Nature has long been regarded by most to be of value, whether it be for its robust supply of natural resources or its aesthetic appeal. Many of these values of nature are fairly evident as it is easy to see how nature is pretty or can be useful to humans. However, the much more hidden, and ironically most important value of nature, is its intrinsic value. Although there is a variety of values that can be assigned to nature, intrinsic value stands out as the most prevalent, specifically by viewing it through the lens of Leopold’s land ethic.

Intrinsic value refers to value that comes from within. Instrumental value, aka extrinsic value, would refer to the value of nature in its usefulness to humans. Therefore intrinsic value is the value of nature independent of humans. Value refers to something that deserves to be treated with a degree of dignity and respect, with the best interests of that thing in mind. Some might understandably question why the value of nature matters. Understanding the value of nature is crucial because it directly determines our treatment of nature. If nature has no value, then its treatment doesn’t matter. But if it is accepted that nature has value and intrinsic value is in fact the most prominent value of nature, then we should do everything possible to increase or maintain nature’s intrinsic value.

In 1949, Ando Leopold, commonly known as the “father of wildlife ecology”, published a paper titled “The Land Ethic”. In it, he refers to a biotic community, which entails the ecosystem and the interaction between its plants and animals. Leopold portrays the idea that nature should be regarded from a macroscopic perspective as opposed to a microscopic perspective; we should view nature as the biotic community, rather than each individual plant and animal. Essentially, nature is defined as the collection of the land, its inhabitants, and their interaction. By viewing nature as this system, it can be understood what its intrinsic value actually is.

Leopold demonstrates the intrinsic value of nature through the land pyramid, in which the sun grows the grass, which feeds the animals which feeds the apex predators. This functions similar to a food pyramid but serves to show the flow of energy. This flow of energy highlights the interconnection of nature and complexity of the biotic community. This community is made up of thousands of various plants and animals, each interacting and contributing to the community in a unique way. Everything relies on each other in this beautifully diverse and intricate system. Therefore, its existence as a complex and diverse community is what provides it with intrinsic value.

Leopold’s idea of a land ethic is the relationship between humans and the biotic community. Often, humans view nature through an instrumental lens; nature is nothing more than tools designed for humans to use at their will. This places humans on a pedestal above nature, paving the road for an inherently abusive relationship. However, a land ethic forces humans to view the biotic community as an equal, as something to be treated with respect. Rather than abusing nature’s resources for their own good, humans must treat the biotic community with respect, keeping its best interests in mind. The obvious question would then be: what are the best interests of the biotic community? While this is loosely defined by Leopold, it is essentially anything that maintains the intrinsic value of the biotic community. This is done by keeping the ecosystem as stable as possible, otherwise the ecosystem could fall apart and the biotic community would greatly suffer.

Accepting this idea of a biotic community and its intrinsic value is difficult as it seems to only assign value to the entirety of nature. An objection one might have is that this fails to account for the value of individual plants and animals. How can each plant and animal have value if the ecosystem only has value based on its complexity and unique interactions. It would appear that this theory by Leopold neglects to assign any value to the individual components of nature, since it only assigns value to nature when viewed as a whole. If there is no value assigned to each plant or animal, then does our treatment of them really matter? This quickly derails the intrinsic value argument, since there is no value of the things that actually comprise nature.

Upon first glance, this objection makes a lot of sense. Obviously if each individual plant or animal lacks value, then nature as a whole can’t have value. But the assumption that the individual doesn’t have value is ill-founded, although an easy one to make. The reason we look at nature from a macroscopic perspective of the entire ecosystem is because it allows us to see why nature has value, which is for the complexity and diversity of the biotic community. It’s true that each plant and animal doesn’t have the same diversity or systematic complexity of an ecosystem, but that is the wrong way to look at it. Instead, realize that the individuals are just the components of the biotic community. Think of the biotic community as a puzzle and each plant or animal as the puzzle piece. The puzzle cannot be made without the puzzle pieces, and so each puzzle piece contributes its own unique value to the puzzle piece. Likewise, the biotic community cannot exist without each plant or animal, and each one contributes value to the biotic community. Each species, and consequently each plant and animal, plays an integral role in the making up of the diversity and complexity of the biotic community. They are the puzzle pieces that make the biotic community what they are, and without them the biotic community would not exist.

Determining the most important value of nature is undoubtedly a difficult task. Nature possesses a multitude of values, namely in its extrinsic, intrinsic, and aesthetic value. However, intrinsic value, as defined in Leopold’s land ethic, has to be the most prominent value held by nature.