What is 'objective' value?

[Kingpin]

Plato was one of the first philosophers to argue for objective value (in direct opposition to the radical relativist Protagoras).  Plato developed a dual level conception of reality.  He argued that we humans are limited in time and space, our perception and intellect are subject to error, our point of view limits what we can apprehend and understand.  Still, even though it is out of our understanding, we can form concepts of the infinite, whole, eternal, true universe.  In his book, Republic, Plato made a powerful image to explain this.  One is the Divided Line:



So in red, above the line, are the attributes of objective reality, below are the attributes of relative reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

In effect, Plato said "We can't know about this...now let me tell you what I know about this"? Not very convincing. Looks, to me, like a list of words and their antonyms......not a map of the universe.

[Kingpin]

I think the biggest divide we have in this discussion is that for human value to be considered intrinsic, I think requires a theistic worldview. Those who hold and atheistic worldview, I believe are applying value to human life in the extrinsic sense.

It seems to me that if value is objective (real), then it must have a source that transcends human opinion. If X, Y, and Z are valuable only because we think they are, then their value is entirely subjective. To make sense of objective, intrinsic human value one must appeal to a source transcendent to human beings, from which humans derive their value. What is that source if not God?

While I think all can agree that we can apprehend the moral worth of human beings independent of belief in God (a deliverance of epistemology), the existence of God is necessary to make sense of objective human value (a deliverance of ontology). Apart from the existence of a God that made us in His image, there is no way to elevate human value beyond the instrumental and subjective.

[Kingpin]

In effect, Plato said "We can't know about this...now let me tell you what I know about this"?  Not very convincing.  Looks, to me, like a list of words and their antonyms......not a map of the universe.

No, he wasn't arguing actual knowledge, but conceptual knowledge.  You don't have to agree with him, but I brought it up to show that this argument has been going on for centuries.

[The Grand Nudger]

People have been arguing over whether we went to the moon or not as well. In what way would intrinsic value require a theistic worldview.....is there some shortage of other ways in which value could be as objective as the value you've described? As "objective" a value, for example......as a 100$ bill?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

There is no other reality other than the one we live in. If there were then we'd be living in it, but we aren't, we are living in the reality we are currently living in, that being the reason it getting called reality.

There is no objective reality or subjective reality. There is only reality.
There is one but a single reality and different perceptions of the reality we live in because by nature perceptions are subjective.

An objective perception would be a perception that is universally true. A fact, for example, is what an objective perception means, in effect there is no objective perception either.
Perceptions are made by individual brain to evaluate the objective properties of an object, say a building, it's property being it's height cannot be precisely and correctly evaluated by a human brain, this leaves the human brain in a state where there is a void of information. If you follow up regularly on brain games then you'll know our brain do all sorts of things to fill voids of information, sometimes even filling them with wrong information because our brain is simply uncomfortable with a lack of knowledge/information. So our brain does some simple calculations and evaluate a 30 storey building as "tall" which is called perception/subjective reality etc

[robvalue]

Kingpin: It seems to me you're argueing for an external value, like I mentioned earlier. It's only objective in that it's objectively true God values human life. It's still his opinion, ultimately.

I don't know why you would assume God does value life anyway, he may not even be aware of it, unless you're making lots of unfounded assumptions about his nature and abilities.

In whatever reality "God" is in, other beings may well not give a monkeys about life in this reality, even if "God" does. How much do you care, for example, about potential self aware "beings" in a virtual world, manifesting from a computer program I run? If they are there, I'm not aware of them, even though I'm their "God".

[Neo-Scholastic]

So you've decided to deny that value requires agency by resorting to a form of Platonism. Despite your attempts to muddy the waters below, such a hypothesis bears some heavy burdens.

I am not aware of any philosophical position that does not require a modicum of defense. I accept that neo-Platonism has the same obligations as any other position. I do not believe the problems are as insurmountable as you suggest. If by ‘muddy the waters’ you mean explore (as opposed to ignore) the many implications of ‘objective value’ then I stand guilty as charged.

The most important being the interaction problem, namely of demonstrating how such things as "The Good" inform the judgment of a rational agent. Are you planning to duck once again into asserting magical properties to consciousness? This property of the soul appears to be a nexus to all your defenses. It's a shame you aren't burdened with providing a defensible account of how value afflicts the rational mind using only material properties. Anytime you are pressed to explain the how, you can simply reply, "It just does."

So you want to know how I think non-physical substances interact with physical substances. Suppose I say , “I don’t know,” that’s still better than denying, like you seem to be tacitly doing, the existence of all non-physical things and associated facts about them. My other option is to point out that invoking the so-called interaction problem begs the question. Doing so assumes that interactions between non-physical substances and physical substances must be mechanistic and quantitative. Then there is the assumption you make that not knowing everything about something, like the specifics of its operations, means someone cannot still know a little bit about something, like the fact that it in some sense exists proscriptively. There are logical and mathematical facts that do not depend upon any physical substance. It is certainly not uncommon, even in contemporary philosophy, to place some things (like mathematical objects, propositional forms, and first principles) into categories of being not dissimilar to Platonic Ideas. How about you? Care to explain your solution to the cohesion problem?

“Magical properties”, you must mean all the things eliminative materialists consider illusions such as qualia, personal identity, and intentionality. Or maybe you think mental properties come into being out of nowhere whenever any old sensible body acquires a habitual response. To borrow your form, it's a shame you aren't burdened with providing a defensible account of how psychological phenomena, like values, experiences, and judgments, supervene on purely material properties. You just assume they do and a have the hutzpah to demand that everyone share your assumptions. In addition to supporting positive claims, those who engage in philosophy must also justify their criteria for excluding other options. Occam’s Razor may serve as a useful guide; however, you are treating it like a necessary hurdle that must be overcome before considering options that exceed your self-imposed limitations, limitations such as 1) that psychological facts are reducible to physical facts and 2) all phenomena must supervene on the physical. These are not default positions. At some point you need to stop critiquing and start openly professing your intellectual commitments.

At the very least teleology appears operative in nature, it takes a special effort to show that what is apparently true isn't actually true - the same kind of effort it takes to show that objects that appear solid are actually made of mostly empty space.

I think you're going to need to support this. What appears operative in nature to you sounds like more magical speculation.

I was quite clear. Your stance may ultimately be correct but in the meantime remains strongly counterintuitive. I say that sensible people take things as they appear to be until they have reasons to suppose otherwise.

Or perhaps that I just don't care that you don't subscribe to naturalism and fully expect that when you depart from it as the null hypothesis, you provide more than mere assertion by way of support.

More evasion on your part. The adherents to naturalism need to start admitting that their position willfully ignores meaningful questions about reality because they don’t like any of the possible solutions for ideological reasons.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To make sense of objective, intrinsic human value one must appeal to a source transcendent to human beings, from which humans derive their value.  What is that source if not God?

As formulated you are putting forth an argument from ignorance. I agree that objective value (in the sense it's being used in this thread) must be grounded in something transcendent, but some have proposed transcendent principles that stop short of the Judeo-Christian God. They believe Kant's Categorical Imperative or some such principle would satisfy.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.