Human Value Nonexistent?

[Mystic]

I cannot put it in simpler terms than this - just because we have the concept of praise doesn't mean we have the concept of objective praise. Whether or not the praise is objective would always depend on what is the basis for it.

True enough. But there even being a such thing as praise is not proven. I do agree there needs to be an objective measurement to praise for it to be objective.

Take this highly simplified analogy - we have a concept of measurement. That doesn't mean that any objective standards for measurement are automatically available to us. For example, suppose everyone starts measuring rice by the fistfuls. Now that would be a subjective measurement, since everyone's fist has different dimensions. Does that mean that the concept of measurement is inherently subjective in nature? Or does it mean that whatever 'fist' we accept as standard has to come from something transcendental to be objective? Neither. What we fail to realize that the measurement should be determined not by the subject doing the measuring (thus making it subjective) but on the object being measured(thus objective). It is up to us - in that case - to come up with a standard of measurement. Once we establish that, that standard then becomes a thing of reality - something concrete. From that moment forward, measurements based on that standard are objective.

True enough. Now on proving there is such a basis. There is a such measurement to humanities actions and intentions.

Currently, we very well might be in the 'fistful' stage where things like value and praise are concerned. You are assuming that the since it is always the subject who determined the amount of praise or worth due to something (such as you determining how praiseworthy an action is) these attributes are inherently subjective. But, the amount of praise bestowed should depend on the action itself - not on the one who perceives it. Just because we haven't come up with an objective standard doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be one.

That is true. But there being an objective standard at all is not proven either. There being a possible basis to praise is not proven either.

Do you think that the praise afforded to an action should depend on the action and not the one giving the praise?

Yes.

It hasn't become objective - yet. But its getting there.

That is not proven. Or if there such a thing as praiseworthy.

Its roots can be traced to the age of enlightenment. But it hasn't grown completely yet.

I think you are not understanding my point. Evolution wise, we praise each other right. We developed a concept of praise, but it was never objective. Now you saying humanity is getting to an objective judgement, but somehow are minds have to be capable of objective judgement. They being capable of objective judgement is not proven but seems to be disproven by evolution (naturalistically wise).

---

Science deals with evidence, not proof.

And, if you don't believe science or logic can evidentially justify values why are you expecting justification?

Because I can be wrong about my beliefs. I am hoping.

I think that some people are wiser than others but that is merely my opinion. If I assume I am right about that nevertheless I can make arguments following it. All I really mean by the fact that some people are wiser than others is my own interpretation of what it means for people to be "wise".

True, but then you believe it can have some reality and that it does, but not in exactly the way you perceive.

I'll explain: If objectivity refers to all objects in the universe and objects refer to things, then anything that is a thing - everything in other words - is an object. Therefore subjective things - subjectivity - must also be objects, so they must also be part of objectivity, so they must also be subjective. Therefore some things are entirely objective, while others are both objective and subjective.

On the other hand if we define subjectivity and objectivity as necessarily opposites, then anything that is subjective isn't an object, so it isn't a thing, so it doesn't exist.

Subjectivity is imaginary, imagination is the opposite of real, therefore it doesn't exist.

But then, in a different sense, subjectivity is imaginary, and imagination does exist in the sense that it is "there" we have an imagination.

I like that and have to think about it more.

To paraphrase Stephen Fry: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?

Happiness is not necessarily bliss. Humanities belief in their value, even to a starving african child, gives them a sense of peace. It distresses them, but gives them a sense of peace.

We hope knowledge will make us better humans, but it may not, well not in the way we hoped for.