Morality: Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Values

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think ideals are ever a good social goal.

Wouldn't nearly every social goal have an ideal element? Perhaps a smarter response on my part: could you expand on that?

I'd settle for minimising rather than eliminating disagreement, but unchecked disagreement becomes pathological. Like any other extremism.

It's helpful to not have every single thing an issue. So, one doesn't have to justify and scrabble over every single act every day. IOW some kind of shared culture and expectations.

My response was more focused on something that makes at least some people uncomfortable, which is that objectivity is no guarantee of correctness. Whether one calls it intersubjectivity or not.

[Skepdick]

I don't think ideals are ever a good social goal.

Would nearly every social goal have an ideal element? Perhaps a smarter response on my part: could you expand on that?

Of course, ideals are necessary because they set the direction, but they are an absolutely terrible metric of success. Goodhart's law speaks to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law

Or Voltaire: Perfect is the enemy of good.

I'd settle for minimising rather than eliminating disagreement, but unchecked disagreement becomes pathological. Like any other extremism.

It's helpful to not have every single thing an issue. So, one doesn't have to justify and scrabble over every single act every day. IOW some kind of shared culture and expectations.

That's what the body of human knowledge is. It's not anywhere except in our memories (in whatever form - books, videos, forum posts). Where's the past?

So the whole thing for me has been a bit of unifying/integrating my own understanding with the "collective consciousness". Culturing myself if you will.

My response was more focused on something that makes at least some people uncomfortable, which is that objectivity is no guarantee of correctness. Whether one calls it intersubjectivity or not.

So what do you call "correctness" then?

If we objectively agree that murder is wrong and we shouldn't do it anymore; or we contrive something more abstract like "no harm". What other higher standard of "correctness" is there?

It's the same sleight of hand as objectivity meaning something more than inter-subjectivity.

P1. Objectively speaking objective means "inter-subjective".
P2. Morality is inter-subjective.
C. Morality is objective.

And if it's not correct, then it's not moral. Otherwise we are back on the re-defining/re-interpreting merry go-round again.

[Iwannaplato]

So what do you call "correctness" then?

If we objectively agree that murder is wrong and we shouldn't do it anymore; or we contrive something more abstract like "no harm". What other higher standard of "correctness" is there?

It's the same sleight of hand as objectivity meaning something more than inter-subjectivity.

I was thinking more of conclusions about what is real and what is going on, so broader than the topic of the thread.

I could have worded it like this and avoided the seeming sleight of hand:
What is objective today may turn out to not be considered objective tomorrow.

I suppose this relates to my old beef about JTB. Justified is peachy. But what does one add on so one can check off the box next to true?

[Skepdick]

So what do you call "correctness" then?

If we objectively agree that murder is wrong and we shouldn't do it anymore; or we contrive something more abstract like "no harm". What other higher standard of "correctness" is there?

It's the same sleight of hand as objectivity meaning something more than inter-subjectivity.

I was thinking more of conclusions about what is real and what is going on, so broader than the topic of the thread.

I could have worded it like this and avoided the seeming sleight of hand:
What is objective today may turn out to not be considered objective tomorrow.

I suppose this relates to my old beef about JTB. Justified is peachy. But what does one add on so one can check off the box next to true?

Everything's real. You just have to figure out what it all means It means one thing today and another tomorrow.

Meaning is contemporary.

[Skepdick]

I suppose this relates to my old beef about JTB. Justified is peachy. But what does one add on so one can check off the box next to true?

You can recover JTB in the paradigm of information. It's just that the JT becomes a unit of measure, an observation of some sort (in the measurement problem of quantum mechanics sense) - information.

It's a justified true belief (knowledge) that I am thirsty. I've justified the belief of thirst by becoming aware/detecting/sensing my actual feeling of thirst. I know that I am thirsty; and it's true that I am thirsty.

The conflicts only emerge when we start dealing with private and public information; and the sort of languages we use to represent our private knowledge.

I may know that I am relugpitous (and I know what that feels like, and it's absolutely true that I am feeling relugpitous sometimes) but you don't know what I mean. Takes a while to figure out that the representation "relugpitous" in my language is the representation "disagreeable' in yours.

So we have to synchronize meaning. Jung was right with "synchronicity" - meaningful coincidences.

The word "disagreeable" is a meaningful coincidence. It coincidentally evokes the same sort of meaning within us.

[FlashDangerpants]

Magnus Anderson argues things has Intrinsic Values.

does he?

[LuckyR]

Just to clarify my comment that you quoted, not every descriptor of an object, qualifies as "value". For the sake of simplicity (actually oversimplicity), let's use the unit of dollars to measure value and, say pounds to measure weight. If I pick up a rock, I could give it a value of zero dollars or $10. But I don't get to choose how much it weighs.

Dollars represent the price of value, not value. The price of the rock could be $10 today and $20 tomorrow. The value of the rock hasn't changed - only its price has. Price is subjective - value is objective.

And of course you can choose how much it weighs. You get to choose the units which represent weight. Pounds. Kilograms. That's just a representation of its mass.

The weight of the rock could change depending on gravity, but its mass won't.

Weight is subjective - mass is objective.

Well I stipulated that I was being over simplistic so just substitute mass for weight, then you'll get my point. As to your review of value, that is the view that value is inherent to the rock, which is a reasonable opinion, though one I do not share. As I have said all along, to my view value exists solely within the mind of an observer to give it value.

[Skepdick]

. As I have said all along, to my view value exists solely within the mind of an observer to give it value.

Which is exactly what you have done!

There is a particular configuration of matter.

You value that particular configuration of matter as a “rock”.

[LuckyR]

. As I have said all along, to my view value exists solely within the mind of an observer to give it value.

Which is exactly what you have done!

There is a particular configuration of matter.

You value that particular configuration of matter as a “rock”.

Well we seem to be using the term "value" differently. As you correctly pointed out "price" as a term corresponded to the invention of money (as a placeholder to facilitate trade among dissimilar goods and services) since it is always quantified in monetary terms. "Value" (in my way of thinking) was the original term (predating the concept of money) when goods and services were traded directly. Thus this apple might have a value of 2 eggs or three sharp needles or one haircut.

[Skepdick]

. As I have said all along, to my view value exists solely within the mind of an observer to give it value.

Which is exactly what you have done!

There is a particular configuration of matter.

You value that particular configuration of matter as a “rock”.

Well we seem to be using the term "value" differently. As you correctly pointed out "price" as a term corresponded to the invention of money (as a placeholder to facilitate trade among dissimilar goods and services) since it is always quantified in monetary terms. "Value" (in my way of thinking) was the original term (predating the concept of money) when goods and services were traded directly. Thus this apple might have a value of 2 eggs or three sharp needles or one haircut.

I don't really want to get stuck in terminology... Values are valuable. It they aren't valuable then they aren't values.

What you are talking about is not value. It's equating value. 1 apple = 2 eggs

1 meter = 100 cm

[LuckyR]

Which is exactly what you have done!

There is a particular configuration of matter.

You value that particular configuration of matter as a “rock”.

Well we seem to be using the term "value" differently. As you correctly pointed out "price" as a term corresponded to the invention of money (as a placeholder to facilitate trade among dissimilar goods and services) since it is always quantified in monetary terms. "Value" (in my way of thinking) was the original term (predating the concept of money) when goods and services were traded directly. Thus this apple might have a value of 2 eggs or three sharp needles or one haircut.

I don't really want to get stuck in terminology... Values are valuable. It they aren't valuable then they aren't values.

What you are talking about is not value. It's equating value. 1 apple = 2 eggs

1 meter = 100 cm

Obviously. I already said we're using "value" differently. I gave details on my understanding and I guess you have also.

[Skepdick]

Well we seem to be using the term "value" differently. As you correctly pointed out "price" as a term corresponded to the invention of money (as a placeholder to facilitate trade among dissimilar goods and services) since it is always quantified in monetary terms. "Value" (in my way of thinking) was the original term (predating the concept of money) when goods and services were traded directly. Thus this apple might have a value of 2 eggs or three sharp needles or one haircut.

I don't really want to get stuck in terminology... Values are valuable. It they aren't valuable then they aren't values.

What you are talking about is not value. It's equating value. 1 apple = 2 eggs

1 meter = 100 cm

Obviously. I already said we're using "value" differently. I gave details on my understanding and I guess you have also.

I don't think we are using them differently at all. Yes you gave details of your understanding.

Do you value understanding?
Do you think understanding is valuable?

[LuckyR]

I don't really want to get stuck in terminology... Values are valuable. It they aren't valuable then they aren't values.

What you are talking about is not value. It's equating value. 1 apple = 2 eggs

1 meter = 100 cm

Obviously. I already said we're using "value" differently. I gave details on my understanding and I guess you have also.

I don't think we are using them differently at all. Yes you gave details of your understanding.

Do you value understanding?
Do you think understanding is valuable?

Well if what you're calling "value" is intrinsic to objects and what I'm calling value is an intersubjective concept that exists solely within the mind of observers, I think that's a difference.

[Skepdick]

Well if what you're calling "value" is intrinsic to objects and what I'm calling value is an intersubjective concept that exists solely within the mind of observers, I think that's a difference.

Whatever the differences it's still a fact that Intrinsic value and intersubjective value are both valuable, are they not?

It seems kinda obvious given that values are valuable.

[Iwannaplato]

Well if what you're calling "value" is intrinsic to objects and what I'm calling value is an intersubjective concept that exists solely within the mind of observers, I think that's a difference.

Whatever the differences it's still a fact that Intrinsic value and intersubjective value are both valuable, are they not?

It seems kinda obvious given that values are valuable.

Maybe only to Joe. Sally doesn't have to feel bad when Joe tells her the Transam in the driveway is valuable and she's stupid for not recognizing that. She can say 'I know. It's valuable to you. To me, no.' So, in the air, abstract, we have value with both ways of looking at value. Somewhere in reality. But in one this value only occupies some of reality or only arises in the presence of certain other things. It might not be there for years or in Tanzania at all. The empty fridge and the hungry kids is what Sally's focused on. A whole world for Sally where nowhere does she find value in the Transam. It's absent from her world. In Joe's world much value in the driveway.
But then I'm sure none of this is a surprise to you, so I'm probably missing the point.