No. The concept of value does not apply. It would like saying “how big is yellow?” The size of yellow is not zero because the concept of size does not apply at all.
Pretty much. That’s what “objective” means.
When I say that a lion is better than a pig, this has nothing to do with lions being useful to me and everything to do with what lions are. Indeed, pigs are more useful to me.
To determine value, intelligence is required. Senses are not enough. In the same way that to determine what exists when it is not sensed requires intelligence.
People distrust indirect observation. Whatever cannot be directly observed does not exist.
To say that there is no objective value is fundamentally no different from saying that reality does not exist when we don’t sense it.
What we have here is people repressing the faculty of determining objective value of beings.
Lyssa is comparing it to, but really confusing it with, pseudo-objectivity which is subjectivity (instrumentalism) presented as objectivity.
As if my claim that lions are better than pigs is meant to please me in some sort of way.
“Better” for what?
Ayo, ayo!
Hold up,
hold up,
Just for the record,
I am perfect and all that made me perfect is good for everybody.
We clear?!
Lol… I needed a good laugh
Then you have a huge problem because if you value B and you value B and you don’t value C, you have no way to select between A, B and C unless you can quantify it in some way. You are the donkey, equidistant between two bales of hay, who starves because he can’t decide which one to go to. Left or right? Red or blue? I can’t decide. A real donkey recognizes that starvation is worse than making either choice. Avoiding starvation has a greater value than the value of moving to a particular bale.
Several problems with this:
…say wha?
No. The “donkey” has a need to eat. There is no need to value anything if no one exists.
If values are not quantified, then explain how you decide between yellow, red and green ‘values’.
Better in general. There is no “for what” because I am not speaking of instrumental value. (And I am not denying the existence of instrumental values. Not every value is objective value.)
What you’ve been trying to do in this thread is you’ve been trying to repress the instinct to determine objective value by arguing that the symbol “value” popularly refers to instrumental value and no other type of value.
You are focusing too much on symbols that represent actions and too little on actual actions.
Dictionaries do not cover every possible action that exists in the world. Thus, just because dictionaries do not speak of objective value does not mean there is no objective value.
Lions are better at pillaging and being homosexuals.
Pigs are better at eating poop and mud wrestling.
Which is better, homosex or bathing in mud? It’s all subjective.
I have to disagree JSS. Yellow does have a size and a place where its size exists.