Wayne,
I hadn't really thought about an organism doing what it is 'suppose' to do
as a 'benefit.' I tend to think in terms of 'advantageous' and
'disadvantageous.' I suppose 'benefit' and 'penalty' (maybe?) would work.
Steven
>From: Wayne Butler <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "Discussion forum for environmental ethics."
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Help Please!!
>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:38:16 -0000
>
>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.
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|