Applying the theory of “value incrementalism” to Environmental Ethics

Value incrementalism could be very useful in determining best use practices and solutions in situations where there is conflict between parties regarding the needs of an individual animal, or a specie, or species, or an ecosystem. Obviously, conflict use most often arises relative to the desires of human animals. The impact of conflict use is normally most detrimental to disenfranchised human animals and all other nonhuman animals and the shared environmental resources within or influenced by the community in question and the planet in general. It could be applied in situations when the desires of humankind are in direct conflict with the needs and/or lives of endangered or threatened species or habitat.
An example is the conflict between the desires and needs of the human animals of the lumber industry and local community supported by that industry and the spotted owl. The existence of the rare and irreplaceable old growth forest, whose trees are a coveted commodity to the lumber industy, are pivotal to the old growth ecosystem. This ecosystem is a basic requirement for the existence of the endangered spotted owl This is a situation involving multiple rare and endangered species, as well as a unique and irreplaceable and unreproducable ecosystem whose existence is jeopardized by the conflicting desires of humankind.

Value incrementalism could potentially provide a logical solution to the use and testing of sonar by the U. S. Navy in sovereign and open waters relative to its negative and often fatal impact upon highly sentient sea dwelling mammals – whales, dolphins, and porpoises. There is also the possibility that there are other animals and ecosystems upon which experimental sonar testing is having a negative impact that scientists, the Navy or the public are presently unaware of.

Applying the framework of value incrementalism to these types of conflict-use issues would allow us to determine the overall moral significance of the needs of the parties in question and their broader relational properties in a context which includes the needs of other species whose needs are interdependent with the species in question and their immediate and globally shared environment.

The Origin Of Morality

Matt Silliman’s expansion of “value incrementalism” in class today answered some of the questions I had blogged earlier. I think he and DKJ have presented a thoughtful and viable theory on the origin of morality.

I totally concur with their consideration of the organic, transformative, evolutionary pattern of natural phenomena in a continuum of form capable of moral expression. I agree that in order to be morally active, sentient beings must have the capacity to be empathic, social, and experience nurturing - either through observation or direct interaction. I believe I understand the principle Matt and DKJ are employing to assign greater value to a human being over a nonhuman being in extreme situations, when both are located on the same level of equal moral value.

What I see as a natural, logical progression of the theory of value incrementalism would be to automatically assign a value of 100 to every baby when they are born. Once they become adults, their actions will determine whether they maintain that value or they will lose value in moral status. Since imperfection is natural, only adult human beings who, of their own volition, actively take actions that unjustly and unnecessarily harm innocent moral agents or patients will be devalued. Each action will be assigned a number value according to its degree of heinousness. Then, should a situation arise when a choice needs to be made between a human being of reprehensible actions and a harmless sentient being, the harmless being should be favored.

This, of course, opens up the proverbial moral can of worms, or can of moral worms – depending upon what level of active valuing we have arrived at as a society.

I believe I would find it comforting if all sentient beings were assigned a basic numerical value according to a natural, evolutionarily driven continuum, which could be increased according to their needs, their specie’s need, the needs of human society or the environment’s needs. This scale employed alongside the human action-driven scale could go a long way towards balancing prior inequities and perhaps achieving a certain level of inter and intra-species harmony.

Applying Value Incrementalism to Today's Society

In "Value Incrementalism, Perfectionism, and Sentient Nonhumans" the authors, Matt Silliman and Dave Johnson stressed the importance of empathy, morality, moral valuers, social relations and nurturance in relationship to individuals and groups. Matt made the statement, “to build a normative moral theory you will need to bridge the is-ought gap.” Dave’s response asks us to “Consider the process of becoming reflectively conscious… for such beings as ourselves (at least), socially significant facts are already evaluative, and moral values are facts of the life we are born into.”

We are individually born into a society. Today, there is grave concern about the number of people in our society who exhibit the constellation of symptoms of antisocial personality disorder. This term is often used interchangeably with "sociopathic" and "psychopathic" personality disorder. The disorder is characterized by preoccupation with one's own concerns and insensitivity to the needs of others, lack of empathy, lack of conscience, and absence of guilt or feelings of remorse even after harming other people.

Hervey Cleckley's basic criteria of the psychopathic personality are:

1. Superficial charm and good intelligence
2. Shallow emotions and lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse
3. Behaviors indicative of little life plan or order
4. Failure to learn from experience and absence of anxiety
5. Unreliability, insincerity, and untruthfulness

The disorder is considered to be influenced by both genetics and the environment. Currently, the medical community is especially concerned about the influence of our social environment on today’s youth relative to the disorder.

It seems to me that the constellation of sociopathic symptoms can easily be applied to many national and international mega businesses and political systems. Cleckley's basic criteria of the psychopathic personality accurately describes most corporate and political entities as well as the people running them.

Given the significant rise in sociopaths in today’s society, should we consider the process of humankind becoming reflectively unconscious? In what context can we place sociopaths, evaluative, socially significant facts, and the current moral values as facts of the life into which we are born?

Can value incrementalism be applied to today’s societies? Could it be useful in diagnosing current destructive societal patterns? Are we creating a self-perpetuating disorder and deconstruction of society and self? Could the process of societies becoming reflectively unconscious and amoral be the next natural step in Peirce’s principle of self-perpetuating order? Will this facilitate the rise of nonhuman sentient, empathic beings into active volition following a natural ontogeny of value?

Are we approaching a threshold where categories of moral status as agents and valuers will include empathic sentient beings according to a construction by social empathic, beings? Will this new construction dis-include all unempathic sentient beings - including human beings from level 4 on the crude scale of natural objects?

Further Inquiries on Value Incrementalism

We know some viruses and bacteria can be very difficult to eradicate. Could this be representative of an impassioned will to continue their existence? Do they value their existence so highly that they fight and mutate so tenaciously to ensure their genetic material will continue to manifest? Or is it just the inherent biological drive to survive as an individual and as a species that all life shares? Or can Peirce’s principle of self-perpetuating order be expanded to accurately represent the orderly physical manifestation of the evolutionary process of life forms?

I think many nonhuman animals display equal and at times greater attention spans, patience, and nurturance than human animals. I also believe that many nonhuman animals, particularly mammals and birds, have complex and social relationships and communication systems.
We know many species of birds and mammals as well as crocodiles and alligators store food at caches for future use when food is scarce. Would we categorize this as long-term planning?

I agree that forms of empathetic friendships are more useful for informing our understanding of moral relations than the parent-child nurturance paradigm, particularly in relationships between human animals. I think the empathetic friendship paradigm can be easily applied to all inter-species workable social relationships.

Inquiries on Value Incrementalism, Perfectionism, and Sentient Nonhumans

When you (DKJ) said, “I am concerned to show continuity in the natural development of value that eventually emerges as moral in character, but until it shows active volition, value is only a metaphor.”

Who or what is the “it” showing active volition? Are you speaking about moral value or particular sorts of valuers? What is the criteria being used to determine what constitutes “active” volition? Who is the “determiner” of what constitutes “active” volition?

You used the examples of a plant turning its leaves to the sun and an amoeba absorbing nutrients but recoiling from toxins to illustrate a purely automatic “self-valuing.” How do you distinguish this as different than animals with complex, integrated nervous systems (who also avoid dangerous situations) having a sense of the world? How can you be certain that the plants and the amoeba, like animals, do not care what happens to them?