I should add that I don't think value can be measured with 100% certainty. But neither can anything else.
I also don't think value is absolute. I don't think one thing can have the same value in all contexts. I think value is objective, but context-dependant.
I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about in regards to the definitions of objective/subjective. When I'm saying value is subjective I mean that value is relative to the individual (which you may be considering that as context dependent), and I don't mean subjective as in biased opinion.
To further explain, with sufficient psychological experimentation and examination one could objectively determine what an individual values one thing over another. This would all depend on the make up of the individuals brain chemistry. These could all be objective facts. Or we could just ask the individual, and assuming they aren't lying, we could get our correct answer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm trying to find a key point of difference, and I think I have found it: Let's assume the following is true (which I believe is a requirement for subjective value theory) "there is no objective purpose in the world".
Therefore statements like "I shouldn't eat ice-cream three times a day, even if I do so" can't be evaluated objectively as either true or false, because there is no way to determine what it is we should or should not be doing. A doctor may say it's true, as his job is to maximise you overall health. However for you there is more to life then just being healthy, and enjoying that ice-cream may be one of them.
Statements like "eating ice cream three times a day will cause you [insert health problem here]" can be objectively true, but you see it makes no comment on what you should and should not do.
Assuming the premise is true do you agree with the conclusion? If you do fine, then you must disagree with the premise, can you explain why? Or is it the third case, you agree with the premise, but disagree with the conclusion?
It's very hard to entertain the statement: "There is no objective purpose in the world" as true, because the statement is self contradictory.
Which part of the statement is objectively true? The part which denies objective purpose, or the part which affirms it?
This is why earlier I mentioned that without objective value, nothing makes sense.
Descriptions of the world don't make sense.
Judgements don't make sense.
Actions don't make sense.
Statements of any kind don't make sense.
You're probably wondering which part of the statement I think "affirms" objective value, so here it is:
First off, the statement is an action, and therefore it is inherently an expression of value (even according to subjective value theory).
In order to generate that statement, (let's call it a description of the world), you had to value certain perceptions, concepts, thoughts, ideas, words, the English language itself, over others. These values are baked into the truth-value of the statement.
The truth-value of a statement depends partially on the context-dependant objective value of the means by which the statement was generated and conveyed.
Moreover, you're attempting to adhere to a logical framework that under subjective value theory only exists subjectively, not objectively. This is because logic itself is a framework of value.
I want to be able to assume the premise is true, then explain my reasoning from there, but because they premise is self contradictory, anything following will be incoherent.
I think we have found our point of fundamental disagreement. You mention a lot about moral decisions, what are right and wrong actions, which indicate to me you see some overall purpose to what us little humans are trying to do on this planet.
Without seeing that purpose is relative to the individual you will always see subjective value theory as lacking in some way. I think we can forget about using this as a premise for further discussion, and focus on the validity of the statement "there is no objective purpose in the world" itself.
I'll again read through your reply and attempt to address some of the points directly. In the mean time maybe you could answer the following (which may help me understand why you see my statement as a contradiction): What is the purpose of one's life? What is the purpose of society?
Sure, here goes:
Q: "What is the purpose of one's life?"
A: I do not know
Q: "What is the purpose of society?
A: I do not know
My central claim is that there is a purpose, not that I know what that purpose is.
I think understanding how something can be context dependent, but still objective is going to be important here.
I use the phrase "Context-dependant objective value" for a reason.
Objectivity ≠ Absolutism.
For something to be objective doesn't necessarily mean it's also absolute.
There is no part of the statement "there is no objective purpose in the world" that afirms objective purpose or value.
This will become an impossible subject to talk about if everything I state will be taken as an example confirming that there is objective value, or purpose. You are begging the question here. Try not to assume the conclusion of your argument.
Let me say that I'm not going all Socretes on you here ala "The only thing I know is that I know nothing.". My statement is not an epistemological one, it's more of a comment on the human condition. We all have different purposes in the world and there is no way to sum these to some kind of objective purpose.
To highlight my point further: Science is generally seen as the fountain of objective truth, it deals in theories based on facts and logic. A scientist would say if you eat above a certain amount of ice-cream per day you would increase your risk of diabetes, but there is no way a scientist could ever say that you shouldn't eat that amount of ice-cream. The should's and should not's are in the realms of the clergy and politicians. As you can see I'm not saying we can't find objective facts in the world, I'm just saying when it comes to purpose, it's an individual thing.
Determining a purpose for society, or for some other individual, is different then determining a fact of the world.
First off, I don't think we necesarily need to determine a purpose for society or other individuals, I just think it's important that we accept that that objective purpose itself exists.
Secondly, it seems like there are two fundamental values you outlined in your message as being important:
1. The ability for us to progress in this discussion
2. The rules of logic itself
These are values. If they aren't objectively important, then you're right, we won't move forward in this discussion. There wouldn't even be a point to moving forward because "forward" wouldn't exist.
I value logic too, but I understand that logic serves a purpose. A purpose that is outside logic. Logic serves this purpose in it's proper context.
It sounds like you think value doesn't come into play in the sciences. How then, can you explain the fact that there's a functionally infinite amount of scientific data out there, but somehow we manage to only pay attention to the scientific data that matters? A scientist must select the data, they must design the correct experiments, and they must have the right orientation towards their work in order to arrive at the so called "objective truth."
Well, what makes that scientific truth objective?
(If you respond to nothing else in this message, please answer that last question)
Hahaha, you've assumed my values incorrectly. Maybe our values could just align and that's what brings us together here on Nostr.
We should be clear to draw a distinction between values and value; similar word, but two different meanings. Values: beliefs that motivates people to act one way or another; value: the importance of a good or service. Values can influence the way we value goods and services. I've tried to structure the definitions that don't assume either is objective/subjective.
Without you providing an examples of an objective purpose, I'm not sure I can argue the case properly for whether objective purpose exists or not, and even if I could I'm not sure I would be willing to convince you. I'm pretty sure the answers lay somewhere in existentialism and contexualism, a topic I don't think subjective value theorem (SVT) touches on.
In the field of behavioural sciences a lot of recent study has been focused on Relational Frame Theory (RFT), which has had major impacts on effectively treating a range of mental disorders in addition to being used for healthy individuals and sporting teams. Therapies that fall out of this science focus on identifying values unique to the individual, while discarding any attempt to find ones true purpose or aligning ones values to society. I only say this as some evidence of practical applications of a theory that denies objective purpose.
The philosophical background to RFT is contexualism, which our answer may lay within there. This would be where I would go to chase down a better understanding on objective purpose.
And you are right on values in science. I simplified it to highlight a distinction. A classic example is subatomic physics. Without politicians intervening, scientists would never had experimented with nuclear fission, and our knowledge of the sub atomic level would be non-existent. My point however wasn't that.
What makes scientific theories objective? This seems like a red herring, as we're talking about objective/subjective in two different contexts, but I will bite. There is a scientific method and a peer review system which is designed to catch most bias in the scientists observations and logic. Our cognition is known to have heaps of misperceptions and biases, which can lead to subjective 'discoveries'. So we get close enough. I could say more on this subject, but I can't see it's importance to any of you're points.
So in short, I don't think I can properly argue that "there is no objective purpose" (you would need to give me some examples to go forward). Hvaing said that I believe that statement is key to subjective value theorem. Maybe answers to the question: "is there objective purpose in the world?" lay somewhere in existentialism and contexualism, further reading if you're interested.
Perhaps I'm not 100% right on what you value, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "fundamental" there. However, I wasn't assuming anything. It was an interpretation of the things you wrote in your note.
I agree that "value" and "values" are distinct, and you do a pretty good job of distinguishing between them. However, your distinction is right in line with what I've been saying. Values are what we value, value itself is what we're approximating when we make evaluations.
I'm sorry but I can't provide a single, absolute objective purpose, because any attempt at such a thing is a mere approximation. If you like, you can interpret from what I'm saying what I value, and therefore believe to be objectively valuable relative to this context, but that's not the point of my argument. My argument is not to claim one thing or another has objective value, it's merely to show how all of us implicitly believe in objective value whether we like it or not.
I agree that contextualism seems like a good thing to read up on, since my belief is in "context-dependant objective value," not absolute value. From what I've read so far, contextualism is quite compatible with what I've been arguing for.
With respect to the science bit, I think it's pretty relevant. A misperception as you put it, is none other than a failure to perceive correctly. The word itself is value-laden. There's a "correctness" to be achieved and it's possible to fall short of this. To perceive correctly is to value the right things at the right time.
It's entirely possible that in the context of economics, it may be prudent or useful to assume that all actions are rational. However, to expand that to the point of claiming that all value is subjective, or that there cannot be such a thing as a bad deal seems counterproductive to the very values on which Austrian economics stands.
Context-dependent objective value has become an axiom of my thinking because without it, literally nothing else makes a lick of sense. For another take on this same topic, check out John Vervaeke's work. His concept of "relevance realization" is somewhat in line with what I've been arguing but I think he takes a more relativistic approach than I. Still a really interesting guy though.
