How intrinsic value helps us separate wants from needs

Albert Ike and Dorinda Dallmeyer, both of the University of Georgia, have stated that environmental ethics must move beyond academic debate and into the policy arena, examining global environmental conflicts including first versus third world, consumption versus conservation, and the needs of transitional economies versus environmental protection. Of these, our paper and web site foregrounds consumption as a key problem, and argues that to promote a healthy environment, we must have a clear understanding of its intrinsic value, and that understanding must be shared by policy makers and the public alike.

Ethics implies intrinsic valuation, not merely the instrumental view common to cost-benefit analyses or resource allocation issues. It is, in modern society, impossible not to consume. The issue is one of quantity. As J. Baird Callicott notes, “Human occupation, from the perspective of the environment, does not have to be destructive…ethical limitations require that trees cut for shelter, or to make fields, animals slain for food or fur, and so on should be carefully used so as to neither waste nor degrade them…individual plants or animals transformed by human use deserves to be treated respectfully.” In short, consumptive practices are as integral to preserving nature, as are production or distribution practices.

Unfortunately, intrinsic value is not something that can be taught, nor quantified, so that instrumental value will remain critical to a public consensus for the foreseeable future. Businesses have as their primary goal wealth generation, and it is unrealistic to expect them to adopt lower consumptive practices unless such practices can be made consistent with increased shareholder value. We are not suggesting that businesses lack social conscience, nor do we suggest that businesses consciously attempt to pass on all costs of over-consumption to the public. We are suggesting, however, that a proper valuation of environmental goods be taken into consideration, and that instrumental costs which incorporate intrinsic value within nature represents a more accurate, richer picture of the true social costs of over-consumption.

The ethics of excessive consumption simply cannot be divorced from public policy, which seeks environmental protection. Until such time as nature is valued intrinsically, we suggest incentive schemes for business that promote environmentally friendly practices, and which do not compromise their mission of producing goods/services that maximize shareholder value. This is, admittedly, an instrumental approach, for intrinsic value, as we have mentioned earlier, cannot be legislated. When profit incentives are aligned with socially conscious practices, and when businesses benefit directly from lowered consumption, then we will witness change.

Incorporating conservation ethics and values into public policy and social decision-making will require imaginative thinking, for we are all trained to regard resource usage as necessary to value creation. We are also trained to think in terms of utility rather than inherent value where our surroundings are concerned. Yet, just as we regard our children as having inherent worth aside from mere property or income generators, we must develop similar understanding and appreciation for our fragile environment and the destructive consequences of excessive consumption.