The Intrinsic Value of Humanity

[Miles]

Is there such a thing?

The reason I ask is that occasionally someone will suggest that to save the human race we should be looking for ways to live on other planets. Of course there aren't any habitable planets in our solar system so the the suggestion isn't at all reasonable. However, is there any reason we should even be thinking of such a thing? If the human race eventually died out what would be the loss? What is so precious about the human race that we should seek to prolong its existence as best we can? Personally, I don't see any, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Divine Insight]

An intrinsic value to whom or what?

I think you answered your own question right there.

Even a so-called "intrinsic value" has to be valuable to someone. The very concept of "value" requires that someone is placing a value on something in the first place.

Therefore if humans place value on their own lives and on the lives of their offspring, then humanity has value intrinsic to itself.

However, the focus here isn't the individual, but humanity.

Humanity is nothing but a collection of individuals.

Therefore, if some individuals place intrinsic value on themselves and the future of their offspring, then at least some of humanity has intrinsic value that extends into the indefinite future.

It may also be true that some individual place no value on themselves or their offspring. Therefore at least some of humanity doesn't give a hoot about much of anything.

So those who seek to make a future for humanity have justification for the intrinsic value that they place on themselves and their fellow human. Many individuals even care about humans who are not their own offspring. But this may be difficult for individuals who only care about themselves to understand.

[Miles]

An intrinsic value to whom or what?

I think you answered your own question right there.

And I think not.

Even a so-called "intrinsic value" has to be valuable to someone. The very concept of "value" requires that someone is placing a value on something in the first place.

Therefore if humans place value on their own lives and on the lives of their offspring, then humanity has value intrinsic to itself.

Nah, nah, nah. You're mixing up the group (humanity) and its constituents (individual humans). Don't do that.

However, the focus here isn't the individual, but humanity.

Humanity is nothing but a collection of individuals.

Therefore, if some individuals place intrinsic value on themselves and the future of their offspring, then at least some of humanity has intrinsic value that extends into the indefinite future.

See, you're focusing on the individuals and not the value of the group. Don't do that.

If humanity has some intrinsic value that makes it worth saving what is it?

[bluethread]

An intrinsic value to whom or what?

I think you answered your own question right there.

And I think not.

Even a so-called "intrinsic value" has to be valuable to someone. The very concept of "value" requires that someone is placing a value on something in the first place.

Therefore if humans place value on their own lives and on the lives of their offspring, then humanity has value intrinsic to itself.

Nah, nah, nah. You're mixing up the group (humanity) and its constituents (individual humans). Don't do that.

However, the focus here isn't the individual, but humanity.

Humanity is nothing but a collection of individuals.

Therefore, if some individuals place intrinsic value on themselves and the future of their offspring, then at least some of humanity has intrinsic value that extends into the indefinite future.

See, you're focusing on the individuals and not the value of the group. Don't do that.

If humanity has some intrinsic value that makes it worth saving what is it?

No, you do not understand the nature of value. If something had intrinsic value, it would be intrinsic(Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential). Value is dependent on the one doing the valuation not on the thing valued. Therefore, there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

[Miles]

An intrinsic value to whom or what?

I think you answered your own question right there.

And I think not.

Even a so-called "intrinsic value" has to be valuable to someone. The very concept of "value" requires that someone is placing a value on something in the first place.

Therefore if humans place value on their own lives and on the lives of their offspring, then humanity has value intrinsic to itself.

Nah, nah, nah. You're mixing up the group (humanity) and its constituents (individual humans). Don't do that.

However, the focus here isn't the individual, but humanity.

Humanity is nothing but a collection of individuals.

Therefore, if some individuals place intrinsic value on themselves and the future of their offspring, then at least some of humanity has intrinsic value that extends into the indefinite future.

See, you're focusing on the individuals and not the value of the group. Don't do that.

If humanity has some intrinsic value that makes it worth saving what is it?

No, you do not understand the nature of value. If something had intrinsic value, it would be intrinsic(Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential). Value is dependent on the one doing the valuation not on the thing valued. Therefore, there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

"Intrinsic value is the central concept of axiology, or the philosophical study of value. To say that something is intrinsically valuable is, roughly speaking, to say that itis valuable in itself, or for its own sake – as opposed to, e.g., money, which is valuable only for the sake of something else."
source


"Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.

It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness (human flourishing) has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value."
source


"As the intrinsically valuable is that which is valuable as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed in moral philosophy that something's possession of intrinsic value generates some moral duty (or moral obligation) on the part of moral agents (i.e., those who are capable of moral reflection and choice) to protect it or at least to refrain from damaging it. For this reason, intrinsic value is also often called "moral value".
source

And, THIS

[bluethread]

No, you do not understand the nature of value. If something had intrinsic value, it would be intrinsic(Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential). Value is dependent on the one doing the valuation not on the thing valued. Therefore, there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

"Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.

It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness (human flourishing) has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value."
source


"Intrinsic value is the central concept of axiology, or the philosophical study of value. To say that something is intrinsically valuable is, roughly speaking, to say that itis valuable in itself, or for its own sake – as opposed to, e.g., money, which is valuable only for the sake of something else."
source


"As the intrinsically valuable is that which is valuable as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed in moral philosophy that something's possession of intrinsic value generates some moral duty (or moral obligation) on the part of moral agents (i.e., those who are capable of moral reflection and choice) to protect it or at least to refrain from damaging it. For this reason, intrinsic value is also often called "moral value".
source

And, THIS

This is at best circular reasoning and at worst psychobabel, Any intrinsic value would be, as your quotes state, "value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake"". If it has value in and of itself there is no justification and also no gradation. That uses the term "value" as a static state, that can neither decrease nor increase. It is either there or it is not. Thus the term, in that usage, becomes nothing more that a secular form of the term "dogma".

However, if value can change one can seek a justification for that value based on some factor, as you are doing. That is because that factor can be evaluated on a scale of preference and preference requires a second party judgment. Thus it is that judgment and not the nature of the thing that establishes the value.

[Miles]

perhaps you should start with the human closest to you: yourself. What value do you have?

I fail to see the relevance.

Humanity is, amongst other things, a collection of individuals. What value do you have?

Still irrelevant.

[Miles]

No, you do not understand the nature of value. If something had intrinsic value, it would be intrinsic(Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential). Value is dependent on the one doing the valuation not on the thing valued. Therefore, there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

"Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.

It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness (human flourishing) has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value."
source


"Intrinsic value is the central concept of axiology, or the philosophical study of value. To say that something is intrinsically valuable is, roughly speaking, to say that itis valuable in itself, or for its own sake – as opposed to, e.g., money, which is valuable only for the sake of something else."
source


"As the intrinsically valuable is that which is valuable as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed in moral philosophy that something's possession of intrinsic value generates some moral duty (or moral obligation) on the part of moral agents (i.e., those who are capable of moral reflection and choice) to protect it or at least to refrain from damaging it. For this reason, intrinsic value is also often called "moral value".
source

And, THIS

This is at best circular reasoning and at worst psychobabel, Any intrinsic value would be, as your quotes state, "value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake"". If it has value in and of itself there is no justification and also no gradation. That uses the term "value" as a static state, that can neither decrease nor increase. It is either there or it is not. Thus the term, in that usage, becomes nothing more that a secular form of the term "dogma".

However, if value can change one can seek a justification for that value based on some factor, as you are doing. That is because that factor can be evaluated on a scale of preference and preference requires a second party judgment. Thus it is that judgment and not the nature of the thing that establishes the value.

Your misuse of "psychobable"---actually, I don't believe you know what it is---and "circular reasoning"---again, I don't believe you know what it means---isn't a very auspicious beginning here. For the rest of your reasoning, it's pretty much plain old babble. And rather than bother trying to decipher it I'm just going to let it lie as is, and go along with my linked remarks. Remarks that obviously come with much more authority than your own. And sometimes it just isn't worth the effort to slog through a mire of confused thinking.

Have a good day.

[Divine Insight]

See, you're focusing on the individuals and not the value of the group. Don't do that.

Who voted you in as the LORD GOD who demands what other people can do?

I can do whatever I want.

If humanity has some intrinsic value that makes it worth saving what is it?

Well, for one thing, when considering all of humanity the vast majority of humans are decent loving people, that makes humanity worth saving right there.

Unless of course, you personally don't see any value in decent loving people?

In other words, if you reject that "value" that I place on humanity as not being "valuable" to you, then who's deciding what the concept of "value" even means?

We can't even begin to discuss the intrinsic value of anything until we both agree on what traits are "valuable".

You seem to be making the very same mistake that theists make when they attempt to speak about "objective morality".

There can't be any such things as "intrinsic value" until we first establish who's doing the valuing.

[bluethread]

No, you do not understand the nature of value. If something had intrinsic value, it would be intrinsic(Innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential). Value is dependent on the one doing the valuation not on the thing valued. Therefore, there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

"Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.

It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness (human flourishing) has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value."
source


"Intrinsic value is the central concept of axiology, or the philosophical study of value. To say that something is intrinsically valuable is, roughly speaking, to say that itis valuable in itself, or for its own sake – as opposed to, e.g., money, which is valuable only for the sake of something else."
source


"As the intrinsically valuable is that which is valuable as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed in moral philosophy that something's possession of intrinsic value generates some moral duty (or moral obligation) on the part of moral agents (i.e., those who are capable of moral reflection and choice) to protect it or at least to refrain from damaging it. For this reason, intrinsic value is also often called "moral value".
source

And, THIS

This is at best circular reasoning and at worst psychobabel, Any intrinsic value would be, as your quotes state, "value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake"". If it has value in and of itself there is no justification and also no gradation. That uses the term "value" as a static state, that can neither decrease nor increase. It is either there or it is not. Thus the term, in that usage, becomes nothing more that a secular form of the term "dogma".

However, if value can change one can seek a justification for that value based on some factor, as you are doing. That is because that factor can be evaluated on a scale of preference and preference requires a second party judgment. Thus it is that judgment and not the nature of the thing that establishes the value.

Your misuse of "psychobable"---actually, I don't believe you know what it is---and "circular reasoning"---again, I don't believe you know what it means---isn't a very auspicious beginning here. For the rest of your reasoning, it's pretty much plain old babble. And rather than bother trying to decipher it I'm just going to let it lie as is, and go along with my linked remarks. Remarks that obviously come with much more authority than your own. Asometimes it just isnnd 't worth the effort to slog through a mire of confused thinking.

Have a good day.

Yes, that is in the nature of modern philosophy. Claim the other side is ignorant and not worthy of one's time. Yes, psychobabble applies directly to psychology, but the use of "jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility" still applies here. The modification of a term like "value" to provide a form that gives the appearance of objectivity, after having rejected objectivity, as many modern philosophers have, only then to ask for it's justification is indeed circuitous slight of hand. Moral values are either established by dogma or consensus. In either case, they are given value only by means of the degree acceptance, rejection or enforcement that are applied to them. None of those things is intrinsic to the moral values, but established by entity that accepts, rejects or enforces them. Your appeal to authority is a case in point. Stating that the remarks you present have greater value, because they have "obviously come with much more authority" is an attempt to establish value based on dogma. If you, on the other hand, "slog through a mire of confused thinking", you would be seeking to establish value based on consensus. However, you do not care about the value I place on them, because the value you and others place on them is more significant to you. Regardless, it is you in the end that is giving them value, which is precisely my point.

[Paprika]

perhaps you should start with the human closest to you: yourself. What value do you have?

I fail to see the relevance.

Humanity is, amongst other things, a collection of individuals. What value do you have?

Still irrelevant.

Still not answering, it seems.

Shall I infer that you are of the view that you have no value and are, yourself, irrelevant?