Aldo Leopold’s Ambiguous Use of “Value”

Aldo Leopold lacks clarity in the expression of his “land ethic”. While he discusses the complexity of man’s symbiotic relationship with the land, our reckless degradation of nature for economic benefit and the necessity of recognizing nature’s value, it is unclear that these issues are necessarily related, and the resulting discussion of value is ambiguous.
Leopold’s writing is successful in articulating the complexity of our relationship with the land. Indeed, it is at such a level of complexity that our actions have a greater impact than we might have formerly realized. And it seems that this discussion is directed towards establishing that nature, in some sense, should be said to be of a high value. While Leopold does not claim that nature has intrinsic value, his discussion of this issue is ambiguous. If it has value, and not only the instrumental value which it has because of the symbiotic relationship in which we are involved with it (including the economic benefits we receive), then in what meaningful sense can nature be said to have value? A clear separation between those who he takes as his opponents (those who “[regard] the land as soil, and its function as commodity-production” (170)) and those who have admiration for the land in the sense required by his land ethic, is lacking. Consider his statement: “It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value…I mean value in the philosophical sense” (171).
What does this mean for the issue at hand? It’s hard to say. While Leopold wants us realize the catastrophic impact of our actions, he has not successfully established that we should be concerned because of the effect on nature, as opposed to ourselves. That is to say, while it seems that the basis for the land ethic is mankind’s symbiotic relationship with the land, this seems ultimately reducible to the protection of self interest. Perhaps our confusion is a result of what Callicott calls Leopold’s “extremely condensed prose style” (174), but I am not ready to be this charitable.