Intrinsic vs. Instrumental

We never know the worth of water until the well is dry ~ English proverb

A recent encounter with environmental ethics left me thinking about the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value; value being the worth one attaches to something. A thing is considered to have instrumental value when it becomes useful to other things. Land, for example, becomes useful when it can be worked on. On the contrary, a thing has intrinsic value when it has value in its own right, regardless of its usefulness to other things. Forests, for example, have intrinsic value because they have value in their own rights, not because they serve as the sink for CO2, they provide timber, they are homes to the indigenuous people and so on.

Our anthropocentric conditioning has made it hard to look at things intrinsically. We don’t have to talk about forests to understand this. Take a person who befriends someone because that someone is rich and knows all the right people in the industry. Take a wife who accepts physical and mental abuses and eventually succumbs to AIDS because she loves her drug-addict husband whole-heartedly.

How many times, when we fall out with the person we love, we hurl questions like: ‘What is it that I haven’t done for you?’ ‘Haven’t I spent enough time with you?’. Or, ‘Haven’t I done what you wanted me to do?’. How many times too, when we fall out with a friend, a colleague, or a family member, or when we don't get recognition for what we've done, we rant on and on about all the sacrifices that we have made? Why so calculative? Why put the instrumental value tag on ourselves and the people around us? Why can’t we just accept ourselves and the people around us, with all the weaknesses and strengths that the word ‘accept’ implies? And why are we quick to overlook or forgive the weaknesses of family members rather than friends’? Blood ties are an exception? Blood ties have intrinsic value? No blood ties, therefore we only have instrumental value? This reminds me of many cases whereby a wife(= no blood ties) is divorced or forced to relent to polygamy simply because she can’t bear children (the wife has value only if she can bear children = instrumental value). I guess it’s easier to cut out people from our lives, especially those with no blood ties whatsoever, once they cease to have instrumental value.

So, with this dichotomy between instrumental and intrinsic value, how do we explain how we relate to other people? Putting too much of intrinsic value to a person may backfire on us. We’ll probably get hurt or betrayed or taken for granted. On the other hand, putting too much instrumental value to a person is not good, either. A person is not a commodity where we can label what they are good for (even though when we speak fondly of a person, we tend to highlight their good side). When it comes to the person/people we care about, we would normally tolerate their weaknesses. In fact, sometimes we just ignore them. Or put up with them till we hurt so much. Loving someone in spite of (their weaknesses) rather than because of (their strengths) sounds easy enough. I’m all for this, but have to really proceed with caution. We can love all we want but  don't let that love destroy ourselves. I'm not sure whether putting instrinsic value or intrumental value to ourselves and the people around us is a good thing. Maybe we can, but not too much. Too much of instrumental value will make us self-appointed, selfish judges. Too much of intrinsic value will leave us frustrated.  But I believe we should love ourselves first before we love somebody else.  Not the narcissist kind of love, but a humane one. Just as we can’t make somebody healthy by being sick, we can’t make somebody happy by being unhappy. Likewise, we can’t love somebody if we don't love ourselves first.