What is 'objective' value?

[bennyboy]

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.

It's not surprising that a Christian would frame objective reality in this way. From the perspective of both Trump and the homeless man, the money has an objective value: whatever is mathematically purchaseable with the $100 bill. However, it is objective only from their perspective: ultimately, members of the society arbitrarily established value, or at least the means of calculating value, of this piece of paper. In other words, the government is God with respect to either of them: an arbitrator whose designs are not known.

I think if you are looking at the values AS EXPERIENCED OR VIEWED by human agents, almost everything is objective: the economic values of milk, gas and hookers are all beyond my control. They are a part of my environment, and have spun into existence outside my knowledge or intent.

But ultimately the value of ALL these things is subjective. The things themselves still have no value except that imbued by a 3rd party.

[henryp]

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?

Because I don't think all human life has value, and there needs to be a way to keep me in line.  One way is to tell me my point of view is incorrect by saying it's 'objective.'

Also by declaring it a fact (objective), it is more effective in keeping it the popular opinion.  If people were encouraged to decide on their own, more people might decide differently, and that's bad from the society perspective.  Better to brainwash or condition or train or whatever you want to call it, so people come to the desired conclusion.

[robvalue]

Benny: Exactly, well put.

I think the stumbling block here is what people actually mean by "objective". Oh, and "value".

Wally: We have laws for that. We say people who don't value human life and act this way are incompatible with our society.

You can think it all you like, that is no problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because I don't think all human life has value, and there needs to be a way to keep me in line.

You can't be trusted, in that regard? I think that you might want to go commit yourself to the custody of someone who can, if that's the case.

One way is to tell me my point of view is incorrect by saying it's 'objective.'

By lying to you?  Can't imagine how that might backfire........ :looks up:

Also by declaring it a fact (objective), it is more effective in keeping it the popular opinion.  If people were encouraged to decide on their own, more people might decide differently, and that's bad from the society perspective.  Better to brainwash or condition or train or whatever you want to call it, so people come to the desired conclusion.

I disagree. Christians have been claiming objective this and thats for quite some time.....and yet christians have been murdering people for quite some time. That's the opposite of effective, imo. Their results in this area appear to be indistinguishable from chance.

[henryp]

Benny: Exactly, well put.

I think the stumbling block here is what people actually mean by "objective". Oh, and "value".

Wally: We have laws for that. We say people who don't value human life and act this way are incompatible with our society.

You can think it all you like, that is no problem.

I'm harmless because I'm in the thick of society.  It's the people on the outskirts.  Primarily the super rich and super poor.  And that's in a 1st world country.  Move to 3rd world countries, and shit goes sideways in a hurry when there isn't even a premise of law to curb those who don't value human life.

[robvalue]

Yeah... I can't see any practical solution to that. I'd say brainwashing them from birth to believe an absurdity is too high a price to pay, even assuming it would work.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we first imagine that it's possible to brainwash an entire culture (it isn't), and ignore any conversation as to why that might not be a good idea (it's not) ......we still have not explained how we might do it.  

Telling someone something is objective (or not) over and over doesn't work, obviously.  If it did.....I'd believe in objective value by now....and Kingpin wouldn't, huh?

[henryp]

Because I don't think all human life has value, and there needs to be a way to keep me in line.

You can't be trusted, in that regard?  I think that you might want to go commit yourself to the custody of someone who can, if that's the case.  

One way is to tell me my point of view is incorrect by saying it's 'objective.'

By lying to you?  Can't imagine how that might backfire........ :looks up:

Also by declaring it a fact (objective), it is more effective in keeping it the popular opinion.  If people were encouraged to decide on their own, more people might decide differently, and that's bad from the society perspective.  Better to brainwash or condition or train or whatever you want to call it, so people come to the desired conclusion.

I disagree.  Christians have been claiming objective this and thats for quite some time.....and yet christians have been murdering people for quite some time.  That's the opposite of effective, imo.  Their results in this area appear to be indistinguishable from chance.

I'm kept in line by the law, and I'm just one person.  It's a numbers game, and it's important to keep the number of people like me below some threshhold, otherwise things would go awry.

Lying is a strong word.  It's more like establishing a bias.  I think the key is to 1) prevent the idea from being considered to begin with, 2) keep it from being spread.

It's tough to say how man would have turned out with religion.  What I do know, is that everybody I know, regardless of religion/no religion, teaches their kids that people are important, and should be treated nice, solely because they are a person.  That's what I'm teaching my kid.  I think it's nonsense, but I want that bias in there.  I know it was hammered into my head, and my default reaction to people is affected by it which is probably for the best.

[robvalue]

I agree, it is a problem. There will always be extreme psycopaths who will kill given the opportunity. To fix that would probably require eugenics or something, which is a moral minefield in itself.

People generally accept humans have value because they have empathy. You can't enforce or implant empathy.

[henryp]

If we first imagine that it's possible to brainwash an entire culture (it isn't), and ignore any conversation as to why that might not be a good idea (it's not) ......we still have not explained how we might do it.  

Telling someone something is objective (or not) over and over doesn't work, obviously.  If it did.....I'd believe in objective value by now....and Kingpin wouldn't, huh?

You say you can't brainwash an entire culture, and yet religion throughout history (and still today in some cultures)