John Dewey and Environmental Philosophy

1. Environmental Ethics and Intrinsic Value

In this chapter, different philosophies containing models of environmental ethics, which are based on some form of the intrinsic value of the nonhuman, will be examined. The authors discussed are three of the more prominent environmental ethicists1 who base their approach on the intrinsic value of the nonhuman realm to various degrees. These authors will be presented in increasing order of radicalism. Tom Regan argues for the intrinsic value only of higher animals, excluding intrinsic value from plants and lower animals. Thus although he argues for the intrinsic value of the nonhuman, this value is more restricted in scope than in the other two authors. J. Baird Callicott, following Aldo Leopold, argues for the “land ethic,” which attributes intrinsic value more holistically to species, habitats, ecosystems, and the like. Intrinsic value is thereby given a larger scope than in Regan and also a different locus of value, in wholes rather than individuals. Finally, Holmes Rolston III argues for the intrinsic value of much the same set as Callicott, but is more radical in his theory of value. Callicott argues from a Humean position of (human) moral sentiments in which intrinsic value is projected to a nonhuman set of members. Rolston, like Regan, argues that value must be completely beyond any human basis but, unlike Regan, has a much larger set, which includes more than just higher animals. It also embraces other species, ecosystems, and the biosphere. Rolston is the most radically ecocentric environmental ethicist of the three and marks the biggest break with modern Western value theory and ethics. A subsequent section will detail criticisms of non-anthropocentric value theories from within the literature of environmental ethics. Bryan Norton has 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND INTRINSIC VALUE|1| developed a sustained critique of inherent value theories in environmental ethics, and argues that environmental ethics can be established with anthropocentrically based values. I will use certain terms frequently in what follows and some may not be clear. I will attempt to define them at the outset. Anthropocentric means any philosophy or theory of value that makes a special case of humans and is oriented toward humans. A theory of value that is anthropocentric bases value in some distinctive human capacity, whether this is a distinctively human species difference or essence, a psychological faculty or capacity, a subjective state of which only humans are capable, or some other factor exclusive to humans. It stands in contrast with animal rights theories, which extend the scope of value to animals; ecocentric theories, which are centered in the environment; and biocentric theories, which are centered in life. Ecocentric means a philosophy or theory of value that is rooted in the ecology. Subjectivity means both those philosophies grounded in the human subject and their theories of value. It is a subset of anthropocentric, as the subject is generally human. However, some have argued that animals are like human subjects in the relevant respects, and differ only in degree. Thus animals can be the subjects of a life of a sort. Subjective theories are usually contrasted with ‘objective’ theories, which ground value in the object.2 Relational theories combine subjects and objects by locating value in a relation of an object to a subject.3 Finally, there are ‘foundational’ and metaphysical theories of value in which value goes beyond the subjectobject distinction and is more primitive, basic, or fundamental. Intrinsic value is frequently defined idiosyncratically, contextually, or, for some authors, using only a partial definition, at least in comparison to other authors. The dictionary definition of “intrinsic” is “belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.”4 It is sometimes equated with “inherent,” that is, “the essential character of something.”5 Other authors distinguish inherent from intrinsic value, notably C. I. Lewis. Intrinsic value is usually contrasted with instrumental, extrinsic, or use value. Often the intrinsicinstrumental distinction is coextensive with the ends-means distinction, but not always. Similarly, it is usually coextensive with the distinction of actions, subjects, or things that are valuable for their own sake by contrast with those valuable for the sake of something else. These terms will be scrutinized in more detail in the book. The “locus” of value (or rights) is the instance, level, or locale of such value including the type in which value is placed.6 However, locus of value could include places—for example, habitats and landscapes. It can also include analytically distinct relations (e.g., ends and means), if value is located in one or the other...