wise use of mires and peatlands - Peatland Ecology Research Group

104 VALUES AND CONFLICTS: WHERE DIFFERENT VALUES MEETexample by trying to extend monetarised costbenefitanalysis to all aspects of impactassessment. By using one weighting factorto express each individual’s change in utility,it is intended to reflect the overall benefitsfor society. In principle 27 , instrumentalvalues and preferences can indeed bemonetarised 28 . The instrumental value ofhuman beings is, for example, expressed inthe wages for labour, the price of tickets for apiano concert, or the cost of safety provisionsin a truck that guarantee the futureproductivity of the driver.This partial monetarisation of instrumentalvalue should, however, not be mistaken for afull determination of total (comparative)value 29 . A gothic cathedral may bring $xxx ayear to a city from visitors, but may at thesame time have an inestimable artistic value.A wetland can be said to have a value of$yyy for the purification of sewage, becauseit makes technical provisions with the sameeffect unnecessary, but its total value can notbe estimated. Many issues can not bemonetarised completely (see §4.8).Monetarisation is useful to get a minimumvalue, not for getting the value. Furthermore,the weighting of preferences does not solvethe central question of how such weightingswould be allocated 30 .If there is no single set of concepts orprinciples by which to value every situation,it is sensible to view cases in different ways 31 .Different perspectives can reveal thingswhich are overlooked when only a singleperspective is used. As well as comparingthe costs and benefits of specific actions, forexample, we may also take more explicitly intoconsideration the costs and the renouncedbenefits of the status quo 32 . By adopting sucha pluralist stance, we not only do justice tothe complexity of real situations, but we canalso seek ways in which different modes ofvaluing and ways of responding can be linkedtogether to provide a more comprehensivesolution to a situation.In the absence of other premises, nopreference can be considered better or worsethan others 33 . In making choices, otherpremises 34 may give rise to the followingconsiderations:1. All means of meeting wants should bedistributed equally unless an unequaldistribution of any or all of these goodsand services is to the advantage of the leastfavoured 35 .2. In the grey area between clear needs andclear wants, those preferences more relatedto needs (i.e. things that are more essential)prevail over those more related to wants.4.6 CONFLICTS DEALINGWITH PRECEDENCESIn contrast to conflicts between preferences,conflicts dealing with precedences can notbe solved by balancing pros and cons.Conflicts between different precedences(Table 4/1) deal with conflicting rights (see§4.2) of beings with an intrinsic value, i.e. withbeings that fall in the same value category 36 .They involve the precedence to be accordedto one right over another and include conflictsbetween “me” and “you”, “those here” and“them there”, and “some few” and “thosemany” 37 . Even though we accept the equalityof all people we continuously hesitatebetween the extremes of a “charity begins athome” and a St. Martin who showed - bygiving half his cloak to a poor stranger - thatthe stranger’s well-being was as important tohim as his own 38 .The human character resists altruism whichis entirely disinterested 39 . People give moreweight to their own interests than to those ofothers. In doing do they must respect therights of others, as illustrated in Table 4/3:“the greatest good of the greatest number” 43furthermore implies that people have a dutyto sacrifice their interests for the sake of largerbenefits to others 44 . They do not, however,need to accept great losses to secure a smallincrease in the aggregate good 45 .