What is 'objective' value?

[GrandizerII]

If something is "objectively valuable" because it has property X, then all you are saying is it has property X. Calling this objective value adds nothing of any practical use to the description.

I also don't care about gods subjective opinion about what is valuable, especially since I can't talk to him and must rely on others to explain it. His reasoning is what I would care about, not the fact that he is God. Again, if something is valuable simply because God gave it property X, then you're just saying God gave it property X. The additional descriptor adds nothing.

If something has objective value, then I'd like to know what this actually means, why I should remotely care about it, and how it can be measured.

If anything, it sounds like an oxymoron. Because value, by definition, is subject to the "valuer".

[bennyboy]

If anything, it sounds like an oxymoron. Because value, by definition, is subject to the "valuer".

There is that which is valued. But there is also, possibly, that which SHOULD be valued. I don't see how this goes anywhere without the God idea, though.

[robvalue]

Irrational: I agree. It's like the nonsense where people say things are good because God says they are good. The word becomes meaningless. It's an attempt to put in a proxy word in a tautology which happens to be very loaded.

"It's valuable because God made it to be valuable."

You can insert any other word you like in that sentence and it is still a tautology. If the only definition is circular, it's of no use outside of that sentence. It has no connection to the general usage of the word "value". It's a fallacious word game.

If it simply has value to God, then that is entirely subjective. It doesn't mean any other thinking agent has to agree with or respect that opinion or that god's opinion is always correct. In what way does it have value to God, that isn't circular, anyway? He likes it? Not so much really considering the 2.5M he kills or orders to be killed in the bible. I'd call that a character who cares very little about it.

If I "should" value it, then again, that is an opinion. It's not like the mass of an object which is the same regardless of anyone's opinion of it. If it represents a very specific measurement like mass, then I would love to know what it is. If it's just measuring whether God decided it was valuable, again it's a tautology of definition.

If we're just talking about some abstract deity, then who the hell knows what it does and doesn't value? More importantly, why should I care? He could be weird.

[robvalue]

Of course, I get obsessed with this philosophical stuff. I can't help myself.

I think there may be a problem with the word "objective". Yeah, it really is a difficult one.

I suspect that some people may use it to mean "external". As in, life has value external to its context within this reality. It somehow matters more than just existing here. If God does value us, and he is outside our reality, then that would be external value (to God).

As a similar example, say we are having a friendly game of football. The score only matters within the context of the game. But if we're having a league match, the result matters outside the scope of the game, it has an "external" effect.

I've noticed many theists are quite taken with the idea of things mattering externally. I think this may be because it gives a final word that can't be overruled, and people want a "right" answer. Religion is, after all, very good at providing easy answers to difficult questions. This certainly isn't objective, because it is still being valued by a particular thinking agent. That doesn't mean it is valued by anyone else. There seems to be a theme that if life doesn't matter externally, it doesn't matter at all. This is of course a false dichotomy.

I personally do value life, I value it above everything else, but not because I have to agree with some external opinion.

[henryp]

That's a really great quote.  I think it's probably the conflation between those two kinds of objectivity that leads to so much confusion or disagreement.  Hard to disagree with what Sam Harris said.

Yup.  My OP was immediately ignored outside of your post due to this, I think.

[brewer]

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.

Sorry for the delay in response, life got in the way.

Let's just stick to humans. To you which has more value, your husband or my wife? Which one could you easier deal with going away, forever?

[Kingpin]

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.

Sorry for the delay in response, life got in the way.

Let's just stick to humans. To you which has more value, your husband or my wife? Which one could you easier deal with going away, forever?

I see the point you are trying to make here MH.  I don't think anyone is denying that we as humans place subjective value on other humans and to varying degrees.  I tried to make the point that this does not negate the inherent objective value of human life.  Of course you value those close to you more than others.  

Let's spin it this way.  You hand a homeless man $100 bill.  In that same day you hand Donald Trump $100 bill.  Who values it more?  Donald Trump could use it for toilet paper and not care, where the homeless man may be able to eat for month.  Does the value of that bill change depending on who is using it?  It has objective value of $100 placed on it by the U.S. Government.  So you could argue that the homeless man subjectively places higher value to a $100 bill than Donald trump does, but objectively it's true value never changed.

[The Grand Nudger]

That value isn;t objective for having been placed by the US government....any number of countries make further distinctions as to what their value for our 100 dollar bill is. Is the US government, in this example...supposed to be an analog for god? That's more than a little bit disturbing.......

[brewer]

Sorry for the delay in response, life got in the way.

Let's just stick to humans. To you which has more value, your husband or my wife? Which one could you easier deal with going away, forever?

I see the point you are trying to make here MH.  I don't think anyone is denying that we as humans place subjective value on other humans and to varying degrees.  I tried to make the point that this does not negate the inherent objective value of human life.  Of course you value those close to you more than others.  

Let's spin it this way.  You hand a homeless man $100 bill.  In that same day you hand Donald Trump $100 bill.  Who values it more?  Donald Trump could use it for toilet paper and not care, where the homeless man may be able to eat for month.  Does the value of that bill change depending on who is using it?  It has objective value of $100 placed on it by the U.S. Government.  So you could argue that the homeless man subjectively places higher value to a $100 bill than Donald trump does, but objectively it's true value never changed.

And that's where I was going. Human life as a whole, objective. Human life in person, subjective. Everything in between (group, culture, religion, race........) has interaction/observer bias, becomes the sliding scale, and therefore subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've never understood the fascination with objective value.  It's notoriously difficult to pin down even as a concept - as this thread makes apparent-...but it's also completely unnecessary.  Nothing depends upon it.  The example, in this case, of human life.  I value human life, Kingpin..you value human life, MH, you value human life.  We all claim that human life has value.

What is added to this by claiming, additionally, that the value of human life is objective?