Knowledge has inherent value

I would like to begin by challenging some of the changes to the resolution. The changes do not really add anything. By adding "to everyone and everything on the whole", my opponent renders the purpose of word inherent meaningless. If a trait is inherent why would it change from person to person or thing to thing? I find the words "on the whole" are also unnecessary as there are no words to suggest that the debate is dealing with some knowledge and not other knowledge. For this reason I will accept the clarification of the word "All". 1)Why Knowledge and not True Belief? As far back as Plato, the question of what makes knowledge better than an accurate belief has posed problems. Plato's own solution to this was to point to the consistency that knowledge offers, where mere belief is malleable, it "moves around" [1]. It is important to remember that the only difference between knowledge and true belief is that threshold of rational doubt. There is an excellent example of this in one of the most famous English plays of all time, Hamlet. Had Hamlet known from the very start that his uncle was guilty and he should kill him all of the tragedy of the play would be avoided. It is the fact that there is room for doubt in Hamlet's mind that pushes him to wit's end so that when he finally does decide to act it is too late [2]. Though this is only a fictional story, it demonstrates the very real importance of true certainty, a very helpful "important" thing, in any decision making process. Considering that life is nothing but a series of decision making processes, one can see how knowledge has universal value. This also shows that an integral part of knowledge (i. e. that "which a person cannot reasonably doubt") is where its value lies. This clearly demonstrates why the value of knowledge is inherent rather than say true of some cases and not of others. 2) Knowledge is Inherent in Value In Kant's "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals", he states that no characteristic is good but a good will (I am paraphrasing) [3]. He says this is because any other traits can be used for bad unless there is also a good will present [3]. It is a similar thing with value and knowledge. What would a bird do with a gold coin? What would a person do with an alien spacecraft if they thought it was a rock? In both of these cases a knowledge of how to benefit from the objects is required to derive value from them. To put it in Kantian terms: all else can be beneficial or hurtful unless one knows how to make it beneficial. Of course, a person could argue that the bird could derive value from what it believes the gold coin to be. For example, the bird could use the shiny thing to make its nest more appealing. It should be noted that ven that requires knowledge of how to use the material. Any value a person derives from it is based on knowledge of at least what will make it valuable to them. It is in this way that value can be relative but is inseparable from knowledge which, this relationship shows, is inherently valuable. We could go further and say "all knowledge has inherent value", if one has the knowledge to use knowledge. It does not change the resolution to say that all knowledge is inherently valuable, but knowledge is required to unlock that inherent value. This would be a problem only if the resolution was "all pieces of knowledge are independently valuable". I will finish with one small point. 3) The Optional Nature of Knowledge At no point in the process of having knowledge is there an obligation put upon you to accept it. A person could just as easily irrationally reject a piece of knowledge if they so desired. From this we derive that there is no downside to possessing knowledge. It demands nothing of those that pursue it except the pursuit which is the bare minimum cost of anything. Conclusion From point 1, we conclude that there is a value particular to knowledge derived from a quality particular to knowledge thus show the inherent nature of knowledge's relationship to value. In point 2, it was demonstrated that value depends on knowledge and so the fact that knowledge is valuable was affirmed. In point 2, it was also shown that all knowledge has inherent value is true of all knowledge rather than just some. In point 3, it was shown that the benefits of knowledge will always outweigh the costs as there is no danger in rationally pursuing knowledge. [1] . http://classics.mit.edu... [2] . http://shakespeare.mit.edu... [3] . http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au...