Star Wars and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy Series) - Kevin Decker [45]
Value in Nature
Beyond animal ethics, the philosopher Holmes Rolston, III argues for the intrinsic value of both animal and non-animal life. If something is said to have intrinsic value, it usually implies that it should be respected and not used or destroyed. For example, the intrinsic value of each human being means that we owe respect to every individual, and are not permitted under any circumstances to practice slavery or use humans as test subjects without their knowledge and consent. In the same sense, Rolston argues that we’re obligated to respect nature due to its intrinsic value, rather than its instrumental value for humans. Humans don’t put value in the environment; it’s already there. All of nature is a productive and creative process and “there is value wherever there is positive creativity.”59 Rolston reminds us that when we’re walking in the woods, far from other humans, something “tells us” that although no other human may walk this path again to see the beautiful flowers, we still ought not to pick them. Each flower struggles to survive, to defend its life, and we should not interrupt this process needlessly. The organism seeks its own good or telos, the natural goal of an organism, which requires different actions depending on its species—a plant photosynthesizes, while a wampa seeks and eats meat. And this process is itself intrinsically creative. If a plant’s stem is cut off, it will repair itself; it will work to recover in a way that a blaster or an AT-AT Walker won’t. Although plants and (some) animals are not conscious of this process, it’s the creative process, not the awareness of it, that has value.
By itself, this view would appear to be an environmental individualism, the view that we have ethical obligations to distinct individuals (in this case, each living organism) and not necessarily to species or the environment as a whole. But Rolston argues that ultimately each individual organism shouldn’t be seen apart from its relationships with other organisms, or from those processes which produced it—in other words, their ecosystem. The sea monsters in the waters of Naboo, for example, must be seen as part of their larger ecosystem, including the water, the caves, and the other organisms in the food chain to which they’ve had to adapt. An ecosystem isn’t simply a collection of interacting individuals, but a system of processes and relationships between different organisms; this system creates and sustains life.60 Natural processes don’t just create organisms; they create diversity within species. And this ends up being good for the overall ecosystem. In this sense, ecosystems seek their own good and for this reason the ecosystem should be valued as well. So, while intrinsic value is typically considered independent of all else, Rolston insists that it be considered within a whole system. In other words, each organism has intrinsic value, but intrinsic value isn’t absolute value (as is normally believed).61 He says:
The dialectic of instrumental and intrinsic values, embedded in systemic value, is communitarian without subtracting anything organismic because it integrates organic parts in a community whole. Earthworms are of value because they aerate the soil for grasses and supply food for catbirds, but also because they have an inherent good of their own. Neither their instrumental value to grasses and catbirds or to the system, nor their intrinsic value in themselves—no single thing alone but the fusion of all contributes to integrity, stability, and beauty in the community.62
This position, called environmental holism, maintains that the good of the whole biotic