Abstract

Although J. Baird Callicott and Bryan G. Norton define the word intrinsic quite differently, both are against any “essentialist” position which posits “an objectivist theory of value in nature.” Viewed in this context, their differences emerge in terms of instrumentality and anthropocentrism. While a nonanthropocentrist position is tenable, it cannot be divorced from the centrality of human passion and desire. From the Humean perspective, assumed by both authors, however, desire does not reduce to instrumental value alone. As a result, Callicott’s position emerges as the stronger argument: that the moral consideration of nature requires more than instrumental value, no matter how broadly instrumentality is construed