1. nomind-allthought:

    I think it’s incredibly amusing when people reblog philulz’s post about trees and talk about all the functions that they have.   He was literally saying that they’re only value is in their function to sentient organisms, and it just supports what he says to go on and on about the various ecological duties that they perform.  He said that they have no inherent worth, which is separate from their utilitarian value in sustaining sentient lifeforms such as humans or dolphins.  To put it more succinctly (and in mildly Kantian terms for those familiar), they’re not an end in themselves, they’re a means to an end.

    They may just be talking past each other. ‘Inherent worth’ is a pretty flimsy concept, unless you’re already assuming everyone is a Kantian or something, or that everyone means the means-ends distinction when they’re employing the concept. Nonetheless, people may find it instrumental to treat trees as if they have some sort of value beyond what that person conceives of as utility: they will not know the ends of others, such that treating trees as means to a particular set of ends involves breaking any duties or obligations a person may have to another. I don’t know. Philulzophy claimed ‘why we like’ and have ‘affinity’ for trees is not because they have inherent value. This isn’t true until someone defines whatever the hell ‘inherent value’ means, and then shows that no one has such a concept of trees (means-ends might pass such a test, but I’m not so sure…). To claim that the only possible or rational discourse regarding them is in terms of utility seems to be firmly setting the discursive boundaries to reflect particular Western values.

    Anyway, I’m no primitivist, and I’m not sure I really care that much about trees, but the dichotomy of ‘inherent value’ and ‘instrumental for sentient creatures’ seems to ignore the possibility that non-sentient organisms may be imbued with cultural meanings which have nothing to do with utility.

    (Source: absurdreasoning)

    2. 5 months ago  Notes (10)
      1. agodofbecoming said: as true as that is of everything
      2. citizenalien reblogged this from absurdreasoning and added:
        They may just be talking past each other. ‘Inherent worth’ is a pretty flimsy concept, unless you’re already assuming...
      3. red-f said: thank you :)
      4. absurdreasoning posted this