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.
|