Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?

I don't think pleasure can be an end in itself, it has to hold hands with something else to be experienced.
Maybe duty can be an end, but if the outcome of what duty commands is bad, then was the act moral?
Self preservation may also be an end, but it is a biological end, like birth, death and so on, so not so much so much value as a non-cognitive necessity.

Noble Dust

I was taking "things" in a broad philosophical sense.

Cavacava

↪Noble Dust

So social constructs such as Justice, Freedom as ends

Noble Dust

I just meant that people have value in and of themselves.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Example: money. It has no value if it cannot be used as a means to acquire other goods, like a car — Samuel Lacrampe

I am sure that I could find a coin or a paper currency that is no longer legal tender but some collector would love to keep.

And if it is dark and I do not have a flashlight, a dollar bill could be valuable as a light source after I strike a match or flip a cigarette lighter.

Srap Tasmaner

(1) subjective pleasure, physical or emotional, (2) ethics or duty, and (3) necessity, like health and safety. — Samuel Lacrampe

It's really not obvious these three stand on their own. Plenty of people will reduce (2) to (1). You could reduce (3) to (2) or (1). Some might claim that (1) and (2) are actually in the service of (3).

Plus foundationalism here has an odd result: the only things that will count as ends in themselves are things that serve no other purpose, that is to say, things that are, in some sense, pointless. People are inclined to reduce everything to pleasure-seeking because pleasure seems pointless to them, that is, something that is not desirable for some reason but just desirable as such. Avoidance of pain might have an even stronger claim than pleasure here.

For instance, I'm betting that you'll pick (1) from your list to explain this:

I am sure that I could find a coin or a paper currency that is no longer legal tender but some collector would love to keep. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Collectors derive pleasure from their collections. I'm not sure that's wrong exactly, but I'm also not sure it illuminates or explains the collector's behaviour more than just letting him say he sees these things as having value in themselves. "We love the things we love for what they are."

TheMadFool

The difference between:

1. Instrumental value
And
2. Intrinsic value

I think happiness has intrinsic value. Everything else can be reduced to means for achieving happiness.

Also, truth has intrinsic value. Why does it deserve its own category? Because, truth and happiness are not identical. Some truths are sad e.g. the suffering extant in our world, yet, we feel it's necessary to know this truth. Paradoxical!

Another thing that has intrinsic value is life. It's different from happiness and truth because people continue to want to live despite suffering and ignorance. Suicidal people are exceptions.

Harry Hindu

I can think of only three ends (and even then, I am not sure about the third one): (1) subjective pleasure, physical or emotional, (2) ethics or duty, and (3) necessity, like health and safety. — Samuel Lacrampe

All three can be reduced to the ends of propagating one's genes. This isn't to say that genes have ends and means. Genes are simply mindless things that behave in certain ways as a result of their structure which came about as a result of a natural mindless process that promotes genes to the next generation that leads to their propagation in the environment. It is we - the one's with ends and means - that project meaning and purpose onto the universe. In other words, the belief in objective means and ends is an anthropomorphic venture in explaining the universe.

Organisms with minds have ends and means as a result of them being able to make predictions (ends) and a strategy (means) for achieving them. Organisms acquire these skills as a result of living in their environment and learning to use the tools that they have available (their body which includes their hands, legs and sensory organs). A hammer is useful to drive nails, but is useless if you don't have any hands.

Cavacava

I don't see how duty can be reduced to a biologic fact or function. The actions we think we ought to do, are socially constructed. Their reality depends in our agreement, which changes over time, context, and the individual's historic development. Moral duty may rail against biologic functons.

A Christian Philosophy

↪Noble Dust

That's a good one actually. Kant says to treat people as ends and never only as means. I think I would throw that in the ethics bucket (2), that is, social ethics.

A Christian Philosophy

I don't think pleasure can be an end in itself, it has to hold hands with something else to be experienced. — Cavacava

In my movie example, it seems the end is only pleasure, as it is neither necessary nor morally good (or bad) to watch it. Is there another end?

Maybe duty can be an end, but if the outcome of what duty commands is bad, then was the act moral?

Maybe not, but it is at least the perception of duty that will give value to the means; until the perception is gone, and at which point, the means no longer has the same value.

Self preservation may also be an end, but it is a biological end, like birth, death and so on, so not so much so much value as a non-cognitive necessity.

Does it not make it an end in its own right? People value safety. They are willing to spend more money on a car with safer features.

A Christian Philosophy

I am sure that I could find a coin or a paper currency that is no longer legal tender but some collector would love to keep. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But why would they love to keep it, if not for the end of subjective pleasure? I am using the term 'pleasure' broadly here, to include interest, passion, curiosity etc.

And if it is dark and I do not have a flashlight, a dollar bill could be valuable as a light source after I strike a match or flip a cigarette lighter.

Yes, but the light source is valuable only as a means to see something. If you did not care to see anything at that time, then you would not use the dollar bill.

Cavacava

Pleasure can only be experienced in doing something such as watching a movie, it is never experienced on its own, it never an end in itself, it is always experienced along with something else which is the end. If you go to view a movie, you take pleasure in the story, its aesthetic, the actors and so on, it is only experienced as a means, never as an end in itself.

Does it not make it an end in its own right? People value safety. They are willing to spend more money on a car with safer features.

Perhaps life is an end in itself, and the biological necessities of life are then are means to that end, but they not ends in themselves.

Regarding duty, I agree with Kant's depiction of man as a member of the kingdom of ends, but that is not to say that I agree with his sterile, over rational, theory of moral duty.

A Christian Philosophy

It's really not obvious these three stand on their own. Plenty of people will reduce (2) to (1). You could reduce (3) to (2) or (1). Some might claim that (1) and (2) are actually in the service of (3). — Srap Tasmaner

Reducing (2) to (1): While the thought of being good may result in a pleasurable feeling, I don't think this is the end goal for most people. In fact, some would argue that if personal satisfaction was really the goal, then the intention would be selfish, thus not really good.

Reducing (3) to (2) or (1): That is possible. There is sense in asking "What is the point of living if not for duty or pleasure?"

Reducing (1) and (2) to (3): Yeah maybe pleasure is for health, and social ethics is for the preservation of our species. But I find the end of surviving for the sake of surviving to be absurd. The word despair comes to mind. I am more inclined to reduce (3) to (1) and (2), than reducing (1) and (2) to (3).

Avoidance of pain might have an even stronger claim than pleasure here.

Agreed. I guess seeking the end implies avoiding its opposite.

A Christian Philosophy

I think happiness has intrinsic value. Everything else can be reduced to means for achieving happiness. — TheMadFool

I think 'happiness' either means 'pleasure' (1), or 'blessedness', which is pretty much ethics (2). Do you mean another thing by 'happiness'?

Also, truth has intrinsic value. — TheMadFool

That's a good one. Aristotle says man desires truth for its own sake, entirely apart from its utility. I will think more about that one, and consider if it cannot be reduced to the other ends (1), (2), or (3).

Another thing that has intrinsic value is life. — TheMadFool

This fits into (3), does it not? Or if you include preserving other life forms in nature, then it might fit into ethics and duty (2), but I am not sure.

By the way, I like the terms 'intrinsic value' and 'instrumental value'.

TheMadFool

I should've included morality under intrinsic value category but I couldn't see any clear-cut boundary between it and happiness. In short, I thought we're good because, bottomline, being moral makes us happy.

But, it seems there's a difference between morality and happiness. Just as with truth, there are moral situations that are not fun e.g. sacrificing yourself for another. These examples provide enough grounds to make morality something with intrinsic value.

A Christian Philosophy

All three can be reduced to the ends of propagating one's genes. — Harry Hindu

Interesting claim. So the most successful person in life is the one with the biggest and healthiest line of descendants? What reason do you have to believe that? It seems that the ethical behaviour of willing the good to everyone, not just family members, goes against that end.

Harry Hindu

I don't see how duty can be reduced to a biologic fact or function. The actions we think we ought to do, are socially constructed. Their reality depends in our agreement, which changes over time, context, and the individual's historic development. Moral duty may rail against biologic functons. — Cavacava

Duty and morals are instilled by our social environment, which is merely a kind of natural environment that we find ourselves in and need to navigate and survive in - no different than any other natural environment. In order to survive in any environment, you must learn how it works and what actions you take that either benefit you or don't.

Cavacava

No. Utility is not morality

Harry Hindu

Interesting claim. So the most successful person in life is the one with the biggest and healthiest line of descendants? What reason do you have to believe that? It seems that the ethical behaviour of willing the good to everyone, not just family members, goes against that end. — Samuel Lacrampe

Successful as in successfully propagating your genes, sure. There are other kinds of success - but it all can be resolved down to surviving and passing on your genes.

Willing good to everyone that share a majority of your genes - like the rest of humanity - doesn't go against the end of genes propagating themselves. Saving lives, saves genes, and it is that kind of behavior that would be selected by nature in order for genes to have the maximum propagation. It's not a matter of saving your own genes as your genes are merely a fraction of the gene pool of your social group, family or species you find yourself a part of.

Harry Hindu

I don't get your point.

Cavacava

. In order to survive in any environment, you must learn how it works and what actions you take that either benefit you or don't.

Actions that "benefit or don't". I understand as being based on utility.

Harry Hindu

Does it not benefit you to learn the rules of the society you live in, especially when the consquences for not following; them can result in your execution or imprisonment? Are there not different rules to follow in different societies (different environments)?

Cavacava

If you grew up in Germany in the mid 1930s would subugating Jews, Gypsies and others not benefit you.

No, I don't think utility can be inherently good in itself. It must obtain moral direction.

Harry Hindu

"Good" and "bad" are merely subjective judgements based on your current goal which could be your survival or passing on your genes. Morals are simply the rules of the society you find yourself in. In order to survive and pass on your genes, you must learn the rules - or it would be good to learn the rules - as that helps your achieve your goals.

A Christian Philosophy

Pleasure can only be experienced in doing something such as watching a movie, it is never experienced on its own, it never an end in itself, it is always experienced along with something else which is the end. If you go to view a movie, you take pleasure in the story, its aesthetic, the actors and so on, it is only experienced as a means, never as an end in itself. — Cavacava

It raises an interesting question. Do we perceive a thing to be good because it gives us pleasure, or do experience pleasure because we perceive the thing to be good? Here is my take: It is the former when it comes to subjective values, and the latter when it comes to objective values. The goodness of a movie is subjective, and so we perceive it to be good because it gives us pleasure. The goodness of justice and health is objective, and so we experience pleasure because they are good. As such, pleasure is an end when it comes to things with subjective value.

A Christian Philosophy

↪TheMadFool

I agree. And even though being morally good can make give pleasure in the long run, that is usually not the reason why people are good. I.E., they would still be good even if it did not give them pleasure. Pleasure in that case is more of a side effect than an end.

Buxtebuddha

"Good" and "bad" are merely subjective judgements based on your current goal which could be your survival or passing on your genes. Morals are simply the rules of the society you find yourself in. In order to survive and pass on your genes, you must learn the rules - or it would be good to learn the rules - as that helps your achieve your goals. — Harry Hindu

Merely? lolno.

A Christian Philosophy