ABSTRACT
Norton * distinguishes between the ‘intellectual debate’ and the ‘strategic debate’. The intellectual debate is about whether policies directed to conserve non-human species ultimately rest on their value to human beings, or on the recognition that they have value independent of human interests. The strategic debate is about which kind of argument is more likely to succeed in convincing policy makers to act. He reserves judgement on the intellectual debate, though he hopes that eventually philosophers will make out the case for the ‘intrinsic value’ of species. But he points out that human-centred considerations are clearer and find readier acceptance with policy makers, so are to be preferred in the context of practical debate. However, human-centred considerations go much deeper than is often supposed. Wild species are not of value to us merely as commodities, but as sources of experiences that enrich our lives. If these deeper considerations are recognized they will have, Norton believes, the same practical consequences as the intrinsic value position.
