Abstract
This paper will strive to answer the question of whether or not life itself has an inherent moral value, and if so, whether or not naturally occurring life forms are more or less valuable than artificial ones. It will determine whether or not there are important ethical distinctions that should be made between natural and artificial life, and whether or not every living being, regardless of whether or not it is naturally or artificially created possesses an inherent value simply as a result of the fact that it is alive.
Keywords: biocentric ethics analysis, environmental ethics, natural life, artificial life
Biocentric Ethics Analysis
The question of whether or not life itself has an inherent moral value is a question that has prompted debate for years. Everyone from scientists to philosophers, to theologians have attempted to answer this question conclusively, and yet the question is still one that is highly subjective and does not, possibly cannot, have one simple and concrete answer. For something to have inherent value it must possess a value that exists as “a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute” (Inherent, 2014). Furthermore, the traditional definition of whether or not something has inherent value has to do with whether or not the experience of the thing is good in and of itself, something that is subjective to begin with (Russow, 1988). The question is, in and of itself, multi-faceted and not as concrete as it may otherwise seem. The question itself does not differ between the different types of life, either natural or artificial, nor does it take into account any of the basic ethical considerations that are associated with this type of value, all of which must be looked into to determine whether or not such factors play a role in answering the question, or even in defining whether or not all life simply has an inherent value by the sheer virtue of being alive.
There are those who argue that human life has an inherent value, both as a result of a belief in the sanctity of life and those who believe that the inherent value is present as a result of the influence of a divine being (Rauser, 2012). There are likewise those who believe that while human life does have inherent value, the lives of any other creatures do not, because, as far as we know, they do not have any cognizant perception of themselves as sentient beings (Rauser, 2012), while there are still others who state that regardless of cognizance, animals still have an inherent value (Southan, 2012). It is, perhaps, Holmes Rolston III who has hit the nail on the head in arguing the fact that whether or not we, as humans work to argue the fact serves to show that all life and all life forms have an inherent value simply because there is a valuer present, i.e. the very debate about the question of value indicates that there is someone who cares whether or not life has a value, and as such it must be stated that a value is present, for if it were not, there would be nothing to argue about (Bogen, 2000).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Biocentric Ethics".
This being stated, the question of whether or not life has an inherent value as a result of human belief or as a result of divine providence becomes irrelevant. Regardless of whom the valuer is, whether human or divine, one is still present, and as such, all life forms must have value. Does this valuation then apply to natural and artificial life forms alike? In this case, and as a result of Rolston’s premise, it must be stated that the valuation must be blanket, across all life forms, both natural and artificial, as there are many artificial life forms that have been engineered solely for the purpose of providing good to humanity, and for those that were created for scientific purposes, it must be stated that they had a value, whether as a success or as a failure, to the researcher who worked to create them. Of the many different scientists working in this field, Craig Venter is perhaps one of the most well-known, and he has spent many years at his research institute working to create various organisms for the purposes of biosafety and biosecurity (Baertschi, 2012). The first organism created served to prove that it was possible for humans to do so (Sample, 2010), opening the door to the creation of organisms that may be utilized to produce biofuels, clean up oil spills, and the like, indicating that even the first bioengineered organism had its own inherent value due to the fact that it showed that which could be (Sample, 2010).
While the terms biosafety and biosecurity are often used in conjunction with such research, the focus on these matters often comes back to the question of whether or not such scientists are simply attempting to play God, and whether or not they are ethically justified in the creation of such organisms, and whether these man-made organisms should be treated as though they have any inherent value of their own (Link, 2013). This is merely an attempt to detract from the primary issue.
The plain fact of the matter is that something cannot have value if someone is not there to value it. Simply because all individuals do not value the same thing does not mean that we all must share the same opinion. It does not matter whether one disagrees, or many do. What matters is that there is someone who places a value on life, and as such, that life has value, regardless of whether or not that valuation is as a result of a belief in a higher power, a belief in the power of science, or a belief in the power of humanity. Value exists because someone states that it does, and what holds true for one individual may not hold true for another. This particular question, while highly subjective, serves to show that it matters not whether individuals agree or agree to disagree. The value is still present, even if there are those who choose not to acknowledge it.
This is a question that will never conclusively be put to bed as a result of the subjectivity, it is true, but it does serve to perform a far more necessary task, the demand for the individual to attempt to determine for himself or herself what their perceptions are on the matter and where their beliefs lie on the question of the value of life, serving to allow the individual to take measure, not of the question, but of the ethical beliefs present within themselves, serving to create a clearer picture of their stance on the matter.
- Baertschi, B. 2012. The moral status of artificial life. Environmental Values, 21 (1), pp. 5–18.
- Bogen, J. 2010. Inherent Beauty?. [online] Available at: http://www.jbogen.com/env/papers/Intrinsic_Value_of_Nature_2000s.pdf [Accessed: 21 Mar 2014].
- Dictionary.com. 2014. Inherent. [online] Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent [Accessed: 21 Mar 2014].
- Link, H. 2013. Playing God and the intrinsic value of life: moral problems for synthetic biology?. Science and engineering ethics, 19 (2), pp. 435–448.
- Rauser, R. 2012. The Inherent Value of Human Beings: A Response to Stephen Maitzen. [online] Available at: http://randalrauser.com/2012/04/the-inherent-value-of-human-beings-a-response-to-stephen-maitzen/ [Accessed: 21 Mar 2014].
- Russow, L. 1988. Regan on inherent value. Between The Species, 4 (1), p. 12.
- Sample, I. 2010. Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form [Accessed: 21 Mar 2014].
- Southan, R. 2012. Do Animals Have Inherent Value? (abridged). [online] Available at: http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/16171517477/do-animals-have-inherent-value-abridged [Accessed: 21 Mar 2014].
