Conservation debates often center on whether nature has intrinsic value—value in itself regardless of human use—or only instrumental value, useful for human purposes. Philosopher Holmes Rolston argues that species and ecosystems have intrinsic value that demands moral consideration. Others counter that even 'intrinsic' value is a human attribution, since values are human concepts—though this need not diminish our commitment to environmental protection.
It can be inferred from the text that
environmental protection is impossible without believing in intrinsic value
Rolston denied that nature has any value
the philosophical basis for environmentalism can be debated without necessarily affecting practical commitments
there is complete consensus on the source of nature's value
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. Even those who dispute intrinsic value support protection.
- Context clues: Critics argue value is "human attribution" but this "need not diminish our commitment to environmental protection."
- Meaning: Different philosophical bases can lead to similar practical outcomes.
- Verify: Both sides can support protection despite disagreeing on why.
💡 Strategy: When philosophical disagreement doesn't prevent practical agreement, infer that theory and practice can be separated.
Choice A is incorrect because protection is supported even by those denying intrinsic value. Choice B is incorrect because Rolston argues for intrinsic value, not against all value. Choice D is incorrect because the passage describes a debate between positions.