What is 'objective' value?

[ApeNotKillApe]

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.

Why?

[Kingpin]

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

The same way your government qualifies with it's 100$ bill.......

[Kingpin]

The same way your government qualifies with it's 100$ bill.......

Which is why I made the distinction between the argument of extrinsic vs intrinsic.  Others were correct to point out that my analogy was not a good one because the money's value is extrinsic.

A theist argues that humanity is imbued with intrinsic worth by their creator despite the values we ourselves place on humanity.  I really don't see how from a purely naturalistic sense, humanity has any value or worth aside from that which it places on itself.  But this curtails into moral arguments and one of the arguments I use in morality discussions with those that hold a naturalistic view.  If worth/value is 100% subjective then no one has any grounds to condemn the moral actions of others without asserting their own moral authority since each is acting within their own subjective moral framework.

[Brian37]

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

[abaris]

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

We are a social species and have rules of living together. There's really nothing transcendent about it. Just nature. Just as every other social species has it's rules.

[The Grand Nudger]

The same way your government qualifies with it's 100$ bill.......

Which is why I made the distinction between the argument of extrinsic vs intrinsic.  Others were correct to point out that my analogy was not a good one because the money's value is extrinsic.

A theist argues that humanity is imbued with intrinsic worth by their creator despite the values we ourselves place on humanity.  I really don't see how from a purely naturalistic sense, humanity has any value or worth aside from that which it places on itself.  But this curtails into moral arguments and one of the arguments I use in morality discussions with those that hold a naturalistic view.  

I see...so...goalposts, then?  You asked me how a value we agreed upon could be transcendent.  It's blistering simple in that case, the system and the values expressed transcends any individual within it.  If you're asking how the value may be intrinsic..then it need only refer to some portion of us which is intrinsic.  It matters very little how (or in your contention who) put it there...because it isn't the "putting" that makes it intrinsic in the first place....and by conceding that it was "put" there to begin with (imbued is a great word btw) you open the floor to anything that's ever put anything into humanity.  A long list of decidedly natural candidates, which includes ourselves.  

If worth/value is 100% subjective then no one has any grounds to condemn the moral actions of others without asserting their own moral authority since each is acting within their own subjective moral framework.

To this I could offer two very distinct answers....

1.  So what!  So what if you can't moralize?  Oh well..pack it up.

2.  Say what?  Your moral framework differs from mine....you have not established it's objectivity, and yet you seem to be capable of asserting moral authority.  I fully accept that my morality is subjective and am -still- capable of asserting moral authority over your own scapegoating framework.  


What's the functional difference in your estimation..between "I think it's wrong" and "God thinks it's wrong" ?  Why is god capable of asserting a moral authority whereas I am not? Why is something instilled, imbued, or placed in us by a god capable of being objective and intrinsic whereas something our environment instilled, imbued, or placed in us is not?

-and all of this, mind you, under the auspices of my inability to determine a difference between objective and subjective as you've explained them. Take a breath, for me, from the batshit claim that without god there could be no moral authority, or objective value...and ask yourself this question. You don't have to answer me here (though I wouldn't mind). If someone asked you to demonstrate the authority of some moral statement you made...would you point, first, to god? If someone asked you to establish that the value you hold for something was true, objective even...would you first point to god?

Is it wrong to steal -because god
Is gold valuable - because god

[GrandizerII]

The same way your government qualifies with it's 100$ bill.......

If worth/value is 100% subjective then no one has any grounds to condemn the moral actions of others without asserting their own moral authority since each is acting within their own subjective moral framework.

Grounds can be subjective.

[Mystic]

The same way your government qualifies with it's 100$ bill.......

Which is why I made the distinction between the argument of extrinsic vs intrinsic.  Others were correct to point out that my analogy was not a good one because the money's value is extrinsic.

A theist argues that humanity is imbued with intrinsic worth by their creator despite the values we ourselves place on humanity.  I really don't see how from a purely naturalistic sense, humanity has any value or worth aside from that which it places on itself.  But this curtails into moral arguments and one of the arguments I use in morality discussions with those that hold a naturalistic view.  If worth/value is 100% subjective then no one has any grounds to condemn the moral actions of others without asserting their own moral authority since each is acting within their own subjective moral framework.

It's not only ground, when I was Atheist for a week, hoping that somehow my cursed arguments against God were illogical (thankfully they were), I realized you cannot arbitrary value things without belief in some objective value.

Even when things are purely subjective, you believe there is some reality to your taste, that your taste although your own, is meaningful to you and ought to be so.

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.

Some people have bad taste, it's true. Good taste is something that be acquired. Taste itself is not entirely chaotically subjective. Even in all things, in all creations, is a praise by which they glorify God. They glorify God by a praise to him, but we don't understand their praise, because we are so use the type we have.

Somethings are closer to God's taste, then others. God has the ultimate taste, he is the source of taste.

[Silver]

when I was Atheist for a week

Mhmmm.