Final answer:
Consequentialist theories focus on outcomes, valuing the instrumental, and non-consequentialist theories emphasize principles or duties, suggesting intrinsic value. The debate continues on whether one or many intrinsic values exist.
Step-by-step explanation:
When we consider the notion of value in ethics, we often categorize it into two types: intrinsic and instrumental. The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value is a core concept in understanding how we evaluate the things we consider good.
Intrinsic value refers to something that is good in itself, without reference to other things. For instance, Aristotle's perspective that happiness has intrinsic value, as it is an 'end in itself' is a classical example. In contrast, instrumental value refers to something that is good as a means to achieving something else. In other words, it's valuable for what it helps to bring about rather than for its own sake
Diving deeper into ethical theories, consequentialist theories, say utilitarianism, judge actions based on the consequences they produce, often looking for the greatest good for the greatest number. This sharpens the focus on instrumental value. On the other hand, non-consequentialist (or deontological) theories might argue for the rightness of actions based on factors other than their outcomes, thereby upholding certain principles or duties as having intrinsic value.
Philosophical dialogues extend into whether there is a single, fundamental intrinsic value (monism) or multiple such values (pluralism). Additionally, the conversation between descriptive claims ('is') and prescriptive or evaluative claims ('ought') suggests a nuanced relationship between facts and values.