I consider statements about the “intrinsic value” of a life, an idea, or a pound of sugar to be nothing more than meaningless noise.
What? Am I suggesting that a human life has no intrinsic value? No, I'm not.
What I am suggesting is that the concept of value is fundamentally different from that of, say, mass. Mass is a quantitative attribute of an object. I can measure it. I can precisely predict the effect of a hundred-kilo anvil dropped from a height of ten meters on the cat standing beneath. The cat will have the same experience no matter who observes the event, even if the entire audience leaves the room. The anvil's mass is independent of the human condition.
Value is a trickier concept. In economic terms, the value of a thing is defined empirically by what people prove willing to pay for it. If you wish to know the value of a pound of sugar, consult the sugar market.
Does a pound of sugar have an intrinsic value? What does intrinsic mean? I submit that a quality is intrinsic if its nature is independent of the nature—or presence—of an observer. My hundred-kilo anvil will behave reliably the same whether I am watching it, or my cat, or nobody at all. If nobody is shopping for sugar, however, its value remains undefined.
What is the value of a human life? Within the United States, the market formed by courts awarding damage settlements has arrived at a remarkably consistent answer: about ten million dollars.
Of course, money is not the only coin. For example, a parent gives of his time, his labor, and sometimes his existence in order to engender, develop, and protect his child's life. At the notion that a human life could be boiled down to a dollar figure, my “liberal“ friends might voice grave (and tiresome) offence, but they would be no less correct. There appears to be more value to us than can be expressed in dollars.
But is that value intrinsic? Value appears to be an attribute that can only be identified by a human observer. This poses a problem: the act of isolating a thing in order to assess its intrinsic value would cause that (hypothetical) intrinsic attribute to go unobserved.
In other words, things like life and sugar may have intrinsic value or they may not, but if they do, the nature of the human condition prevents us from perceiving it.
Nonetheless, whether intrinsic or not, we do perceive value. If this quality is not intrinsic, then what fosters this perception that seems, in the main, to be remarkably consistent in character from one person to another?
Another way to ask the question is this: if not an intrinsic value, then what else do all lives (or pounds of sugar) have in common that might explain this continuity of experience?
Well, for one thing, they're all being observed by people. We are all strikingly similar variations on the human theme. Quantitatively, the genetic variation from one person to another is a small fraction of a percentage point. Beyond gross measurements such as bone length or skin color, all but the most damaged of us fit an identical structural template down to the submicroscopic level. Our behavioral reactions to stimuli are consistent enough to sustain the science of psychology. Is it any wonder that we perceive similar things in similar ways?
In other words, I suspect that the “intrinsic value” of things is an artifact imposed on human perception by the strong symmetry of the human experience, rather than any attribute organic to the things themselves. Could I be wrong? Sure... but the proposition, at least at this point in history, is an undecidable one. We'll just have to wait and see.
So what's the point?
Consider the following two statements:
- Abortion should be illegal because all human life has equal intrinsic value.
- Abortion should be illegal because I value all human life equally.
The argument above admits two mutually exclusive possibilities: either all human lives have intrinsic value (which might happen to be equal), or they do not. The proposition is currently undecidable; the human condition inherently precludes us from knowing which possibility is true. The strength of the first statement about abortion—that it should be outlawed—rests entirely on this undecidable proposition. That's a shaky argument, at best.
On the other hand, the second statement holds together whether or not there is such a thing as intrinsic value!
There's a catch, though: in order to use it, you have to take responsibility for your own perceptions. You must stand on your own two feet and assert your own value system, and either communicate it to others by strength of argument if you can, or by force of arms if it's really all that important to you. Either way, you get to be in charge of your own perceptual life.
Get it?
“Intrinsic value” is the perceptual equivalent of speaking in the passive voice. It lets you get away with blaming your difficult opinions on somebody else. It is a metaphysical weak chin.
Personally, I favor abortion, capital punishment, a shooting war against terrorism, and the complete abolishment of gun controls, in no small measure precisely because all human lives do not have equal value... to me.
And, whether I like it or not, that's the only standard I have.