?Intrinsic-value, by definition and by observation, is a higher value than the other two basic value dimensions. (In the following paragraphs t I will explain further what is meant here by “I-value.”) As we have shown, to aim for the highest values in life is the way to maximize value. Hence a rational individual would go in the direction of Intrinsic-value. To aim for I-value, for harmony in human relations, rather than be quarrelsome, is in our best self-interest and therefore this is what a rational person would be obliged to do.
A plant needs strong roots to flourish. In the same way, a person needs a good character, one that exhibits honesty, fairness, responsibility, and compassion. All these character traits result from a capacity to I-value both oneself and others.
The moral qualities mentioned, as well as empathy, reflect the individual’s capacity to I-value, to engage in the process of Intrinsic valuation. What R. S. Hartman spoke of as I-value is quite similar to what Edmund Husserl called Intentionality, and what Henri Bergson called "compenetration." It is full involvement, dedication, concentrated focus, giving of oneself to what is being valued. It has been called “getting in the Flow.” It is showing respect. It is the formation of a continuum between the valuer and what he is valuing. The many becomes one; the diversity becomes a unity while still maintaining its diverse and unique identity. This having an intense interest often results in finding so many qualities in what you are valuing that you cannot possibly count them. You see the situation as a whole.
If it is a person you are I-valuing you see that person as interesting, as having a story to tell, as deep and complex; and you have entered the realm of Ethics. For this is the ethical perspective.
An owl needs strong eyes to enable it to see in the dark because it hunts for food at night. That is how owls survive, how the owl species can flourish. An owl with weak eyes is defective.
If ethics is about harmonious relationships and about how we are obligated to others even when tempted not to be, then anyone who does not strive to have a good character, to add value, to situations, to make things better, to uplift or empower others, to volunteer ‘service with a smile’, to perform an act of kindness, etc., and to thereby in his own way enhance the human species is (in a sense) like an owl without night vision, or a plant that lacks strong roots. There is something missing; there is a failure to achieve what Philippa Foot called “Natural goodness.” Such an immoral individual keeps us all from fully flourishing. We all do better if we all do better.
According to Prof. Foot, a human being who conducts himself immorally has a defect relevant to his species. No one likes to be considered to be ‘defective.’ People hearing this react negatively, and rather emotionally, toward Dr. Foot.
Comments? Philosophical reflections you may have had along these lines?
