What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value?

Intrinsic value is the value a thing has for its own sake, independently of what it leads to, while instrumental value is the value a thing has because it serves as a means to something else that is good.

Are intrinsic and final value the same?

Not necessarily. Intrinsic value is often defined as value grounded in a thing's intrinsic properties, whereas final value is value something has as an end; some philosophers argue a thing can have final value partly in virtue of its relations, so the two distinctions can come apart.

Intrinsic and Instrumental Value

Intrinsic value is the value something has for its own sake, while instrumental value is the value something has as a means to something else that is good.

Pronađite temu uz PaperMindUskoroFind papers & topics

Tools & resources

Preuzmi slajdove

Learn & explore

VideoUskoro

Definition

Something has intrinsic value if it is good for its own sake, in virtue of its intrinsic nature, whereas something has instrumental value if it is good because it tends to produce or lead to something that is good in itself.

Scope

This topic covers the central distinction in value theory between value as an end and value as a means, the related distinction between intrinsic and final value, the bearers of value, and the question whether anything is valuable independently of its relation to other things. It supplies the conceptual machinery that theories of well-being and of the good more broadly employ.

Core questions

What does it mean for something to be valuable for its own sake?
Is intrinsic value grounded only in a thing's intrinsic properties, or also in its relations?
How does the intrinsic/instrumental distinction relate to the intrinsic/final distinction?
Could there be instrumental value if nothing had intrinsic value?

Key theories

Moorean intrinsic value: Moore's account on which a thing's intrinsic value depends solely on its intrinsic nature, tested by the isolation method of asking how good a thing would be if it existed entirely on its own.
The intrinsic/final value distinction: Korsgaard's argument that being valued as an end (final value) is distinct from having value in virtue of intrinsic properties, so that some things may be valued for their own sake yet for relational reasons.

History

Moore (1903) made intrinsic value foundational to ethics and proposed the isolation test for identifying it. Later analysis, notably Korsgaard (1983), distinguished the question of what is valued as an end (final value) from the question of whether value supervenes on intrinsic properties, prompting a reassessment of whether the relevant contrast is intrinsic versus extrinsic or final versus instrumental.

Debates

Whether final value can be extrinsic: Korsgaard and others argue that things can be valued for their own sake yet partly in virtue of relational properties, challenging Moore's assumption that for-its-own-sake value must be intrinsic.
The bearers of intrinsic value: Whether intrinsic value is borne by states of affairs, facts, concrete objects, or experiences affects how value is to be summed and compared in normative theories.

Key figures

G. E. Moore
Christine Korsgaard
Shelly Kagan
Michael Zimmerman

Seminal works

moore1903
korsgaard1983

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value?: Intrinsic value is the value a thing has for its own sake, independently of what it leads to, while instrumental value is the value a thing has because it serves as a means to something else that is good.
Are intrinsic and final value the same?: Not necessarily. Intrinsic value is often defined as value grounded in a thing's intrinsic properties, whereas final value is value something has as an end; some philosophers argue a thing can have final value partly in virtue of its relations, so the two distinctions can come apart.