Intrinsic and Instrumental Value Notes

Intrinsic and Instrumental value are not concepts that are mutually exclusive, but they are very
different aspects of what it means for something to have value. Both concepts are used extensively in
ethics in order to not only determine whether something is worth considering in the ethical sphere—as
an extension of our central question of “who matters?” we can include the question of “what
matters?” as well as include some explanation of why.

Instrumental value is probably the easiest to understand, since it is often described using the language
of economic exchange. A “thing” (technical philosophical term!) has value insomuch as it can be
utilized for some other purpose, and the value contained in the object includes the value of that purpose
itself: a laptop's value comes not only from the labor that went into making it, from the speed of the
processor or amount of RAM that allows you to more effectively make documents, but also from the
work that you complete on the laptop. Contained in the laptop's instrumental value is social cred (this is
why Apple aggressively markets their products in the ways they do) but also the potential results of
using that laptop—getting a good grade on a paper, finishing a project that grants you a raise, etc.

Instrumental value is generally calculated using money, though need not rely on a capitalist/economic
system to operate. In the contemporary United States a latte may be worth $5 due to the logo on the
cup, the work put into making it, and the caffeine buzz it gives you. In a barter system the latte does not
become more useful to you or the company, it is simply acquired differently.

Intrinsic value is best thought of as value that is inherently part of a thing: value that would remain
even if there are no valu-ers left. Kant was very serious about intrinsic value of persons—you don't
have value to me because you can help me achieve my goal, but rather because of some property (in
this case, reason) that is inherently a part of yourself. This gets tricky because intrinsic value is very
difficult to explain in terms of amounts as well as in terms of origins. There is seemingly a
metaphysical aspect to things that are valued-in-themselves rather than for what-they-are-worth.

Objects can have both types of value, of course. A good example is the Amazon rainforest. Not only is
the land worth quite a lot of money, the trees in this incredibly vast region provide oxygen as well as
homes for tens of thousands of species. There is quite a lot of instrumental value tied up in the Amazon
region, both potential and actualized; both for humans and for other living beings (assuming that you
accept that animals can value something instrumentally). However, the argument exists that the
rainforest is also valuable as more than simply an important part of the biosphere. It may also exist as
something that would be valuable even if it didn't provide extraordinary benefits, or even if all the
things in the world which are capable of valuing something did not exist. It is difficult to identify what
exactly it is about the rainforest that is intrinsically valuable, but the same claim could be made about
humans as well... is it reason? Capacity for pain? Relationships? All of these things that seem to be
explanations are themselves perhaps only instrumental to the one who values them, yet we recognize
that there are at least a few things in the world which we should value in-of-themselves.