I’ll take a stab at explaining it quickly. If that doesn’t do it, read this.
Instrumental values are things done as means to an end. Terminal values are ends in themselves. For instance, buying a coat is an instrumental value: I buy a coat so I do not feel uncomfortable or get sick when outside in cold weather. If there were a way to be outside in cold weather without a coat and suffer no ill effects, I wouldn’t bother. On the other hand, good health is a terminal value. I do other things so that I can be healthy. There isn’t any thing X that health leads to such that I wouldn’t prefer health to sickness+X. Health also helps me do other things, but the fact that I desire it in and of itself makes it a terminal value.
There isn’t any thing X that health leads to such that I wouldn’t prefer health to sickness+X.
Restating: there isn’t any X such that
You would be willing to risk getting sick in order to achieve X, and
Being healthy increases your chances of succeeding at X?
Did I do violence to your meaning in the restatement? (I didn’t intend to.)
If not: interesting. I think that is false for a great many people for a great many Xes. The one that comes to mind most readily is bearing and raising children.
I think you did change my meaning. There are tradeoffs between terminal values. The are frequently cases where one would be willing to sacrifice some of one for some of another. What I mean is there is no X for which I would not prefer Health+X to sickness+X. That is, ceteris paribus, I would always rather be healthy than sick, even if the consequences were the same. The thing is, any terminal value has other desirable consequences when achieved. But if I would value the thing even without those consequences (eg, if I was as productive when sick as when healthy) then it’s a terminal.
I understood “prefer health to sickness + X” “prefer (health) to (sickness + X)” rather than “prefer health to sickness, even if X is added to both sides.”
I’m not grokking the distinction.
I’ll take a stab at explaining it quickly. If that doesn’t do it, read this.
Instrumental values are things done as means to an end. Terminal values are ends in themselves. For instance, buying a coat is an instrumental value: I buy a coat so I do not feel uncomfortable or get sick when outside in cold weather. If there were a way to be outside in cold weather without a coat and suffer no ill effects, I wouldn’t bother. On the other hand, good health is a terminal value. I do other things so that I can be healthy. There isn’t any thing X that health leads to such that I wouldn’t prefer health to sickness+X. Health also helps me do other things, but the fact that I desire it in and of itself makes it a terminal value.
Restating: there isn’t any X such that
You would be willing to risk getting sick in order to achieve X, and
Being healthy increases your chances of succeeding at X?
Did I do violence to your meaning in the restatement? (I didn’t intend to.)
If not: interesting. I think that is false for a great many people for a great many Xes. The one that comes to mind most readily is bearing and raising children.
I think you did change my meaning. There are tradeoffs between terminal values. The are frequently cases where one would be willing to sacrifice some of one for some of another. What I mean is there is no X for which I would not prefer Health+X to sickness+X. That is, ceteris paribus, I would always rather be healthy than sick, even if the consequences were the same. The thing is, any terminal value has other desirable consequences when achieved. But if I would value the thing even without those consequences (eg, if I was as productive when sick as when healthy) then it’s a terminal.
Ah! I see.
I understood “prefer health to sickness + X” “prefer (health) to (sickness + X)” rather than “prefer health to sickness, even if X is added to both sides.”
Thanks for the clarification.
I intended the grammar as you understood it, which was an oversimplification. Thanks for helping me clarify my own thoughts.