(January 22, 2016 at 3:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: We need not concern ourselves with whether a value is objective or subjective, only with whether a value is conducive to the wellbeing of sentient creatures or not. If any one value is proven to not be conducive to wellbeing than it needs to be treated as that, namely bad. That's all there is to it.

Not that I really have to point it out for anyone, but your post seems quite concerned with taking the notion of objective value as a simple given (which is good), all the while you exhort others to ignore the fact.

(January 23, 2016 at 4:43 am)Nestor Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 3:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: We need not concern ourselves with whether a value is objective or subjective, only with whether a value is conducive to the wellbeing of sentient creatures or not. If any one value is proven to not be conducive to wellbeing than it needs to be treated as that, namely bad. That's all there is to it.

Not that I really have to point it out for anyone, but your post seems quite concerned with taking the notion of objective value as a simple given (which is good), all the while you exhort others to ignore the fact.

Again, I don't care how you describe it. I only care what it does.

(January 22, 2016 at 3:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 4:58 pm)wallym Wrote: 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?

We need not concern ourselves with whether a value is objective or subjective, only with whether a value is conducive to the wellbeing of sentient creatures or not. If any one value is proven to not be conducive to wellbeing than it needs to be treated as that, namely bad. That's all there is to it.

Penguin solved it guys!  Pack it up, we can all go home.  Crazy nobody thought of "Just be nice, because not being nice isn't nice" before.

(January 23, 2016 at 1:53 pm)wallym Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 3:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: We need not concern ourselves with whether a value is objective or subjective, only with whether a value is conducive to the wellbeing of sentient creatures or not. If any one value is proven to not be conducive to wellbeing than it needs to be treated as that, namely bad. That's all there is to it.

Penguin solved it guys!  Pack it up, we can all go home.  Crazy nobody thought of "Just be nice, because not being nice isn't nice" before.

What warrants your sarcasm?

(January 23, 2016 at 1:55 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 1:53 pm)wallym Wrote: Penguin solved it guys!  Pack it up, we can all go home.  Crazy nobody thought of "Just be nice, because not being nice isn't nice" before.

What warrants your sarcasm?

Probably just sad that your revelation didn't end with "Until it's time to not be nice."

(January 23, 2016 at 3:34 pm)wallym Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 1:55 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: What warrants your sarcasm?

Probably just sad that your revelation didn't end with "Until it's time to not be nice."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

(January 10, 2016 at 4:58 pm)wallym Wrote: 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?

An objective value is true based on objective reality, e.g.
2+2=4<>5.

A subjective value is based on subjective reality, such as a preference for the color blue over red. It cannot stand in correctly for a value of objective reality, because it is of a subjective, not an objective nature.

Therefore, nobody's preferred moral values are "objective moral values", and no objective moral values exist - there are only the subjective moral values which we share.

(January 23, 2016 at 4:35 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 4:58 pm)wallym Wrote: ...

An objective value is true based on objective reality, e.g.
2+2=4<>5.

A subjective value is based on subjective reality, such as a preference for the color blue over red. It cannot stand in correctly for a value of objective reality, because it is of a subjective, not an objective nature.

Therefore, nobody's preferred moral values are "objective moral values", and no objective moral values exist - there are only the subjective moral values which we share.

My preference for blue over red is based on objective reality.  It is a description of a person.  Science could probably map out where in my brain my preference for blue over red exists.  It is a tangible thing that we, if the technology existed, could likely point to in the brain.  My preferring blue is no less objective than saying I have 10 toes.

That was the missed point.  By confusing that objective reality, and calling it subjective, and then saying the opinion "blue is better than red" is also subjective, we're equating an objective reality (I prefer blue) with a nonsense statement (blue is better than red).

wallym, if I may ask, what exactly is your purpose here? To explore which values are worthwhile to hold or to have a pedantic argument about the nature of values?

To promote reason and rational thinking, compassion and skepticism - these are good values to have. What does it matter if we label them as subjective or as objective? It doesn't. They have reliably good results wherever they are promoted and applied and that's all that matters.

(January 23, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: wallym, if I may ask, what exactly is your purpose here? To explore which values are worthwhile to hold or to have a pedantic argument about the nature of values?

To promote reason and rational thinking, compassion and skepticism - these are good values to have. What does it matter if we label them as subjective or as objective? It doesn't. They have reliably good results wherever they are promoted and applied and that's all that matters.

You don't interest me.