A changing climate is proving a threat to the world. Increased CO2 emissions are leading to rising sea levels, melting ice caps, extreme weather, and an increased rate in the extinction of species. However, the question of why endangered species are important to conserve arises. What is the purpose of devoting the effort to protect a single species when so many more exist? The ignorance argument, as Elliott Sober outlines in his article “Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism,” offers a dual-angled answer to this question: (1) we may not currently know the use of an endangered species to us and its extinction obliterates this possibility and (2) the extinction of a species may cause seriously beneficial or harmful results that we are
…show more content…
In support of this, Sober points to the use of penicillin in medicine compared to its prior use in cheese molds. However, Sober illustrates that we should not act based on total ignorance. As such, it seems illogical to devote oneself to a cause when one has no prediction of the outcome or if any value will arise from it. Without any assumptions of values, the decision is regarded as irrational, as there is no reasoning either in favor of preserving the species or letting it go extinct. Sober also proposes the rational argument that, like flying on an airplane to save time is worth more than the risk of crashing, it is worth allowing a species to go extinct in exchange for the construction of a hydroelectric plant that will increase efficiency and production for a community, providing significant utilitarian value than what may be potentially gained from the individual species. Though this is a valid point, if the value of a species is known or can be evaluated, the benefits would have to be carefully …show more content…
There may be other reasons for the conservation of threatened species on this planet, but the reasoning that they should be protected for some utilitarian value that is not yet realized is not rational. Decisions, especially those holding as much weight as protecting an endangered species which requires a significant devotion of time, effort, and money, should be based on supported assumptions. Furthermore, if we are unsure if the outcome of the extinction of this species will result in benefit or harm, there is no sense in ignorantly protecting every species; this would likely be a waste of efforts. Hence, this blind way of thinking and acting—which involves the commitment of materials and time—is not worthwhile and not an appropriate claim justifying the protection of threatened or endangered organisms. However, if one is arguing for a value that is not utilitarian, and is instead aesthetic or intrinsic, for example, this claim becomes puzzling. The aesthetic and intrinsic values of animals are typically analyzed in the current sense, and can be defended as worthwhile values to defend. If one considers the definition of intrinsic value as a natural or innate quality, this would likely remain constant throughout time; thus, the ignorance argument is not fully applicable in this case because the value is known and we are not unaware of it. Nonetheless, the aesthetic
In support of this, Sober points to the use of penicillin in medicine compared to its prior use in cheese molds. However, Sober illustrates that we should not act based on total ignorance. As such, it seems illogical to devote oneself to a cause when one has no prediction of the outcome or if any value will arise from it. Without any assumptions of values, the decision is regarded as irrational, as there is no reasoning either in favor of preserving the species or letting it go extinct. Sober also proposes the rational argument that, like flying on an airplane to save time is worth more than the risk of crashing, it is worth allowing a species to go extinct in exchange for the construction of a hydroelectric plant that will increase efficiency and production for a community, providing significant utilitarian value than what may be potentially gained from the individual species. Though this is a valid point, if the value of a species is known or can be evaluated, the benefits would have to be carefully …show more content…
There may be other reasons for the conservation of threatened species on this planet, but the reasoning that they should be protected for some utilitarian value that is not yet realized is not rational. Decisions, especially those holding as much weight as protecting an endangered species which requires a significant devotion of time, effort, and money, should be based on supported assumptions. Furthermore, if we are unsure if the outcome of the extinction of this species will result in benefit or harm, there is no sense in ignorantly protecting every species; this would likely be a waste of efforts. Hence, this blind way of thinking and acting—which involves the commitment of materials and time—is not worthwhile and not an appropriate claim justifying the protection of threatened or endangered organisms. However, if one is arguing for a value that is not utilitarian, and is instead aesthetic or intrinsic, for example, this claim becomes puzzling. The aesthetic and intrinsic values of animals are typically analyzed in the current sense, and can be defended as worthwhile values to defend. If one considers the definition of intrinsic value as a natural or innate quality, this would likely remain constant throughout time; thus, the ignorance argument is not fully applicable in this case because the value is known and we are not unaware of it. Nonetheless, the aesthetic