It would depend on one's mind set, religion, culture and his beliefs and view on the nature.
I don't believe personally nature itself has souls, thoughts or emotions to possess any type or kind of value.

I take the view that we are part of nature.

So the question now extends to humans too

That still leaves a lot of things that could give nature value. For example, beauty could give nature value, and that's just for intrinsic value.

It would help, if you could define what you mean by nature.

So the question now extends to humans too — Hello Human

And? To me the difference this makes is twofold. 1) We don't need to see nature as something 'other' to exploit and damage 2) if nature is us, we may be more likely to treat ourselves with some respect and piss the instrumentalism off.

But does the rest of nature have the same value as us then?

Define "value".

Something important. Or do you have a proposition?

But does the rest of nature have the same value as us then? — Hello Human

I have no idea. Is water more valuable than a human? Not if you are talking a few thousand gallons in a local swimming pool. But if you are talking all the world's water then it is as valuable. If you are looking for a rating system of value for the things in nature there isn't one, my guess is it's situational. Seeing nature as instrumental has very different implications if you have a shovel or a bulldozer.

It's your thread topic not mine. I asked so I can answer your questions rather than impose my own. So ...

Does nature have any value [some importance], whether it is instrumental or intrinsic?

To itself? Yes – intrinsic (dao)

To humans? Since, as pointed out already, humans are natural creatures, yes – intrinsic (yin) and instrumental (yang).

beauty could give nature value, and that's just for intrinsic value. — Hello Human

Hello Hello Human! What do you mean here, that beauty is intrinsic to beautiful things? It almost certainly isn't.

Something important. — Hello Human

That's not a much better definition.

Nature can mean so many different entities, and value? On what respect and aspect? Monetary value? Ethical? Aesthetic? Legal? Moral? Religious? Political? ...... etc etc.

Let's begin small and a few billion years ago, shall we? In the primordial oceans when life first took hold on earth, the flagellum corkscrews its way through the water, taking this single motile bacterium to places so to speak. Why? I bet only so that it can get to fresh sources of food and away from dangers. Then it feeds, hopefully in peace. It feeds, feeds, and feeds. Why? So that it becomes "mature" enough to divide/multiply (I can never seem to tell the difference).

Suddenly, there are now two bacteria, each with its own flagellum. If I were the personification of anti-life (a being hell-bent on destroying all life), my worries have doubled - now there are two I have to kill. Lather, rinse, repeat and, after some time, billions upon billions of bacteria. I, the anti-life, am overwhelmed. Plus, the bacteria mutate and a weapon that killed them off in the millions is now useless. Everytime I build my perfect weapon, the bacteria adapt. For me, the anti-life, its fighting a losing battle.

The instrumental value of the flagellum, the feeding, the division/multiplication ( :chin: ), by extension every part/process of a living thing, is to perpetuate life for as long as possible. Life then, it seems, considers itself to possess intrinsic value.

Fastforward to the 1900's and we meet Albert Camus (1913 -1960) and life, in human form, asks the million dollar question, what is the meaning (instrumental value) of life?"

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

It's absurd! Which, Albert Camus or Albert Camus, I don't know.

It seems we do not agree on the definition of value and nature. So, I'll clarify:

Nature: Anything that is alive.

Intrinsic value: desirable to attain, to protect, or preserve

Instrumental value: desirable as a means to an end

Now, a better way to word the initial question would be:
"Do living beings deserve protection/preservation, and can/should we use them to achieve our goals, whatever these goals are?"

Life then, it seems, considers itself to possess intrinsic value. — TheMadFool

But living beings generally tend to only assign value to themselves, but not other living beings. The question is whether or not they value not only themselves but also other living beings.

I was trying to give an example of a property that could give intrinsic value to an object.

I think it impossible to distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value with regard to nature. The fact I intrinsically value nature doesn't exclude its instrumental value. Life is a web of interdependencies that we are part of; such that all our ends are dependent on maintaining a viable biosphere. A core aspect of that web of life, is that individual organisms die - and so intrinsic value does not entail not killing animals, or developing the land to suit our purposes, even if that has a negative effect on other organisms, that's life - red in tooth and claw.

I was trying to give an example of a property that could give intrinsic value to an object. — Hello Human

Electric charge?

"Do living beings deserve protection/preservation, and can/should we use them to achieve our goals, whatever these goals are?" — Hello Human

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." ~William Munny

And yeah – "use them" sustainably as they use each other in order to sustain their descendents and thereby our own too.

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." ~William Munny — 180 Proof

:ok: Survival of the fittest luckiest!

"Luckiest" = quickest? :smirk:

"Luckiest" = quickest? — 180 Proof

The tortoise and the hare

Festina lente

:lol:

In others words, look both ways before crossing ... The quickest species in an unstable ecological niche, is what I mean, tend to survive – not "the quickest" individuals or "quickest" species independent of their indigenous ecology.

Does nature have any value, whether it is instrumental or intrinsic? — Hello Human

Nature is the only thing that has value, if it's appropriate to think of it as a "thing." What else is there that would?

In others words, look both ways before crossing ... The quickest species in an unstable ecological niche, is what I mean, tend to survive – not "the quickest" individuals or "quickest" species independent of their indigenous ecology. — 180 Proof

I didn't get it. :sad:

But living beings generally tend to only assign value to themselves, but not other living beings. The question is whether or not they value not only themselves but also other living beings. — Hello Human

That's an outdated idea as far as I can tell. The modern outlook is holistic in charater. Gone are the days when it was us vs them. Now, it's only US - it's either ALL or none. Look around you, do you see the evidence that humanity has extended its compassion, heretofore reserved for itself and that too only narrowly - to other living beings? Animal cruelty is a big issue in some parts of the world, so is deforestation, hunting, pollution and so on. All these are clear signals of a rapidpy growing global awareness that we're all in this together - any one of us, and by "us" I refer to every single living species, slips up and the entire ecology comes crashing down around our ears.

How does this relate to your question? Only to the extent that the global awareness I mentioned above is vital to life as a whole. Humans, by virtue of their intellectual prowess, is simultaneously the worst and the best candidate for the position of guardian of life - we can inflict great damage to the biosphere and we also have the smarts to not only reverse that but also shield the world from threats, greater ones I presume, that have nothing to do with human activity.

Why is this of any importance?

Mayhaps life can eventually, through us or other more intelligent species that may evolve later on, discover its own purpose. Possibly, the entire 4 billion years or so history of life that preceded the advent of humans was to get us to the point where one of the countless life-forms, us, formulates the question, "what is the meaning of life?" Another 4 billion years may need to pass before we can answer that question and it's our task to ensure life survives till that happens. We are, in a sense, like Morpheus in The Matrix waiting for the arrival of The One. Until The One arrives, we like Morpheus, need to keep Zion safe to the extent possible.

What's intriguing though is that the meaning of life seems to be more about instrumental value - what is the purpose of life? - rather than intrinsic value. Odd that!

Then there's this other bizarre fact we have to factor in. Instrumental value is ultimately about utility. What do you do with a broken cup at your home? Broken cups lose their instrumental value the instant they break. You collect the pieces and into the garbage can they go! At the risk of coming off as a cold-hearted person, I'd say there are a lot of people out there who are useless, I myself one of them. However, unlike the broken cup, we have serious misgivings about rounding up all useless people and treating them like garbage - life, in and of itself, seems to possess intrinsic value.

Frankly, I'm confused. You'll find me in the nearest landfill!

Yes, humanity has become more compassionate. But when it comes to individual living non-human beings, there doesn't seem to be any change, even though there are far more non-human living beings than human beings.

Furthermore, there is at least one very smart species that I know of that still actively hunts other living beings without questioning why. That is dolphins. They are not cruel, they're just carnivorous.

There are also less intelligent species that seem more compassionate. But it's not because they have beliefs about the sanctity of life, it's because they are herbivores.

Had humans been a carnivorous species, or on the contrary, a herbivorous one, the world would not have been the way it is today.

So, I don't think intelligence makes living beings more compassionate. Other factors, like our diet, are what cause a species to be more or less compassionate.

Really depends on what you mean by "value". You might say that nature is valuable insofar that we exist in nature. Secondly, nature provides us sustenance and the raw material in which to be creative.