1 Ashley Drollinger PHIL 452 Short Paper #1

Is there value (other than instrumental value) in non- human nature?

The question above raises many different points of view that all have an affect on answering the question. To me, non- human nature has just as much value as human nature. In this paper I will address perceptions of value based on two previous readings in class from Rolston and Leopold. I will then discuss a couple reasons supporting my opinion about non- human nature and value. Value: is a word with several different meanings that differ among cultures, gender, generations, and the beliefs of an individual. One cannot look in a dictionary to find the meaning of this specific term, because it holds so much more than just a simple definition. The traditional view of value depends on the existence of a human valuer. That is, something cannot be valued without human existence to consciously value it; value is human- generated. According to Environmental Ethics, Holmes Rolston argues that non- human nature is intrinsically valuable, down to the very basic level. Each level of nature, whether it be a small mushroom under a tree or a grizzly bear in Yellowstone park holds a value of life. Life has many purposes, but most importantly the life of one species greatly impacts the life of another. Valuing nature instrumentally is a completely different idea then actually valuing it intrinsically. Placing a dollar amount on nature is what most people think of

2 when they think of value and non-man nature. Aldo Leopold was a strong supporter of conserving nature as well. Leopold was a hunter, and argued that it was more that normal for humankind to hunt. He still strongly believed that nature deserved respect even when humans use it to benefit themselves. When Leopold describes the oak tree as having parts of history in every tree ring, he is describing the interconnectedness between humans and nature. Therefore, Leopold believes that non- human nature is somewhat valuable because if it werent then humans wouldnt need to conserve it. Many think that Leopold is contradicting himself by arguing that hunting is completely normal, because hunting isnt respecting nature according to some. The Land Ethic by Leopold further backs up the claim that non-human nature (land) is in fact valuable, or it should be treated as it is. My first argument, non- human nature has a purpose here on earth regardless of humans, which leads to the argument that non- human nature, is intrinsically valuable due to its existence. Non- human nature is part of a life cycle, and without it another part of lifes cycle would be affected. Most people like to argue that if the earthworm were to go extinct it wouldnt have an effect on anything, but the truth is that if we lost something so small such as the earthworm we would be losing a very important piece of the life cycle. Earthworms play a strong role in the ecosystem whether being one of the most important decomposers of our soils, or the food for another species.

3 Without knowing what it is like to be a non- human part of nature, we cannot decide for them if something is not valuable, which leads me into my second argument. Humans only fully understand what it is like to live the life of a human. We do not understand the life fully of another species, so how can we place a lesser value on their life. We may understand how another species operates, and what they may like to eat, but that doesnt mean that we understand their existence completely. Without having full knowledge of the existence of other species, which we never will have, we cannot assume their value. Life is intrinsically valuable, every kind of life. In conclusion, the way humans perceive value of non- human nature will continue to lead us into further destruction and over exploitation of it. Our perception of value couldnt be more fallacious, and until we appreciate our surroundings and other species, we will continue to lead in the wrong path of selfishness.