Eugene+Hargrove

=Eugene Hargrove =

In “Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value,” Eugene Hargrove argues against competing theories about intrinsic value while clarifying often-confused concepts. Objecting to objective and subjective nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theorizing, he points to the necessity of human valuation. Lastly, he addresses Pragmatic Instrumentalism and the objections it presents to anthropocentric intrinsic value theory.

Significantly, Eugene Hargrove steps back to look at the terms many environmental philosophers and other thinkers employ in their argumentation. Addressing the confusion between ‘instrumental value’ and ‘anthropocentrism,’ as well as that between ‘intrinsic value’ and ‘nonanthropocentrism,’ Hargrove clarifies these terms by pointing out that “…anthropocentricism is not and has never been a synonym for instrumental. It simply means ‘human-centered…’” (Pg.175). Instrumental and nonanthropocentric are thus not the opposite ends of one spectrum: instead, they are found on different spectrum all together. One refers to a type of value; the other refers to the focal point of a system.

Hargrove also responds to thinkers from the camps of objective and subjective nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theorizing. Objective nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theories get at what Eugene Hargrove characterizes as “value [that] is supposed to be independent of and override individual human ideals…” (Pg.176). Here, Hargrove responds with the argument that nonanthropocentric intrinsic value itself derives from anthropocentric intrinsic value, that “after discovering that something has a good of its own, the human or humans must decide to intrinsically value it…” (pg.180). In further refutation of the objective nonanthropocentric intrinsic value position, Hargrove points to the limited protection that such theorizing provides for all of the rest of nature. “Nonliving beauty will be left out” as these organisms do not have a “…good of [their] own…” required in taking them into consideration (pg.181, pg.176). Responding to subjective nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theories, Hargrove points out that it is difficult to make the claim that all value exists from the perspective of the human being (that is, if one were to look at instrumental value acting for the good of the respective animal, it can be argued that value then exists outside of the human purview); that it is questionable whether such a position should be called nonanthropocentric either ways; and lastly, that values themselves can exist objectively from a human point of view (as in the case of ones socially constructed) (Pg.183).

Defending his conception of intrinsic value, ‘weak anthropocentric intrinsic value,’ Hargrove recalls theoretical damage done by the pragmatic instrumentalists. Addressing both Bryan G. Norton and the pragmatic instrumentalists, he asserts, “people are confused by intrinsic value only because they have become disoriented…by pragmatic instrumentalist attack[s]…” (pg.184) Here, Hargrove is referring to the confusions that pragmatic instrumentalists created by trying to simplify all value down to instrumental terms. The result of such a strategy is then popular misunderstanding of terms that Bryan G. Norton observes and that Hargrove feels that he clarified much earlier on. To further distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value, he looks at the concept of beauty (pg.184-185). Not being merely a descriptive term, Hargrove points to its usage with respect to those things that do not have instrumental value. Beauty, then, becomes a concept employed in order to justify something that is perceived to have intrinsic value but otherwise explained in instrumental terms.(good thus far but explain how this works - how can beautiful objects been valued instrumentally?)

(Joseph Homer)