Hmm, thanks Steven.
By 'instrumental value' or 'benefit' I was refering to the idea merely that
its camouflage helps it do benefical things - catch voles, avoid being eaten
itself, that kind of thing.
But yes - tautology seems to be the thing - its life benefits its being
alive.
So, many thanks for that.
Cheers,
Wayne.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> Wayne,
> I probably can't help much with the 'formal' logic, perhaps Dr. T. could
> haul out some dead Greeks for that, but I can say something about the
> issues of instrumental value.
>
> If by 'instrumental' you mean 'adaptive' in an ecological/evolutionary
> sense then camouflage is only of value to the extent it allows the hawk
> or whatever, to live out a life cycle which includes reproduction.
> Unless the organism reproduces, there is no 'value' one way or another
> to any characteristic. Saying that the characteristic is of value to the
> individual as long as it helps it merely survive is tautological; It
> lives in order to live.
>
> Adaptation is kind of interesting in that it only works on individuals,
> via reproduction, but species do evolve. However to say that the
> individual has any interest in the 'existence' of the species is
> probably making a mistake of misplaced concreteness. I think Whitehead
> writes about that. While species are abstractions (to some extent)
> applied to groups of individuals, an individual has no 'reality' outside
> of itself and 'in' the species.
>
> Maybe I'm not clear on what you mean by 'instrumental value' here. But
> it seems that you are confusing 'survival' with 'benefit.' Maybe not.
>
> Interesting question however,
> Steven
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Butler
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:20 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Help Please!!
>
> Dear People,
> I could really use your help with something (which is beginning to drive
> me
> insane!!).
>
> I kind of know instinctively that there is something logically,
> deductively
> wrong with a particular argument, but I can't work out what one should
> call
> this 'wrongness' *formally*! (e.g, is it circular, question begging,
> etc.)
> Please help me out here before I become unconscious from banging my head
> on
> the desk.
>
> OK, so the wrongness of the argument is something like this:
>
> > One can say that, for example, the hawk's camouflage is of
> instrumental
> benefit to it.
> However, if we accept that the hawk strives to continue its existence
> (and
> that of its species), there would seem to be something wrong or
> contradictory or circular about saying that its *existence* is of
> instrumental benefit to *it*.
> Its existence is, essentially, it. So how can its existence be of
> instrumental benefit to itself? <
>
> See what I mean? Now then, what would be formally, logically, or
> deductively
> wrong with saying that its existence is of instrumental benefit to it?
>
> I so hope you can help with this!
> With many thanks in anticipation,
> Yours, desperately,
> Wayne.
>
|