Mark Sagoff's Argument Analysis

Previously it has been established by many philosophers that human intrinsic value should not be commodified, and that in some cases they are even resistant to commodification. Non-human intrinsic values do not seem to be allotted the same courtesy or respect. This could be because of the distinction previously discussed by Rolston, where non-human intrinsic values like nature, can not be considered the same way as human intrinsic values, meaning they are more susceptible to commodification. However, Mark Sagoff, an environmental philosopher and economist, disagrees with this claim, and argues in his book The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment that the environment cannot be considered an economic good and therefore should be considered as an end in itself and be preserved. Sagoff’s views are consistent with views presented by Elizabeth Anderson with regards to the constraints set on markets, arguing for the ethical consideration of the environment. To begin, in chapter 5 of his book Sagoff’s argues for the …show more content…
She states that noneconomic values are resistant to commodification and therefore require constraints on the market in order to be properly valued. This is inline with Sagoff’s theory, both philosophers coming to the conclusion that noneconomic values, such as human and non-human intrinsic values should be resistant to commodification and should therefore be constrained on the market. In conclusion, this view demonstrates that the environment should be resistant to commodification and cannot be considered as an economic value. Therefore, to treat it as such would be to value it incorrectly. This is consistent with views on human intrinsic values, suggesting that although human and non-human intrinsic values should be considered separately they both should be resistant to