absolutely). In other words: humanity has inherent worth. From it follows the concept of human rights, as enshrined in all democracies and in the UN Declarations of Human Rights.

In a real sense, the UN DHR acknowledges the inherent worth of human life.