Hello everyone. I want to know: Does every being have value? I mean intrinsic value, not instrumental value. And, if every being has value, how to prove it?
What do you mean by “being”, and how do you differentiate intrinsic and extrinsic value - to whom?
Maybe he is asking whether beings can be assigned non-instrumental value.
Isn’t that what we do when we rank beings based on their abilities?
When we say, for example, that humans are better than animals.
It appears that the answer is yes, though people of little value will disagree, for obvious reasons.
What value is an ability, besides instrumentally to an end?
Does it appear that humans are better than oxen when you have a field to plough?
“Nature abhors a vacuum and every vessel demands to be filled …”
Nature doesn’t waste
Ability, which is to say power, is an end in itself. It is not a means. Organisms do not acquire power in order to achieve some goal, such as avoid death. Rather, they first acquire power, and then, as a consequence, they achieve their goals, such as avoid death.
By “being”, I mean anything that exists. A “being” is the same as a “thing”. For example, a man, an animal, and a table, are beings.
And, by “intrinsic value”, I mean value of itself. This may be hard to define. By contrast, extrinsic value (or instrumental value) means being helpful to other being(s). For example, a man who is helpful to other people can be said to have extrinsic value. And, money can be said to have extrinsic value because it is helpful to people. In this question, I am only talking about intrinsic value.
I am seeking for value of every being because I am seeking for value of myself. I am eager to find value of myself (in a philosophical sense, not about money, success, or something else). I think that a being needs to have some value, or it seems to be worthless and ridiculous.
So power precedes will? Most formulations of power give it as some capacity to effect one’s will.
Power (as in ability) only makes sense in regards to goals: you may be able to bench press twice your bodyweight, but if you can’t cure cancer or swim there are many situations in which you’re powerless. It’s not a neutral, exchangeable currency.
You’ve said something it’s not. If you can’t say what it is, you can’t really ask the question. All value is value to someone or something, isn’t it?
Ability is that which makes one able to perform certain kind of motion. Walking, for example. You don’t need a goal in order to walk. You just have to make an appropriate move.
Means should precede end. This means that your means should determine what kind of end you should pursue or realize. Basically, it means doing what you can do (what is within your power.)
End preceding means is nihilism. This means that your end should determine what kind of means you should use. Basically, it means doing what you should do (what makes the pain go away.)
Is ‘something’ more valuable than ‘nothing’?
Yes. A ‘thing’ which exists has more value than a ‘thing’ which does not exist.
Intrinsic value of the ‘thing’ or ‘being’ comes from existence itself.
The universe create you at this time and place. It needed you to exist. You are an essential part of the whole.
I’m not sure I follow your point. If I have a bad back, it’s nihilistic to set myself a goal of deadlifting 100kg because it’s not yet in my power and will make my pain go away? It seems to me that increasing your means beyond their current limitations is a worthy goal.
Easy there, St Anselm 
An imaginary apple that inspires someone to formulate a law of gravity could be of considerably more value to the human race than an apple that falls and rots unnoticed in the corner of an orchard.
That’s instrumental value.
Value is an individual perception, don’t you think?
Beings, entities, things have value when they live up to their potential.
Tools have value when they have become activated to live up to their purpose, like a hammer. A hammer laying on the floor only has potential value until it begins to bang in that nail. lol
The seedling has value only if it becomes the Oak.
Well, perhaps it ALSO has value because it is waiting in the wings to live up to its potential.
No, it already has value since it is undergoing the process to become a great Oak.
I think that humans do have intrinsic value because of the great distance we have traveled to become human and because of the great potential which we have to create and to re-create our world. Also, we carry within us the genes and heritage of our ancestors. We are a part of that great value.
I have value to myself, and also (hopefully) to some other beings, such as my wife and my dog. My value to my dog lies in my ability to feed him, fulfil the role of his pack leader, etc, and these are instrumental values. My value to my wife similarly lies in my ability to fulfil my various roles in her life, and this too is instrumental value.
That leaves my value to myself. If this is only instrumental value, the question then arises: instrumental to what end? It would seem that this question has no answer. I may have instrumental value to other beings, but it seems senseless to claim that I have only instrumental value to myself. I conclude that I must have intrinsic value to myself.
However, this kind of intrinsic value can only be possessed by beings to which things can have value. I think it is hard to see how something could have value to a table or a rock, because nothing that happens to a table or a rock can matter to it. So it seems to me that things can only have intrinsic value to themselves if they are the sort of things to which things can matter, i.e. sentient beings.
So sentient beings, but not non-sentient beings, have intrinsic value to themselves. Does this mean they have intrinsic value simpliciter? This suggestion seems to me to make no sense. Does it matter to the universe whether you and I exist? Does it matter to the world (in the Wittgensteinian sense of ‘world’ i.e. everything that is the case)? I don’t see how it could. The universe, it is often said, is indifferent to us. I assume the same can be said of the world.
I conclude that sentient beings have intrinsic value to themselves and instrumental value to other sentient beings, but that non-sentient beings only have instrumental value, and nothing has intrinsic value simpliciter.
Increasing your means must be within your means. Otherwise, it is nihilistic.
My point is that action precedes choice. You do not act based on how you choose, you choose based on how you act.
Instincts come before will. The purpose of will is merely to regulate instincts by trimming those instincts that are too powerful such that weaker instincts, that would otherwise be repressed, can be expressed.
Nihilism, on the other hand, is the idea, and not reality, that will comes before instincts. In reality, it means over-expressing certain instincts (the repressing ones, addiction) and under-expressing other instincts (the repressed ones, hatred.)
One of the defining features of nihilism is the attitude of evaluating every action in terms of one action.
A popular example would be moralization which consists in evaluating every action in terms of morality. Whatever is of no moral value, which means it does not convert to a good moral action, is deemed bad. It is the reason why moralizers despise violence, sex, aesthetics and many other activities that have no moral value.
You are doing the same when you say that actions have no value unless they are of use to achieving some end.
All I can say is that there are a lot of beings that don’t have any value to me.
Hmm, this is an interesting view. I think that I should consider this view more.