Originally posted by twhitehead It is my contention that the phrase 'intrinsic value' is incoherent because the word 'value' implies the judgement of an intellect. Value is always relative to an intellect.
If you disagree, then please explain what you mean by 'value' and how it can be applied in such a way that 'intrinsic value' makes sense.
What do you think of this from Wikipedia:
Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical philosophic value that an object has "in itself;" "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.
It follows (arguably) that intrinsic value can only be assigned by a thing to itself, IOW, only self-valuing things can have it, and most people think that means humans. Some might extend it to certain other animals.
Edit: this may lead to thinking about rights and using people as a means to an end.
Originally posted by JS357 It follows (arguably) that intrinsic value can only be assigned by a thing to itself, IOW, only self-valuing things can have it,
I would agree. As I say in the OP, value is assigned by intellects, so presumably they can assign them to themselves. I would suggest, however, that calling that 'intrinsic value' is a misuse of the word 'intrinsic'. Intrinsic suggests a property, a permanent aspect, but if the intellect in question were able to at some point decide not to value itself then that would imply impermanence.