What is 'objective' value?

[Kingpin]

Just because humans put their own subjective value to life (all forms) does not negate the validity of inherent and objective value.

It doesn't negate it, nor does pointing this out establish it.  What is your point here?

It seemed the point was trying to be made that humans place subjective value to life and as such objective value does not exist and I was merely pointing out that subjective value is not sufficient in proving there is no objective value.  Some arguments I would use for reasons to reliably believe in objective value:

1. Nearly universally across human cultures, arguably, there exists the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exists in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no genetic benefit.
   
2. The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.
   
3. There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
   
4. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
   

[Catholic_Lady]

Let me see if I got this. All life (that exists) has an objective value but that value is on a sliding scale (higher for some life forms, lower for others). You're just not sure where on the scale that is for each/any life form. That's not up to you to determine. Am I close?

Close. 

I think it is on a sliding scale. But I can't say I am 100% confident in this. 

And yes, *IF* it is on a sliding scale, I don't know exactly where on the scale that is for each/any life form. I do imagine humans would be above bacteria though lol.

[Longhorn]

You're all doing it wrong.



THAT'S how objective value is done.

[Angrboda]

For many, I think, the word 'objective' becomes little more than a buzzword that when added to a claim means something like "really really" true. I don't question that you believe that life has objective value or inherent value, I question that you actually mean anything by this. When I say that the speed of light is an objective limit in our universe, I am implicitly saying that the phenomena occurs independent of any minds or opinions view of the matter, that the equations have no subjective element and thus the 'what', light's speed, will occur independent of minds. In order for the words you're using to be more than buzzwords, you need to explain the 'what'. How does value occur independent of minds. What is a value and how does that nature of what a value is support the notion that it can occur outside of minds?

I've already given my how — value occurs when an agent desires one outcome more than another because of a project or goal that the agent finds requires the thing or outcome valued. This is because evolution creates a bias (an imbalanced flow) in favor of forming and completing projects that are relevant to its existence. We create projects because it feels good to do so; we value things because it reinforces the feelings about our projects; we have these feelings because our ancestors who had them survived better than those that did not have them.

This is an example of an explanation of the 'how'. If you don't have a similar explanation for inherent value / objective value, then you're just mouthing empty words.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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?

Because you've always been familiar with and respectful of philosophical inquiry, I'm rather disappointed with your 'word salad' comment. Usually only people confused by or ignorant of the technical nomenclature use the term 'word salad'. I do not know any theologian that takes the Euthyphro's dilemma as a serious objection to the Classical God, particularly since Plato uses the dilemma to argue against polytheism in favor of monotheism.

The idea of the Good necessarily entails a goal, that which is (objectively) most to be desired, and a final end, or purpose, for rational agents. Both, goals and purposes, are most definitely directly related to intentionality. 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. Saying you can reject it as a bare assertion suggests a kind of argument argument from incredulity. Or perhaps you're going to again assert that brute facts alone sufficiently account for the appearance of intentionality at more fundamental levels. Or perhaps you're going to go for the 'emergent property' non-explanation in which at an unknown point of development the rabbit of intentionality pops magically out of the hat of undirected physical processes.

[Catholic_Lady]

For many, I think, the word 'objective' becomes little more than a buzzword that when added to a claim means something like "really really" true.  I don't question that you believe that life has objective value or inherent value, I question that you actually mean anything by this.  When I say that the speed of light is an objective limit in our universe, I am implicitly saying that the phenomena occurs independent of any minds or opinions view of the matter, that the equations have no subjective element and thus the 'what', light's speed, will occur independent of minds.  In order for the words you're using to be more than buzzwords, you need to explain the 'what'.  How does value occur independent of minds.  What is a value and how does that nature of what a value is support the notion that it can occur outside of minds?

Yes, that is exactly how I mean objective value. It means Joe's life has value independent of any minds or opinions. Value is to Joe's life as wetness is to water. 

How/why? Because that is how God made Joe. It is part of his inherent nature because God made it that way.

That is why I fully understand why an atheist wouldn't believe in the objective value of life. In fact, I'd be perplexed if any of you said you did.

[GrandizerII]

You're all doing it wrong.



THAT'S how objective value is done.

Absolute ... ly.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For many, I think, the word 'objective' becomes little more than a buzzword that when added to a claim means something like "really really" true.  I don't question that you believe that life has objective value or inherent value, I question that you actually mean anything by this.

---

 When I say that the speed of light is an objective limit in our universe, I am implicitly saying that the phenomena occurs independent of any minds or opinions view of the matter, that the equations have no subjective element and thus the 'what', light's speed, will occur independent of minds.  In order for the words you're using to be more than buzzwords, you need to explain the 'what'.

---

 How does value occur independent of minds.  What is a value and how does that nature of what a value is support the notion that it can occur outside of minds?

Generally, I agree with your definition and your critique of how the word 'objective' is used. I would add that objective means that some object exists that can be referenced independently to discover facts, like the speed of light, and principles, like Non-Contradiction. However saying that objectivity necessarily requires independence from of any mind whatsoever begs the question. As the Sustainer of all reality, God's Intellect is ever present in all phenomena.

As it relates to objective values, moral reasoning devolves into whim and fancy unless it is grounded in some object of reference that serves as the ideal standard for values like justice and mercy. That is why theists say that without God are moral claims are equally vacuous.

[The Grand Nudger]

How/why? Because that is how God made Joe. It is part of his inherent nature because God made it that way.  

That is why I fully understand why an atheist wouldn't believe in the objective value of life. In fact, I'd be perplexed if any of you said you did.

Oh, IDK Cath..if you think that god can assign an objective value...then you've explicitly conceded that objective value can be assigned to us.   An atheist can believe that -anything- other than a god assigned that value....without any conflict with atheism (or even your own statements). It's not so difficult a proposition when the field is as wide as "anything other than a god"...that encompasses a hell of alot of stuff, real and imagined, eh?

I assigned my value, my socks assigned my value, that toaster in my kitchen assigned my value. None of these is any sillier than the idea of god assigning that value...and one of them is far -less silly-...specifically in that I demonstrably exist, and demonstrably do assign value to my life. Socks and toasters are one step down..they exist, but I;m not sure how they assign value.....and god is lower still, neither demonstrably existing, nor demonstrably assigning values..objective or otherwise.

[Edwardo Piet]

Are we talking about epistemic or ontological objectivity?