At the heart of Rolston's argument is an assertion of what value is, and where it originates. This is no small task--it is to answer an entire branch of philosophy. "[T]here is value wherever there is positive creativity," he says. He is asking us to do something quite difficult, I think. To understand, feel, and respect the intrinsic value in a tree seems like it requires a long drawing-out of empathy and awareness, an extension we are not accustomed to making.
At this point I think I understand what Rolston is saying, find it compelling, but I am not yet able to feel the weight of it fully, and so have not been able to swallow his argument whole. It is something that will surely be referenced when we compare and contrast future readings, which will hopefully help clear our understandings of Rolston.
Very well said!
ReplyDeleteI agree, that is very well said Jon. I have a lot of trouble completely understanding and agreeing with this argument as well. However, I do believe that Rolston is on to something. Maybe it is true that in order for intrinsic value to be possible there must be a valuer. But even so, if we know that a tree is not capable of this it doesn't mean we cannot act as if they are to make the planet a better place. The argument against Rolston that there must be a valuer for value becomes irrelevant if we were to think of what he is saying in this way.
ReplyDeleteRight, the consequences are still mostly the same, so long as an incrementalist approach is taken (though I don't think many would argue for the infinite value of a tree in a life-boat scenario). Whether a tree can value itself, or have value in itself, we still shouldn't be clear-cutting their forests. Because then that forest is gone, and so is any value that was instrumental to human ends, whether that be industrial, aesthetic, scientific, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhile our environmental policies are ostensibly the same whether a tree has intrinsic value or not, Rolston seems to be pushing for a shift in perspective, which in the long run could have political import, and help foster a smoother transition to a more environmentally conscious civilization.
I think a lot of what we're going to read in this class is going to be complex similar to Rolston's work. But I think you hit the nail on the head as to what Rolston's main point is. Stated so simply as you said above that Rolston is looking to understand "what value is, and where it originates." That's really the heart of Rolston's argument. I stared at that sentence for a few seconds thinking, how did I not see that before? Thanks for helping me understand these past few essays a little bit easier!
ReplyDelete