Nostr Web Client

I think there's a slight difference between your concept of "subjective value" and my concept of "context-dependent objective value," but correct me if I'm wrong.

My version of this concept preserves the ability for a person to be more or less correct in their evaluations, whereas yours doesn't.

In my conceptualization, there's the thing I'm valuing, how much I consciously value it, and then there's it's actual, objective value relative to me. These last two are separate.

The reason I think it's necessary to keep these separate is because...

For example:

I could value ice cream, and I could buy it to eat it, but that doesn't mean that it was a good thing that I bought and ate that ice cream (even for me).

After all, Ice cream is generally not good for me. There are exceptions, but there really is truth to the statement "I shouldn't eat ice cream three times a day, even if I go ahead and do so."

If I did this, I'd be expressing incorrect value to the market. The market would begin overproducing ice cream because of my increased demand, and this wouldn't be a good thing.

Does this mean that I think government should step in and regulate ice cream out of existence? No, it doesn't. It just means that the market is only as good as it's participants at approximating value. It just happens to be the best means we have of doing so.

6e70253f... 2y ago

So you choose to buy and eat that ice-cream even thou it would have consequences after. This just means your desire for that food was greater then any future consequence you were aware of. Good or bad doesn't factor into this valuation. Even if it did, there wouldn't be a way to determine what is good or bad, as there is no such thing as objective purpose in the world.

Due to your knowledge of the unhealthy consequences of ice-cream, this will likely reduce your valuation of the good. Maybe to the point where you would only eat it if it was free.

Therefore the market will reach an equilibrium providing ice-cream to the Curtis's of the world that eat it even if they know it's unhealthy for them. This doesn't mean ice-cream is being over supplied. The market 'sees' your desire for the ice-cream is greater then your concerns about your health, and attempts to meet that demand. Good or bad is just someone else's opinion.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Curtis 2y ago

I understand your position here, but I still have to disagree. You smuggled in a value-laden concept in the second paragraph: "unhealthy."

"Due to your knowledge of the unhealthy consequences of ice-cream, this will likely reduce your valuation of the good."

"Knowledge of the unhealthy"

Knowledge of a negative

Without objective value, what differentiates health and unhealth?

Perhaps by "knowledge" you are referring to a mere opinion or preference, but it sounds like you don't mean that. It sounds like you are talking about knowledge of an objective fact.

6e70253f... 2y ago

It makes no difference. The important thing here is you see it as unhealthy, or what ever you mean by 'not good for you'. We are talking about value theory, not whether knowledge of the reality is possible.

6e70253f... 2y ago

But yeah, the important thing, as you have identified, is *you* see it as an unhealthy choice, not that it's possibly an objectively unhealthy choice.