value

When it comes to valuing nature, I would have to agree with Hettinger rather than Rolston. While Rolston believes that everything that has a value has a “valuer,” I agree with Hettinger in that some things merely have values, and nothing that in turn values it. Rejecting that “value requires a conscious valuer,” Rolston is faithful to the belief that value needs a valuer. Countering this view, Hettinger brings forward the example of a suicidal person and food. While the food is valuable to her health and well being, she may not value the food at all. I stand by Hettinger and his opinions in opposition to Rolson, for things do not need to have someone or something to value them in order for them to be valuable. There are many people in this world who do not value love, but who benefit and value from it. You do not have to believe in something for it to be real or for it to have meaning or value. I believe that everything has a value, without humans or anyone or anything per say putting that value on it. Although there are always the bad things in life, such as suicide, death, destruction, war, sadness, I believe to at least some extent that those things have value in their own right, for they help to show us the good things in life. Without the bad we would not clearly see and understand the good. Thus everything in life has value, whether or not someone or something says it is valuable.