What is 'objective' value?

[Angrboda]

Valuing something is placing it within the context of a plan or purpose.  Things are always valuable to be used toward some goal.  This is the province of intention.  Without some form of goal directing the valuation of the thing, the thing is without value.  So no, a thing can't be inherently valuable as value implies the designs of an intentioning agent.

Unless of course intentionality is already an inherent part of reality.

And what would that mean, for intention to be an inherent part of reality? Even if God values human life, that's just one more agent's project. No, this doesn't get around the problem.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unless of course intentionality is already an inherent part of reality.

And what would that mean, for intention to be an inherent part of reality?  Even if God values human life, that's just one more agent's project.  No, this doesn't get around the problem.

Only if you consider God just another kind of particular being among other particular beings, a common assumption by skeptics. In the case of the God of Classical theism, or "The Good", it serves as the objective standard of that which is most to be desired. In Aristotle, this is called Happiness. In Western theology, this is called Blessedness. In other words, the value of human life lies in its potential to strive for and manifest the greatest good of which it is capable in comparison to the greatest possible Good.

[Catholic_Lady]

Unless of course intentionality is already an inherent part of reality.

And what would that mean, for intention to be an inherent part of reality?  Even if God values human life, that's just one more agent's project.  No, this doesn't get around the problem.

It's not just that God values life, and that is why life is sacred. It's that that is how we were made. It is the very nature of our being, and inherent to who/what we are. Like I said in my first post, in the same way that wetness is inherent to water, value is inherent to life. You can't separate the two.

Some people may not believe that the life of a black African (for example) is sacred, and will thus go around and kill them, enslave them, etc. But that is why doing such is objectively wrong... because life is objectively valuable. Even if a person thinks it's ok to commit genocide of blacks or whatever, genocide does not cease to be immoral, and the person who thinks it's ok is very much wrong to think that.

^That's what we believe anyway.

[Angrboda]

And what would that mean, for intention to be an inherent part of reality?  Even if God values human life, that's just one more agent's project.  No, this doesn't get around the problem.

Only if you consider God just another kind of particular being among other particular beings, a common assumption by skeptics. In the case of the God of Classical theism, or "The Good", it serves as the objective standard of that which is most to be desired. In Aristotle, this is called Happiness. In Western theology, this is called Blessedness. In other words, the value of human life lies in its potential to strive for and manifest the greatest good of which it is capable in comparison to the greatest possible Good.

You're getting farther and farther away from the intentionality required of value. Saying that God is not merely an agent, but something else in addition, doesn't provide any ground for value. We could go over Euthyphro's dilemma again, but all that will result in is a bunch of metaphysically flavored word salad. Value requires teleology. Period. You can just assert that there is teleology to reality, but without any support, that's a bare assertion that I will simply reject. So which half of this new dilemma do you care to attack: that value requires an agent, or that God being a special kind of agent doesn't establish value?

[Angrboda]

And what would that mean, for intention to be an inherent part of reality?  Even if God values human life, that's just one more agent's project.  No, this doesn't get around the problem.

It's not just that God values life, and that is why life is sacred. It's that that is how we were made. It is the very nature of our being, and inherent to who/what we are. Like I said in my first post, in the same way that wetness is inherent to water, value is inherent to life. You can't separate the two.

Now you're getting confused. There is a difference between life being inherently valuable and value being an inherit property of life. I believe the latter but not the former. Values arises along with life because life brings with it a necessary project or goal, that being survival. The survival of a living thing can only present itself to a thinking being, because without an agent intending a particular goal, the value of a thing is not fixed by its natural properties. Value requires agency. Simply pointing out that where agency occurs, so does value, doesn't get you to the goal of life being inherently valuable. That two phenomena co-occur isn't any kind of evidence that the one is an objective fact about the other.

[Catholic_Lady]

It's not just that God values life, and that is why life is sacred. It's that that is how we were made. It is the very nature of our being, and inherent to who/what we are. Like I said in my first post, in the same way that wetness is inherent to water, value is inherent to life. You can't separate the two.

Now you're getting confused.  There is a difference between life being inherently valuable and value being an inherit property of life.  I believe the latter but not the former.  Values arises along with life because life brings with it a necessary project or goal, that being survival.  The survival of a living thing can only present itself to a thinking being, because without an agent intending a particular goal, the value of a thing is not fixed by its natural properties.  Value requires agency.  Simply pointing out that where agency occurs, so does value, doesn't get you to the goal of life being inherently valuable.   That two phenomena co-occur isn't any kind of evidence that the one is an objective fact about the other.

I'm not confused. I honestly believe value is inherent to life. 

Yes, I believe God values life, but it is because of this that He created life as being sacred. So the fact that God values life and that life is inherently valuable can be one and the same here. 

I get that you guys don't believe that, but that's my personal answer to the OP.

[brewer]

It's not just that God values life, and that is why life is sacred. It's that that is how we were made. It is the very nature of our being, and inherent to who/what we are. Like I said in my first post, in the same way that wetness is inherent to water, value is inherent to life. You can't separate the two.

Just want to clarify. The inherent value in life is in human life only. Not any other life. If incorrect, please clarify.

[Catholic_Lady]

It's not just that God values life, and that is why life is sacred. It's that that is how we were made. It is the very nature of our being, and inherent to who/what we are. Like I said in my first post, in the same way that wetness is inherent to water, value is inherent to life. You can't separate the two.

Just want to clarify. The inherent value in life is in human life only. Not any other life. If incorrect, please clarify.

No, not just human life.

[brewer]

Just want to clarify. The inherent value in life is in human life only. Not any other life. If incorrect, please clarify.

No, not just human life.

Do you draw a line anywhere? Conscious life? Thinking life? Vertebrate life? .....................

[GrandizerII]

That death exists goes against the position that life is objectively sacred.