I think the language we use when talking about value muddies up the waters, allowing for 'objective value' talks to slide in as a thing.  And I think it's because of the way we talk about subjective value as an abstract idea when the reality is it's no such thing.

What is subjective value really?  

It is a tangible biological process of evaluating the desires of an individual in a moment.  Really, it is only subjective in the sense that the scope only applies to one person in that moment.  But really, it is a fact.  A measurable truth, no different than eye color or gravity.  Person A at moment B values C.

So what is objective value.  Where does that exist?  How does it not contradict the truth that is the individuals tangible values?  

If I have blue eyes, Bob has green eyes, and Tim has yellow eyes.  The idea of a universal eye color is nonsense.  By describing things as tangible instead of opinions, it leaves no room for an overarching objective value to exist.

--
Am I missing anything here?

Value can mean preferred which is inherently subjective. Objective value, is a mathematical value we assign to describe objective criteria. My height has a value of 5.5 inches. That's an objective value (so is my weight, age, and chemical composition), but it's not what we mean when we say people are valuable. The decision to value people is a subjective determination. Nothing has inherent subjective value. Theists in particular often confuse numeric or objectively descriptive traits with subjective preferences for certain traits. But it is a very different use of the word value. The first means a single choice among variables, the second how much a particular person or group likes some trait or group of traits.

@OP

It's a good question, since these days, mind is seen by many as an objective process-- just the brain and its parts doing their little physico-chemical dance, with outputted behavior therefore being deterministic. In this context, I guess you'd have to say that "subjective" ideas are those which are dependent on the function of an individual person, and "objective" those which are not. So most people would say that the sun's color is objective, while the best color is subjective.

It's a bit of a philosophical paradox, in my opinion, when the human mind is called both subjective and objective, because those words are meant to be polar opposites.

It means that something is inherently valuable... that is, valuable by its very nature.

I believe human life is objectively valuable.

That means that even if not a single person cares about Joe's life, for example, his life still has value. In the same way that water is inherently wet, human life is inherently valuable. They are those things by their very nature.

Valuing something is placing it within the context of a plan or purpose. Things are always valuable to be used toward some goal. This is the province of intention. Without some form of goal directing the valuation of the thing, the thing is without value. So no, a thing can't be inherently valuable as value implies the designs of an intentioning agent.

(January 10, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It means that something is inherently valuable... that is, valuable by its very nature.

I believe human life is objectively valuable.

That means that even if not a single person cares about Joe's life, for example, his life still has value. In the same way that water is inherently wet, human life is inherently valuable. They are those things by their very nature.

I disagree. Most humans value most human life. We've evolved as a social species, so that makes sense, But if Joe is an ax murderer, most humans won't value Joe's life precisely because we've evolved as a social species. Other than human sentiment, Joe's life has no value inherent or otherwise.

What is it about human life that makes it intrinsically valuable? Is other life intrinsically valuable? Why and to whom? Don't make any subjective judgments. Even if the answer is to God, you'll find his purported reasons are subjective.

(January 10, 2016 at 9:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Valuing something is placing it within the context of a plan or purpose.  Things are always valuable to be used toward some goal.  This is the province of intention.  Without some form of goal directing the valuation of the thing, the thing is without value.  So no, a thing can't be inherently valuable as value implies the designs of an intentioning agent.

Unless of course intentionality is already an inherent part of reality.

(January 10, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It means that something is inherently valuable... that is, valuable by its very nature.

I believe human life is objectively valuable.

That means that even if not a single person cares about Joe's life, for example, his life still has value. In the same way that water is inherently wet, human life is inherently valuable. They are those things by their very nature.

I disagree.  Most humans value most human life.  We've evolved as a social species, so that makes sense,  But if Joe is an ax murderer,  most humans won't value Joe's life precisely because we've evolved as a social species.  Other than human sentiment, Joe's life has no value inherent or otherwise.  

What is it about human life that makes it intrinsically valuable?  Is other life intrinsically valuable?  Why and to whom? Don't make any subjective judgments. Even if the answer is to God, you'll find his purported reasons are subjective.

The belief that life is inherently, objectively valuable isn't one that makes sense to have if you're an atheist, since you don't believe in a God to assign value to it. So I understand why you disagree with me here, and if I was an atheist I'd think the same as you if I was really being honest with myself.

I think there's no such thing as objective value, where value is used to mean a judgement rather than a measurement. Judgements, by definition, are subjective.

A measurement is something where a prescribed method is used and the answer should be the same no matter who does the measuring, if done correctly.

So if you did want to measure the "objective value" of something, you'd have to develop some sort of formula which defines that value. For an extremely rough example, I could say the "value" of a human life is equal to (150 - age in years). Now anyone could measure the "value" of a particular human at a particular point in time, and they would all get the same result. Of course, there is no guarantee this "value" means anything useful since any particular formula you set up is arbitrary. That value is also abstractly "there" even with no one to measure it, according to this formula.

However, with no agreed method to measure value, each person will come up with their own idea. And with no one to to do the judging, we're left with no judgement and hence no value.

(January 10, 2016 at 10:12 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 9:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Valuing something is placing it within the context of a plan or purpose.  Things are always valuable to be used toward some goal.  This is the province of intention.  Without some form of goal directing the valuation of the thing, the thing is without value.  So no, a thing can't be inherently valuable as value implies the designs of an intentioning agent.

Unless of course intentionality is already an inherent part of reality.

Been reading Depak again?