Why Is This A Problem???

[2PhiloVoid]

Valuation is always subjective. There are objective facts about a matter which are true whatever one prefers: this is a Pollock, that is a Rembrandt. Which you refer or which is the better painting is subjective.

I'd rather say that most things in life are subject to variable valuations between individual people. But there may remain within things of the world inherent properties, even if very, very minutely or infrequently, that avail themselves to us and allow for common valuations (after the evaluations are done, of course).

For instance, my appraisal of the quality of your son's coaster will not only exhibit itself on an axiological level as an artifice, it will also exhibit itself as a valuation that overlays epistemological realizations as well-----that this 'thing' your son made, as good or as bad, or as useful or as unuseful as it may prove itself to be, was still, all along, made by him with the intention of being a coaster. And I may vary well take that additional 'fact' into account and make that evaluation a part of the (my) overall appraisal (or valuation).

I don't think epistemic evaluation and axiological valuation are utterly separated metaphysically by any and all necessity; the upshot is that being that there are various movements of The Subjective in Space-Time, what one day looks to us to be a useless non-item may become tomorrow's treasure through additional realizations. For example, I might have at first glance thought your son's coaster was a flat lump of useless, dried clay or just a decorated manufactured piece of cheap plastic----but then by further education from your own son's mouth (or maybe, too, from yours), I may come to understand better, and quite objectively so, that it is actually a coaster, and perhaps, if I look close enough, it is a very useful and nifty one at that.

And I'm not telling you what you're thinking. I'm responding to what you've written. I can't do any more.

Actually, you can do more---You can take into account what I've already elucidated to you about not jumping to conclusions and do so without insisting that you don't now know that I could have meant anything other than what it was you thought I meant.

And my bad - I wrote absolute when I meant objective in that particular paragraph. So the comment should have read: 'You are saying that 'Hey, if so many people say it's good (and I agree with them) then...it must be what we describe as an objective good.'

If I've qualified my statement earlier to tell you that "NO, that's not what I meant," then that's not what I had in mind.

I know, I know: Communication is beach.

Apologies for the confusion.

... Accepted, but with qualification.

And yes. It's a conclusion that is objectively true. It's not a value position I'm taking. I don't take the position I do because in my opinion it's true. I believe it to be true in the first instance and therefore I take that position. Although I will grant that a lot of people, myself included, will use a term like 'In my opinion x is true' when what is actually meant is 'X is objectively true'. It muddies the waters somewhat but I hope you can see what I mean.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how it is you actually conceive of the engagement between your perception of the world and your own valuations of it. I'm sure that based on your own testimony here, your valuations are presently different than mine. Except where your son's coaster is concerned.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Incorrect. There is no (moral) right and wrong in subjectivism or good and evil. True and false aren't determined by minds according to moral subjectivity. I don't even know where you got that idea.

Correction: there is no objective right and wrong on a subjective view of morality. Every person can decide what is right or wrong. And every person can have their own idea of what's moral and there is no objective standard with which to judge. That is because objective right and wrong depend on objective metaphysics. An objective metaphysics recognizes the primacy of existence or the primacy of the object. A subjective moral value would necessarily have its basis in the primacy of consciousness, which is a wholesale rejection of the primacy of existence.

You did when you said that the stranger's life and happiness are not a great value. Are you correct that his life is less valuable than yours, or is he correct that your life is less valuable than his? If neither of you is correct, and neither of you are, it's all just subjective feelings.

I said that my life is of great value to me, to which you said "it isn't of great value". To whom? It is of great value to me. It is impossible for me to be wrong about this since am directly aware of it. That is why I bristled at you. You have no right to determine what value my life has for me. And no, this does not make all values subjective.

A value requires two things: a subject of consciousness to do the valuing and an object of consciousness, i.e., something to value. It is true that my life has subjective value to me and another's life has subjective value to him but both of us hold that life qua life is an objective value. The validation for this is the recognition of the fact that life is a precondition of values. It is only to a living thing anything can have value because it is only a living thing that must act in the face of the alternative of life vs. death. A rock has no values because it does not have to act to continue its existence. The existence of the rock is not conditional but man's is.

Whether or not a value is objective or subjective in this context depends on what it references. If it references merely a personal preference it is subjective. If it references something that exists independent of the mind, then it is objective. But notice that even a preference has its basis in the objects of consciousness. Had you not ever perceived anything then there would be nothing to value, subjectively or otherwise. A value that referenced only its own objectless reference would be an instance of the fallacy of pure self-reference. It would be self-incoherent.

We can answer the question of who is correct objectively. To do that we need to look to the facts of reality. In order to reach the concept "value", one must first have a concept of one's self as a valuer, it is the self that does the valuing. Therefore the self is the primary value. All other values are derivatives of this fact and the goal to live.

It is a fact that you value things. It is not a fact that the thing now has value because you value it. The value has nothing to do with the nature of the thing, just how you personally feel about that thing.

Correction: It is a fact that a thing has subjective value because I value it. But if the thing that I value fulfills a factual life need of mine, then it has objective value whether I recognize it or not, e.g., food, water clothes, shelter, knowledge, tools, reason, logic, etc.

You value bicycles. I do not. You would say that bicycles have value. I say they do not. Which one of us is correct? When you have to add "to me" you cease to be objective and move into my realm of subjectivity.

Exactly. So long as you are talking about a personal preference, then we are both right. It is impossible for us to be wrong about a personal preference since we perceive our own preference directly. We can be wrong about an objective value. If I valued poison mushrooms as food I would be objectively wrong because my continued existence is contingent on me not eating deadly poisonous mushrooms. Do you see the distinction?

Wouldn't you agree with me that we all share some values that are not merely matters of personal preference, e.g., food, water, etc? I might prefer that the day is 36 hours long. I'd really like it if it was. And I'd like it if my growing season was 120 days instead of 90. It would make gardening so much easier. But my preference for these things will not alter the facts of reality.

I'd prefer you didn't just make things up out of thin air. Is your argument strong enough to make without doing so?

Which thing did I make "up out of thin air"?

Moral Orel, these responses are getting rather long so if you want to, pick a statement of mine that you find to be a fundamental disagreement between us so that we may keep the responses shorter. My free time is very limited right now. Business is booming. Of course, if you want to respond point by point, I'll be happy to respond in kind, it just might take me a while to get back to you. If there is anything that you would like me to clarify or validate, please do that in a separate, post. It would be a great help to me. Thank you.

 

[Bradskii]

For instance, my appraisal of the quality of your son's coaster will not only exhibit itself on an axiological level as an artifice, it will also exhibit itself as a valuation that overlays epistemological realizations as well...

I don't think epistemic evaluation and axiological valuation are utterly separated metaphysically by any and all necessity; the upshot is that being that there are various movements of The Subjective in Space-Time, what one day looks to us to be a useless non-item may become tomorrow's treasure through additional realizations.

But it remains a mystery to me why, then, the thing in itself would thereby be made to contradict, even as this relates to the transcendental aesthetic, the objects in space and time. There can be no doubt that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in reference to ends, is the mere result of the power of pure reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.

See here for more in the same vein: Random Philosophy Generator

 

[Moral Orel]

Correction: there is no objective right and wrong on a subjective view of morality. Every person can decide what is right or wrong. And every person can have their own idea of what's moral and there is no objective standard with which to judge.

Correction: There is no right or wrong. Merely likes and dislikes and preferences. Subjective morality is descriptive in how we determine morals, it isn't prescriptive. No one is right and no one is wrong because it's nothing more than preferences.

Exactly. So long as you are talking about a personal preference, then we are both right.

So both of these statements are true?

The bicycle has value.
The bicycle does not have value.

They can't both be true. It either has value or it does not have value. We can say truly that "You value the bicycle" and we can say truly that "I do not value the bicycle". But it cannot be said truly that the bicycle has value. Now apply that to your more serious example. Some folk say that life has value, some folk say that life has no value. They can't both be right. In truth, some people prefer to live, and some people prefer to die. Nothing can be said of the value of life itself because it does not have value as a property.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure. But are you saying this on Bradskii's behalf, or on mine?

Bradskii replied to a post you wrote to me, and it was pretty close to what I would have said so I let him run with it. But I saw this in the exchange between you two after and decided to poke my nose back in.

So, then do we want to apply some second order thinking here to our categorization(s)?

Are the "factual statements" themselves merely human constructs arising out from a nihilistic void? I mean, if it seems to be the case, we may still consider that the fact of the existence of "factual statements" is, itself, existing as some small aspect of our collective human existence, however slender, thin and prone to subjective, personal relativity the fact of the existence of "factual statements" may be, and even if its seeming immediacy for us seems to hang only within our lowly, terrestrial, earth-bound perspective.

There are factual statements that use "is" but the "ought" and "should" moral statements aren't even false.

I mean, too, we can go all Kant or Hegel on this, but I don't think every single thing can be reduced to simply an "expression" of human variable valuation; some things in this world are what they are, have some meaningful function for us, and thus imply intrinsic value. Like the value of your eye-balls, for instance. They, and their respective level of effective functioning, may come to play a role in your making the moral town choices that you actually end up (factually) making.

Things function they way they do. Sometimes I like that function. Sometimes I like the things I get because of that function. That doesn't imply the function is "good".

 

[Moral Orel]

I personally don't think there is any such thing as an objective good, but where people claim there is such a thing as an objective good, it's only by reason of broad public agreement.

Have you ever eaten or drank something you thought was delicious, but when you share it with someone else they hate it and your gut reaction is, "What are you nuts?!". If we really think about it a bit we understand that people have tastes and preferences, but just for a moment, without thinking, we believe that person is incorrect to disagree on the deliciousness of the food we just tasted. That gut reaction to things we like and think everyone else should like them too is morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But it remains a mystery to me why, then, the thing in itself would thereby be made to contradict, even as this relates to the transcendental aesthetic, the objects in space and time. There can be no doubt that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in reference to ends, is the mere result of the power of pure reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.

See here for more in the same vein: Random Philosophy Generator

Nice. I've had that thrown at me before ...

... I will say this: citing it makes it so easy to be dismissive, doesn't it?

 

[o_mlly]

Behaviors are the best evidence we have for the value we place on anything, including human life. Everything else is just talk.

What do you think "value" even is? It's nothing more than the regard a conscious being has for something. If you think it is something else, please tell me what that would be.

If every human life is not of inestimable value, as you claim, then what criteria with what math does one use to calculate that one human life is x times more valuable than another? For instance, someone suggested the following trade off:

So if we were to have one hundred school children on one track, and a ninety year old blind man with terminal cancer on the other track, it's still immoral to pull the lever ...?

So for that poster, age and state of one's health are two of the possible criteria one ought to use to measure value.

Or, if the value of human life is totally subjective then ought we to use the highest subjective value that anyone expresses for any particular life as the best valuation? Surely your evaluation, since it is subjective, is not the evaluation but just one among many. Who is the expert that we can go to on the value of any particular life? Who is to say how valuable that 90 year old cancer ridden man's life is worth? Is it not the man himself? I think so. Only if the one on the track allows it may anyone pull the lever.

 

[Norbert L]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

Neither is more or less ethical without knowing a complete knowledge of the future. That single person could be the next Hitler. So who would be the jerk then? Actually it's the hypothetical question which is the problem. It's better iterated as a line I heard from a Star Trek movie.

When does the good of the one outweigh the good of the many or the good of the many outweigh the good of the one. At least with this line of thinking it's necessary to consider what the possible future consequences of a decision could be.

 

[durangodawood]

If every human life is not of inestimable value, as you claim, then what criteria with what math does one use to calculate that one human life is x times more valuable than another? For instance, someone suggested the following trade off:

​

So for that poster, age and state of one's health are two of the possible criteria one ought to use to measure value.

Or, if the value of human life is totally subjective then ought we to use the highest subjective value that anyone expresses for any particular life as the best valuation? Surely your evaluation, since it is subjective, is not the evaluation but just one among many. Who is the expert that we can go to on the value of any particular life? Who is to say how valuable that 90 year old cancer ridden man's life is worth? Is it not the man himself? I think so. Only if the one on the track allows it may anyone pull the lever.

I will get to this, except Im not sure we're even discussing the same idea "value".

So as a belated preliminary, I'll ask again: if value is not the regard conferred by a valuing heart or mind, then what is it? I'm not seeing value as an inherent characteristic of anything.

 

[RDKirk]

I will get to this, except Im not sure we're even discussing the same idea "value".

So as a belated preliminary, I'll ask again: if value is not the regard conferred by a valuing heart or mind, then what is it? I'm not seeing value as an inherent characteristic of anything.

I'll toss in an example derived from a science fiction book I read in my teens.

Consider the Olympic gold medal for the 100 meter dash won by Marcell Jacobs. For Marcell Jacobs, that medal is highly valuable, not just in his own mind as the recognition of years of effort, but also financially as a "certificate" of expertise and excellence that he can use to gain wealth in the future. Parlayed smartly, it could be worth future millions to Marcell Jacobs.

But what if some scurrilous thief steals it from him. What is it worth to the thief? Virtually nothing. It's not real gold, so it doesn't have even whatever intrinsic value we would give to a "precious metal." It would be tough to find a collector willing to buy an Olympic medal that can't be displayed because it's been stolen (which is a different proposition from getting a medal legally bought or secretly keeping a stolen great work of art).

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Correction: There is no right or wrong. Merely likes and dislikes and preferences. Subjective morality is descriptive in how we determine morals, it isn't prescriptive. No one is right and no one is wrong because it's nothing more than preferences.

Thank you for honoring my request.

That is moral nihilism, not subjectivism.

So both of these statements are true?

The bicycle has value.
The bicycle does not have value.

They can't both be true. It either has value or it does not have value. We can say truly that "You value the bicycle" and we can say truly that "I do not value the bicycle". But it cannot be said truly that the bicycle has value. Now apply that to your more serious example. Some folk say that life has value, some folk say that life has no value. They can't both be right. In truth, some people prefer to live, and some people prefer to die. Nothing can be said of the value of life itself because it does not have value as a property.

Again it depends on the context. If you are talking about personal preferrence then both can be true. Objectively one or the other must be true and the other false.

 

[o_mlly]

I will get to this, except Im not sure we're even discussing the same idea "value".

It's the same question asked of you very early in this thread. I have not seen your answer yet.

Clizby WampusCat said: ↑

I am asking why you believe this? Why saving five lives is better than saving one?

durangodawood said: ↑
Because I value lives.
​

So, how do you value human lives?

 

[durangodawood]

It's the same question asked of you very early in this thread. I have not seen your answer yet.

Clizby WampusCat said: ↑

I am asking why you believe this? Why saving five lives is better than saving one?

durangodawood said: ↑
Because I value lives.
​

So, how do you value human lives?

Not the same question at all. I value lives. Subject values object. Do you agree thats how it works? Or do you think there's this.... thing... called inherent value?

If we dont agree about this, then we're talking about entirely different things and talking past each other. Need to sort that out first.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Intentional inaction is an intentional action.

no it’s not, your statement is a direct contradiction of terms.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Some states have a traffic concept called "last clear chance" which places the fault for an accident on the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, regardless of whose action created the circumstance of the accident. If you just allow the accident to happen when you could have avoided it, or mitigated it, you're considered at fault.

Last clear chance is not relevant to this situation since in the scenario there is no clear chance because the only option involves deliberately killing someone.

 

[o_mlly]

Not the same question at all. I value lives. Subject values object.

Whatever does "Subject values object" mean? I think you're just dancing to avoiding answering what is a straight forward question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Intentional inaction is an intentional action.

Some states have a traffic concept called "last clear chance" which places the fault for an accident on the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, regardless of whose action created the circumstance of the accident. If you just allow the accident to happen when you could have avoided it, or mitigated it, you're considered at fault.

This is why earlier in the thread I pointed to the ethical standards of deontology--which Christianity is. The question is always: "What is my duty?"

Deontology often gets reduced to a rule-based concept, which is what some people here are trying to adhere to, but ultimately, it's not simple rule-following but understanding the basic interest and intent of the rule-making authority.

If I believe that preserving life is an interest of my rule-making authority in a situation that no rule seems to apply, then I must directly apply his interest. If in a situation in which different interests seem to be in conflict, then which is the higher interest?

So my authority detests lying but also values saving lives...which is the higher interest? Well, we already have biblical stories of people who lied to save lives and were commended by the rule-making authority for it. That's the solution of the Anne Frank dilemma, already given: Saving a life is more important than avoiding a lie.

There might be circumstances in which duty would demand saving one life in preference to saving five lives. Absent such particular factors, however, if life is the interest of my rule-making authority, then saving more life is preferable to saving less life, and if the choice has been placed in my hands, then I'm expected to do my duty. We have biblical direction (a rule already made) that inaction when we've been given the power of action is also punishable.

you can choose to see it however you want but as for me, my choice is to not deliberately kill an innocent person in order to save others since I had no part in putting the other’s lives in jeopardy in the first place. In the scenario of the trolly the person who pulled the lever could be charge with murder or voluntary manslaughter.

 

[durangodawood]

Whatever does "Subject values object" mean? I think you're just dancing to avoiding answering what is a straight forward question.

What doe it mean for you to value something? Really?

 

[RDKirk]

Me: Intentional inaction is an intentional action.

no it’s not, your statement is a direct contradiction of terms.

A choice not to act is an act of choice.