The basis of values, morals, meaning, etc.

Even though there is difference of meaning, difference of values, difference of morals, etc. does not render these things superficial or false.
Life events and genes will shape each differently. There is some difference even amoung twins.
I consider morality a mix of the primordial “i want”, and the complex image of an ideal world.
Without “i want”, without “will”, there is just an image which sits there. The two interbreed to form morality and life goals.
Anyone with life goals has some kind of value system, some kind of morals.
Now, meaning is a mix of the primordial “i feel”, and the complex familiarity of all sorts of memories and passed ideas.
“I feel” reacts with the complex of memory. Without memory there is no meaning. Meaning is greatly a process of memory application.

When we remember all our wants, what we feel, and what we have thought, morals spotaniously generate.

Morality need not be lifeless, it need not be neutral, it need not be solid like stone.

Morality was meant to change. Meaning was meant to change.

Also, some things need to be coordinated with others to produce something worthwhile, while others don’t depend on this coordination.

You may have more posts than me soon, but i do try to be active at times.

What do you mean? :slight_smile:

I try to keep up too, but I’m starting to wonder if I should just give up. I hardly have any time anymore.

Life’s like that. I have allot of spare time. That is one of the ways that I am lucky.
We both have similar post amounts though, that number under the ava. So that is why I said it.

Ah. Anyway, nice little OP.

Morality is an art among other things

Art is well developed human-ness, which is applied as refined and skillful expression of the self.

 True, but if we look at gross morality, and not in the usual sense, then it can become a matter of discriminating the humanness from the refined aspect of it. It too, can be expressed, skillfully.

Deborrah Carr. " I oblige anything human"

(From the Night of the Iguana)

Morality is about who has value and why.

But it’s decided by pure desire, at least in its first stage of existence.

Value and desire can be used interchangeably.

We value what we desire and we desire what we value.

How we treat others follows from why/how we value some and not others.

You’ve never desired something that wasn’t valuable? I have, yesterday, at McDonalds. Man I thought you did heroin…?
It’s obviously possible to desire bad things—it doesn’t mean those bad things are valuable.

How you treat others follows from why/how you value yourself. It’s about what kind of person you intend to be, and are.

Even McDicks has a little value, it tastes alright, don’t it?

What?

“Bad things” have value, they’re just usually more trouble than they’re worth.

How we treat ourselves follows from how much we value ourselves, how we treat others follows from how much we value others. Simple, yay?

Some things have good features, as well as bad features. When the bad features outweigh the good, we say that the thing on balance is not valuable. When the good features outweigh the bad, we say that the thing is valuable.

Want an example? Suppose I have a shiny pretty thing. That’s nice, right? Shiny, pretty… valuable let’s say. But whenever someone looks at it, they spend the rest of their life in horrible agony and misery. We’d say of that thing, on balance, that it is not valuable. Pretty straightfoward, innit?

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178866

If something is more trouble than it is worth, then it is worth not troubling with it. If it is not worth doing, then it is disvaluable. Pretty clear, right?

How we treat both ourselves, and others, follows from how we value ourselves. For example, when I read someone who is not very bright, or thought-through, I don’t help them because I value their lack of intelligence, I help them because I value my own intelligence, which I can disperse outwards.

That’s because I am a river to my people.

The specific, in the instant desire could lead to a short term problem if other desires are ignored. Wouldn’t it also be other desires that would lead us to make different decisions about McD’s or heroin?

Also there is a shift here from ‘what we value’ to things being valuable. A shift from valueing, desiring, to a focus on the object’s inherent value. I think that adds a bit to making the terms seems different. The side effects of heroin addicton are generally not desireable either. They are not what the person desired (or valued).

I think the same line could be taken against values. Where effects/facets of what is valued are seen to be outweighed by other values. With values/like desires, it may take very long periods of time before these negative effects/facets are clear to the person with the value. Perhaps not in their lifetime. Perhaps only at a societal level, the individual not getting the negative feedback directly.

Yes, it would be other desires that lead you to make different decisions. But I’m responding to eyesinthedark equating ‘desire’ and ‘value’.

Sometimes people desire what they know isn’t valuable. That’s a phenomenon of ordinary life that I wonder if anyone wants to deny. It can happen at McDonalds, or with drugs, or a relationship, or a trinket at the mall, or another beer, or whatever. —Any case where the person himself knows that what he desires isn’t valuble. Someone who still wants to equate ‘value’ and ‘desire’ might respond by saying that the person still desires what is valuable, he just has these other conflicting desires that contradict those, as well. But value, he’d say, is still always the exact same as “what is desired”.

But no, that’s false, because if you could equate ‘value’ and ‘desire’ then you would never have something that was desired that was not also valuable. But you do. —That’s an common phenomenon of daily life. IOW, value and desire can’t be used interchangeably.

IOW, or therefore, what gives something ‘value’ is something other than the property of ‘being desired’, even if you always happen to desire what is valuable. There’s some necessary (or maybe sufficient) conditions missing from that equation.

Yes, there’s that shift, but it’s no surprise to eyes. He was trying to say something substantive I think.

With heroin, you could say that what the person desired was their own pure physical pleasure, or something like that—and not the side effects, etc. But you can still say the person was wrong to desire that pure physical pleasure, if that’s not what is valuable in that context. Perhaps what was valuable then was some demanding labor, or dealing with a problem, or whatever. No matter how you carve up someone’s desires, it’s still possible to find desires for things that are not valuable.

I got that.

I Think that works with value also. Sometimes people value things they know are not valuable. I still Think the shift from verb to adjective is problematic.

I can value, highly, a stone that I have from some beach somewhere I was at as a kid. As a flapper one could put a high value on having small breasts.

And then take things like gold silver and various gems. These are valuable, valued, and desired. But do they really have value? Their value is in collective agreements or tastes. The latter experiential and the former a kind of Group hallucination or arbritrary decision.

I see the same objections you raise against desire can also be raised against value.

And this isn’t even touching on some of the more abstract values.

I am not trying to deny it per se. I am probing it. I have no final position. But I decided to see where this Went.

I don’t Think this is the case. The person values the experience they have or Think they will have. If we move Everything into an empiricist perspective - what will be experienced? If I go to McDs, presumably I am fairly accurate about my experience, at least the first parts of it. I will get served cheaply - which is different than cooking for oneself in being served (however limited) and I will have a taste and satisfaction experience I value. If we shift to the adjective and ask if the Big Mac is valuable, I Think it confuses the issue. It is the experience I value, and that is all we have, a series of experiences. These pleasures are what I desire and value. I may have tunnel vision and not realize that other desires and values are being suppressed or ignored so that I can have this experience.

I Think the same thing can happen with things one values. That one puts a value on something that has Little value. I certainly judge people to doing this all the time. But you may say, no one would say that. The key is the individuals language use. No one would say I value it, but it not valuable. I Think actually people would hesitate, in all cases to posit the value in the object (of desire I am tempted to add). But further when I look at what people value, it seems to me I am not missing something if I substitute desire for what is happening.

Often, however, it is not a coincidence that we desire what has these properties. When I look around at what people do in fact desire, it seems to me they are hallucinating, often, and there is Little even empirical positive Changes brought about for them. But despite our seemingly odd flexibility, we are not strangers to the universe. Our desires have to do with actual properties of interaction the objects have with us. Sometime we desires things for what our ideas of what it means to have them triggers in our experiences. Here the objects may or may not have much to them. Certain prestige items. But these are valued highly. These meanings.

I Think the last section is responded to in the above.

I’ve experimented with several illicit substances, but not heroin.

That’s not how my brain works. Consider the possibility that your brain/mind works differently than mine. Again, the more I value others, whether it be because of their beauty, their intelligence, whether it be because they share my values, or what have you, the better I treat them. The same principle applies to myself, the better I think I am, or the more potential I think I have, the better I treat myself. Similarly, the more potential I think others have, the better I treat them.