David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Ethics 18 (3):297-309 (1996)
In the literature of environmental philosophy, the single most potent argument that has been made against the claim that nature may possess intrinsic value in any objective sense is the Humean thesis of projectivism and its associated view that human consciousness is the source of all values. Theorists, in one way or another, have to face up to this challenge. For instance, J. Baird Callicott upholds this Humean foundation to modern Western philosophy. However, by distinguishing between the source and locus of value, he makes it possible to argue that nature is the locus of intrinsic value without at the same time compromising the thesis that human consciousness is the source of all values. On the other hand, Holmses Rolston, III, another eminent environmental philosopher, criticizes the distinction as well as challenges the Humean foundation itself. In this article, I attempt to resolve the disagreement between Callicott and Rolston over this particular distinction, thereby doing justice to the insights which each theorist, undoubtedly, has brought to bear on the issue of intrinsic value, at least as far as individual organisms is concerned. However, I am also critical of both for having failed to draw out the full implications behind certain crucial distinctions that should be made about the notion of intrinsic value itself.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
M. Loreau (2014). Reconciling Utilitarian and Non-Utilitarian Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 14 (1):27-32.
Michel Dion (2000). The Moral Status of Non-Human Beings and Their Ecosystems. Ethics, Place and Environment 3 (2):221 – 229.
Michel Dion (2000). The Moral Status of Non‐Human Beings and Their Ecosystems. Philosophy and Geography 3 (2):221-229.
Sarah Fleisher Trainor (2006). Realms of Value: Conflicting Natural Resource Values and Incommensurability. Environmental Values 15 (1):3-29.
W. F. Butler & T. G. Acott (2007). An Inquiry Concerning the Acceptance of Intrinsic Value Theories of Nature. Environmental Values 16 (2):149-168.
Similar books and articles
Anthony Weston (1985). Beyond Intrinsic Value: Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 7 (4):321-339.
Y. S. Lo (2006). Making and Finding Values in Nature: From a Humean Point of View. Inquiry 49 (2):123 – 147.
Simon P. James (2003). Zen Buddhism and the Intrinsic Value of Nature. Contemporary Buddhism 4 (2):143-157.
Elizabeth M. Harlow (1992). The Human Face of Nature: Environmental Values and the Limits of Nonanthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics 14 (1):27-42.
Paul Haught (2006). Hume's Projectivist Legacy for Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 28 (1):77-96.
J. Baird Callicot (1992). Rolston on Intrinsic Value: A Deconstruction. Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
J. Baird Callicott (1992). Rolston on Intrinsic Value. Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
Christopher J. Preston (1998). Epistemology and Intrinsic Values: Norton and Callicott's Critiques of Rolston. Environmental Ethics 20 (4):409-428.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #136,713 of 1,792,912 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #282,298 of 1,792,912 )
How can I increase my downloads?