Yes, 'of advantage/disadvantage' would have done just as well as 'benefit'
and the opposite which I tend to use 'dis-benefit' - can't remember who I
nicked that off! e.g, kittens constitute a dis-benefit to the biotic
community, bottled-kittens a benefit. ;o)
Cheers!?
Wayne.
----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please!!
> 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
>
|