What is 'objective' value?

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't just arbitrarily assign whatever value you want. In Rhythm words, "I have standards", everyone does, but why? Why do we have standards? Standards are there to estimate as closely as possible the what we ought to value.

Rather than fantasize..perhaps you should just ask me what my standards are and why I have them?  I think you'll find that a person can, indeed, value something without deluding themselves into thinking that their value is objective.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I state objectively that objective value has no objective value.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Any shared moral or value system, between any given number of moral/valuing agents, transcends those moral/valuing agents individually.  There is literally -infinite- possibility for a transcendent source apart of a god in the general, or the judeo-christian god in specific.  It's hard to find an example of -any- moral or value system that does not meet this criteria of transcendence.

How would those qualify as transcendent when the "system" is derived by human subjective opinion?

Hope you don't mind my playing devil's advocate with you a bit. The only requirement for something to be transcendent is that it is beyond the normal reach of the purely physical. So for example, the physical universe, may be contingent upon universal principles that are not of themselves intelligent. So in theory, someone could be an atheist but still believe in things that transcend physical reality and its laws. Yet so very few want to, probably because from there it's only a few short steps to God.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's your preferred connotation of transcendent, of course..but there's no need for something to transcend the physical to be transcendent.  Just hoping to lay a few claymores on your perimeter before charlie notices, under the guise of "playing devil's advocate".....eh?  


Transcend-

to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed: to transcend the limits of thought; kindness transcends courtesy. 2. to outdo or exceed in excellence, elevation, extent, degree, etc.; surpass; excel.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Of course the word can has multiple denotations (which is different from connotation BTW). If you cannot figure out which denotation is relevant to the conversation you might want to have your head checked out.

[Edwardo Piet]

I state objectively that objective value has no objective value.

I ask: When you wish to make such a statement how have you gone about objectively verifying objective value epistemically in order to check whether it is objective and when you are assessing that value and confirming that it has none how can you confirm it has none if it doesn't exist, and I assume you mean that when you epistemically attempt to verifiy it objectively (whatever 'it' could possibly be if said value has no value/doesn't exist?) you find no ontologically objective value... but how can you assess that it has no value if if said ontologically objective value isn't there to assess/it has no objective value and therefore isn't an objective value in the first place (it doesn't exist?))?

Do you mean you have found a way to figure out how it is you in fact know of a value that what you know of that value in fact has no objective value to it and is actually subjective?

If so... how?

...Oh maybe you was being facetious

In short: I haz confuz by your post.

I probably increased the confuzness?

[ApeNotKillApe]

I state objectively that objective value has no objective value.

I ask: When you wish to make such a statement how have you gone about objectively verifying objective value epistemically in order to check whether it is objective and when you are assessing that value and confirming that it has none how can you confirm it has none if it doesn't exist, and I assume you mean that when you epistemically attempt to verifiy it objectively (whatever 'it' could possibly be if said value has no value/doesn't exist?) you find no ontologically objective value... but how can you assess that it has no value if if said ontologically objective value isn't there to assess/it has no objective value and therefore isn't an objective value in the first place (it doesn't exist?)?

Do you mean you have found a way to figure out how it is you in fact know that of a value that what you know of that value in fact know has no objective value to it and is actually subjective?

If so... how?

...Oh maybe you was being facetious

In short: I haz confuz by your post.

I probably increased the confuzness?

I recognize the ultimately solipsistic nature of consciousness, that what I perceive as space is illusory, the wall in front of me is not 'over there', it is contained within my skull, as is the universe, as far as my individual consciousness is concerned, the universe depends on my existence in order to exist itself; all things are contingent upon me, the universe began with me and shall end with me; things do not exist until I see them, events do not happen until I am made aware of them, galaxies only ever get to exist when I look at their photographs. The universe is created within my mind, I am in essence God, and value is mine to dictate, as it is for each individual consciousness. By what standard do I measure value? My own standard, because it's the only standard I have in my universe.
If I feel something is without value, then as far as my consciousness is concerned, it has no value. That said, 'objectivity' is a four letter word to me, I'm not fond of absolutes, "objective value" is a boring and pointless idea to me, objective value is of no value to me.

That said, I was being facetious to begin with, though thinking about it I may entertain that in a sense objective value is objectively without value, as evidenced by the sheer amount of contradictory and conflicting "objective truths".

[robvalue]

There is no objective value, bu we do have a "Robvalue" on the board though.

Robvalue's objective value:

The "robvalue" of a human life is 27. This is therefor objective. It's not a matter of opinion. Anything that is a human life gets 27. Anything not a human life gets 0 robvalue.

There we go. An objective type of value for human life. That's what you wanted, right? Just like the "mass" of a particular human being, at any particular time, is objective.

[GrandizerII]

There is no objective value, bu we do have a "Robvalue" on the board though.

Robvalue's objective value:

The "robvalue" of a human life is 27. This is therefor objective. It's not a matter of opinion. Anything that is a human life gets 27. Anything not a human life gets 0 robvalue.

There we go. An objective type of value for human life. That's what you wanted, right? Just like the "mass" of a particular human being, at any particular time, is objective.

But why 27? And 27 out of what?

[robvalue]

Because I define it to be 27. It's 27 robvalue points.

And because it's got "value" in it, and we also use the word value to informally mean "worth", it means human lives have worth.

I'm demonstrating the nonsense of the claim by showing how an equivocation fallacy is necessary to get from objective value to any sort of meaningful value. It's using two definitions of "value" at once; the informal usage and a defined, arbitrary "value".