What is 'objective' value?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

It means that something is inherently valuable... that is, valuable by its very nature.

I believe human life is objectively valuable.

That means that even if not a single person cares about Joe's life, for example, his life still has value. In the same way that water is inherently wet, human life is inherently valuable. They are those things by their very nature.

How is human life objectively valuable to a gorilla living free in an African jungle? What about ravens, when they scavenge the desert for meat?

Do you mourn the deaths of people who die lonely in Siberia? How about those you never met, and never knew of on your city streets? Obviously, those who have positively influenced your life are of value.

As socially-evolved animals, there is a certain respect, and to some degree actual value to human lives, even to strangers when we are aware they are civilians who are in trouble. We help others when we can, and where we can, especially when we could expect them to help us if and when they could. The sympathy which we feel motivates us, because it is a survival trait.

Human life is valuable to humans, but to ravens and crows it's just meat, and that's exactly what they will make of it if they find a human who is weak and defenseless outside (although they may prefer it to age dead for some time). This is therefore no corollary to water, which would make any animal wet. Therefore, not an objective value.

[Mudhammam]

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.

It matters whether you label a value "subjective" when you make statements about goodness that you intend others to accept as objectively true. It is one thing for a person to have an opinion about the world, in which disagreement is understood as only a matter of perspective or taste and thus, tolerated; it is another thing to make a claim to knowledge, in which it is assumed that rational argument can ameliorate contentious or contradictory views. To say that values are subjective, hence, that's that, or simply that it makes no difference, doesn't allow for any meaningful or rational investigation into the ethics of actions and intentions to be had.

[Excited Penguin]

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.

It matters whether you label a value "subjective" when you make statements about goodness that you intend others to accept as objectively true. It is one thing for a person to have an opinion about the world, in which disagreement is understood as only a matter of perspective or taste and thus, tolerated; it is another thing to make a claim to knowledge, in which it is assumed that rational argument can ameliorate contentious or contradictory views. To say that values are subjective, hence, that's that, or simply that it makes no difference, doesn't allow for any   meaningful or rational investigation into the ethics of actions and intentions to be had.

I can't make out the point you're making here, if any.

[Mudhammam]

I can't make out the point you're making here, if any.

In other words, by a "meaningful or rational investigation" into ethical intent and behavior it is taken for granted that an objective standard for evaluation exists. If you don't understand that, I can only suggest reading more of the relevant literature, as I'm not sure how the point can be put any simpler.

[Excited Penguin]

I can't make out the point you're making here, if any.

I can only suggest a dictionary, as I'm not sure how the point can be put any simpler.

That's not what I meant.

[Mudhammam]

I can only suggest a dictionary, as I'm not sure how the point can be put any simpler.

That's not what I meant.

I edited my post...

[Mudhammam]

Perhaps posing a few questions will help clarify my point.

Do you think that rationality is or can be objective?

Is it rational to value rational thought and behavior more than irrational thought and behavior?

Is rationality inherently superior to irrationality in any qualitative or valuative sense?

Do you think that it is generally more rational to place greater value in some things than others, such as people over inanimate objects, or the good of the whole over one of its parts?

[Excited Penguin]

I can't make out the point you're making here, if any.

In other words, by a "meaningful or rational investigation" into ethical intent and behavior it is taken for granted that an objective standard for evaluation exists. If you don't understand that, I can only suggest reading more of the relevant literature, as I'm not sure how the point can be put any simpler.

I understand what you're saying. I don't understand why you're saying it, though. It's as though you're arguing with me about it.

[Excited Penguin]

I only dismissed the false choice between subjective and objective values in order to show the OP my strong commitment to objectivity, something you noticed yourself. I'm fully aware of the irrational ways people can think of ethics.

In other words, I think even aknowledging too ludicrous a point of view is unworthy of anyone's time and ultimately counter-productive.

Let me further clarify this. One can have as many "subjective" values as he likes. This is why we have the law, since times immemorial. The law enforces an objective morality(id est, objective values) upon the populace. Without this mechanism we couldn't have gotten to where we are now, that much is obvious. Now, we, as subjects of that law, or even as philosophers(and I'm using this term very broadly here), can think about and even ultimately revise the prevalent relevant objective morality, and that's what we should do. But to waste our times on such a meaningless concept as subjective values won't get us anywhere.

[Mudhammam]

I only dismissed the false choice between subjective and objective values in order to show the OP my strong commitment to objectivity, something you noticed yourself. I'm fully aware of the irrational ways people can think of ethics.

In other words, I think even aknowledging too ludicrous a point of view is unworthy of anyone's time and ultimately counter-productive.

Let me further clarify this. One can have as many "subjective" values as he likes. This is why we have the law, since times immemorial. The law enforces an objective morality(id est, objective values) upon the populace. Without this mechanism we couldn't have gotten to where we are now, that much is obvious. Now, we, as subjects of that law, or even as philosophers(and I'm using this term very broadly here), can think about and even ultimately revise the prevalent relevant objective morality, and that's what we should do. But to waste our times on such a meaningless concept as subjective values won't get us anywhere.

Oh, I agree then. It worries me that so many are willing to sacrifice the notion of objective value on the pyre of supernaturalism. Thankfully, their subsequent claims, feelings, and actions usually aren't too consistent with their stated beliefs