Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

Meme Wars · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

I agree with Jeremy.

Intrinsic Values are utter nonsense. What is good for the Mosquito is bad for Humans. What is good for humans is bad for mosquitos.

Values are meaningless without a point of reference. As we become more enlightened, we begin to embrace multiple points of view dispite some understandable conflicts of interest between each position, but to extend to an infinite number of points of views, the idea of value, good & evil, completely evaporate into meaninglessness.

Monty Vonn
Meme Wars!

Edited by: Meme Wars at: 3/23/06 10:05 pm

dagege · Eligible to vote! Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Gender:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
That all entities (especially humans) take measures to attain a certain quality of existence makes the end product of this process an intrinsic value.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

Different cultures do not even agree on what "measures to take" to "attain a certain quality of existence" (whatever that means). Some cultures would say that the American 'measures' and 'quality of existence' are superficial and self-serving...certainly nothing intrinsically valuable in that position.

The bottom line is that the only way something can have intrinsic value is for it to have something (or someone) who can assign it the property that the observer deems valuable. Without (insert any sufficiently intelligent being here) to debate all this, there would not even be such a thing as value in the first place...no?

The understanding for me is rather visceral. I'll attempt to explain, but it's like trying to explain how my teeth grow without a formal dental background.

Life is not made of random events with no cause and effect upon the other. All living beings take certain actions to attain their self-defined quality of life. For example, those interested in longevity might adhere to a healthy diet, workout, get regular checkups, etc. Others interested in feeling the immediacy of life might partake in more risk-taking endeavors. Even those solely interested in squelching the level of pain they accutely feel take actions (suicides) so that their experience is more palatable. Whatever their methods, whatever their culture, whatever the species, the temporal pattern that occurs among all living beings is driven by one thing: the intrinsic value of one's own identity. I believe we not only quest to experience this unceasingly, but we can do no other. Every single one of us does what we do (or doesn't do what we don't do) because we are attempting to more sharply shape ourselves -deceptions and lies included.

I think that the values that most of those on the board are trying to relativize and compare are only instrinsic insofar as they are an extension of each of our avenues into what is known in some circles as the Jungian collective (un)consciousness. Perhaps the apparent differences are only superficial. My analogy is of the ocean(s). Are there really waters that are Pacific and Atlantic? Or do they simply flow into one another?

Note: i edited the line "jungian collective consciousness" into the more historically accurate "jungian collective unconsciousness." by positing a jungian paradigm i am not seeking to validate it, but merely bringing the concept of differing values and beliefs under one rubric. it would be off topic to begin to discuss here whether unconsciousness exists at all (collective or individual), but it is a question that might merit later consideration.

Edited by: dagege at: 3/9/06 12:25 am

riverc0il · Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

Quote:
I hate to play the contrarian, but I think it is patently obvious that intrinsic values exist.

contrarian is a good thing, it fosters discussion among those of differing opinions and is more than welcome ::121

however, a previous question was raised and i think it is a good one that you need to answer to defend your position: Mr. P asked for someone to name one intrinsic value. Mr. P also makes a good point that values differ between cultures, so to suggest that all entities are striving intrinsic values doesn't add up to from my perspective.

dagege · Eligible to vote! Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Gender:

cultural values do differ between cultures. but I'm not referring to cultural values. you're almost hitting the nail on the head when you mention striving. it is not, however, striving (the forms of which vary infinitely) that is instrinsic value. instead, intrinsic value is the desire, force, factor, etc (however you may like to conceptualize it) that drives this striving.

"striving" may be a misnomer. the process is as passive as it is active.

it is the total degree both with which and to which we act out of our own personal compendium of wants, desires, socially conditioned and coerced impetus, and naturally occuring hunger that reflects intrinsic value. each and every manifestation is different, yes! but what we living beings share as all-important, as all-consuming, and as irresistably compelling and directing is that which forces each of us to be responsibly ourselves. there is simply no place to hide. intrinsic value forces us to self-define. paradoxical, but true nonetheless.

dagege · Eligible to vote! Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Gender:

thanks for the welcome, river. cool site, great discussion group.

dagege · Eligible to vote! Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Gender:

The bottom line is that the only way something can have intrinsic value is for it to have something (or someone) who can assign it the property that the observer deems valuable. Without (insert any sufficiently intelligent being here) to debate all this, there would not even be such a thing as value in the first place...no?

I think that there may be another way to determine the existence of intrinsic value without hinging the question on objective analysis. By the board's definition, intrinsic value is universal among living beings (I'd prefer to focus on humans, but I think the concept can apply to all living beings if only in a more rudimentary way). Reducing the question to personal or subjective analysis, what can be said about intrinsic value is not so much its permutation, but its existence. Its definitions (even it's name: intrinsic value, primordial drive, raison d’être, etc) are as varied as its manifestations. Furthermore, I think a good way that it can be looked at is through the greatest commonality of human experience rather than all the differences. It is in the manner with which we address the incompleteness of our experience as living beings that humanity finds its common ground. The action of completion, that of furthering the union of sense and sensation is simulataneously encompassed on the biomechanical as well as the emotional level. This is intrinsic value.

I guess I threw too much out there at once and it needs further revision. But thanks for drawing out some of my thoughts.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

misterpessimistic: So the authors attempt is the ONLY way to establish a naturalistic ethical system?

I didn't say that. What I said was that your disagreement with the author on the existence of intrinsic value puts you against his system. I'm still open to the idea that there might be a logically sound ethical system rooted in naturalism alone. I just haven't seen it yet.

dagege: That all entities (especially humans) take measures to attain a certain quality of existence makes the end product of this process an intrinsic value.

Do all entities seek the same quality of existence? It doesn't seem so to me, and in that case, we'd have to conclude that there isn't a singular intrinsic value.

misterpessimistic: Without (insert any sufficiently intelligent being here) to debate all this, there would not even be such a thing as value in the first place...no?

That doesn't seem right to me. Something may be valuable whether or not we can cognize its value, just as something can have substance whether or not we've ever attempted to touch it.

dagege: It is in the manner with which we address the incompleteness of our experience as living beings that humanity finds its common ground. The action of completion, that of furthering the union of sense and sensation is simulataneously encompassed on the biomechanical as well as the emotional level. This is intrinsic value.

Before you can really present this as a logically grounded argument -- particularly one that appeals to a naturalistic mindset -- you've got to substantiate the idea of incompleteness and justify any desire to find "completeness". It may that this drive to a more than human completeness is an epistemic red herring. I'd say that it has more to do with the transcendental programs of religion that it has to do with naturalism.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

Quote:
What I said was that your disagreement with the author on the existence of intrinsic value puts you against his system.

Yes. You are correct in that case. But I still support his point of godless ethics. But do not get me wrong...I do not DISCOUNT the idea that religion and god can give people an ethical base to live from, but you seem to say that you do not think that those who reject this have an ethical base. I resent that and thus get a little pissed off and then get a tad pugilistic in my retorts. In the end, for me, it is all about what makes you a good person...not killing and raping and causing harm to others...

Quote:
Something may be valuable whether or not we can cognize its value, just as something can have substance whether or not we've ever attempted to touch it.

I do not see how this can be so. Value is a distinctly human assignment of quality...and I am talking about the transcendent type of value...not value as it pertains to facilitating continued physical existence or sustenance. And I think it is a mistake to mix a physical quality with an metaphysical quality, for this is how I see this analogy playing out.

And do you agree as well that intrinsic 'good' and 'evil' exist? "W" offers "Pain" as an intrinsic evil...but is it REALLY? Does not pain alert us to a problem that we can then address and curtail a potentially more serious situation? Is not pain good in this instance? If so, then pain is not intrinsically evil after all...just some forms of it.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

dagege · Eligible to vote! Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Gender:

dagege: That all entities (especially humans) take measures to attain a certain quality of existence makes the end product of this process an intrinsic value.

Do all entities seek the same quality of existence? It doesn't seem so to me, and in that case, we'd have to conclude that there isn't a singular intrinsic value.

I'd have to disagree: A hypothetical example, let's say everyone wants a car. The fact that everyone wants different cars does not negate a car as an intrinsic value. In fact, our uniqueness constructs the details of “car” differently. Does that mean there is only one car and the rest are not? There are infinite number of cars, as many as there are conceivers of “car”. It is impossible to all want the same car, just as it is impossible to all want the same quality of existence. Nevertheless in our hypothetical, everyone still wants a car; and in reality, everyone still attains to a certain quality of existence.

dagege: It is in the manner with which we address the incompleteness of our experience as living beings that humanity finds its common ground. The action of completion, that of furthering the union of sense and sensation is simulataneously encompassed on the biomechanical as well as the emotional level. This is intrinsic value.

Before you can really present this as a logically grounded argument -- particularly one that appeals to a naturalistic mindset -- you've got to substantiate the idea of incompleteness and justify any desire to find "completeness". It may that this drive to a more than human completeness is an epistemic red herring. I'd say that it has more to do with the transcendental programs of religion that it has to do with naturalism

Transcendentalism*, naturalism**, and other isms are viable avenues through which intrinsic value is expressed. The proof of our ongoing incompleteness is that we experience constant change. We cannot exist perpetually in any frozen state. We simply must change. We must change to adapt to ourselves and our environment. We are never (and are always) complete. I write “and are always” because the moment of change is simultaneously the moment of completion. It is the moment we are in unison with our intrinsic value whether we care to recognize it or not. Furthermore, it is the perpetual totality with which we move toward completion (or any other term you might feel comfortable labeling toward what end we satisfy our hungers) that is intrinsically valuable.

*.... philosophical movement,... asserting the existence of an ideal spiritual reality that transcends the empirical and scientific and is knowable through intuition.

** Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

MadArchitect · Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

misterpessimistic : I do not DISCOUNT the idea that religion and god can give people an ethical base to live from, but you seem to say that you do not think that those who reject this have an ethical base.

Let's say that I'm entertaining it as an idea with a lot of support. Or rather, that I don't see much support for the other side. I haven't seen any consistent non-religious ethical systems, with the exception of those that disclaim religion while, intentionally or otherwise, building off of religious claims.

The way I look at it is this: 1) there have been, to my knowledge, no past ethical systems that were formulated outside of a religious context; 2) all of the religious systems that I have examined all begin with concepts that are founded in, and are unsupported without, the background of a religious conception of the universe; and 3) while there have been modern attempts to build a naturalistic or an atheist ethics -- Weilenberg's attempt being one of them -- I haven't seen any that were logically consistent.

That isn't to say that it's impossible to arrive at a naturalistic, non-theistic ethics, but without any evidence supporting the claim that one is possible, I think it's valid to entertain the possibility -- even perhaps the likelihood -- that strict naturalism and ethics are mutually exclusive.

In the end, for me, it is all about what makes you a good person...not killing and raping and causing harm to others...

Where it gets problematic is the criteria by which we decide that someone is a "good person" -- if there's no intrinsic criteria for determining good, then how do we decide whether or not a person is good? If it's entirely dependent on the circumstances, then ethics as a system for determining the right course of action is in danger of being either a) so complex that we're rarely capable of saying what is good, or b) impossible, because no logical system can always take the variables of the situation into account. For example, if we say that ethics are always relative, then we're more or less forced to admit that, in some circumstances, rape and murder may be good rather than evil. The big problem is knowing when rape is good and when it is evil -- what criteria do you use to determine that, except the circumstances themselves? (Just to be explicit, I don't think rape is ever ethically justified, but that's where the example leads us.)

It may be that there is no natural criteria against which to judge our conduct, but you can see how it makes ethics more practical to believe that there is, can't you?

Value is a distinctly human assignment of quality...and I am talking about the transcendent type of value...not value as it pertains to facilitating continued physical existence or sustenance.

In a strictly naturalistic scheme, I don't know that there's any place for transcendent types. Still, I think there are ways that you can divorce value from human assessment. You could consider the value of any given object to the universe as a whole -- not only would such a consideration be external to human assessment, it would be impossible for a human to really assess. That wouldn't really make it very useful for ethics, but it does demonstrate how something could have value outside of our subjectivity.

You also have to bear in mind that when we use the term "value" in this context, we're speaking so loosely as to almost lose any meaning the term might have. Weight is a value; so is frequency. So before we can really talk about the ethical value that any given object might have, we need to be more explicit about what aspect of the thing we're talking about when we say that it has such and such a value. The Utilitarian view -- which is the one we most often associate with ethical value, though it need not be the only one -- is that a thing's value is proportionate to the use we can derive from it. A pseudo-evolutionary view might posit that value is a matter of how efficiently a given object contributes to the adaptation of an organism or its ecosystem; conversely, another such view might posit that value is a matter of how efficiently an object contributes to balance, that is, how well it suppresses the need for adaptation. It's a pretty complex question -- what do we mean by value?

And do you agree as well that intrinsic 'good' and 'evil' exist?

I agree that in a purely naturalistic system, there is no place for an intrinsic good and evil. I'd say that naturalism offers no place for the idea of good and evil at all, and that's part of why it's so difficult to found a system of ethics on naturalism alone. Whether or not we ought to embrace that kind of naturalism as the whole of reality is a question that I debate on a regular basis -- I'd say the question hinges on that.

dagege: I'd have to disagree: A hypothetical example, let's say everyone wants a car. The fact that everyone wants different cars does not negate a car as an intrinsic value. In fact, our uniqueness constructs the details of “car” differently.

To carry that analogy out, we could equally say that two people could want different "goods" -- what are, to each individual, good -- and that we'd have no rational reason for saying that one is intrinsic and the other is not. It doesn't much matter that one is calling prosperity a good, while the other is calling genocide good. They've constructed the details of good differently, and your system provides no criteria for distinguishing between them. In fact, I see no reason, as yet, to consider either intrinsic.

Transcendentalism*, naturalism**, and other isms are viable avenues through which intrinsic value is expressed.

No, they're avenues through which intrinsic value is claimed. That someone has claimed it does not make it so.

Furthermore, it is the perpetual totality with which we move toward completion (or any other term you might feel comfortable labeling toward what end we satisfy our hungers) that is intrinsically valuable.

There's no guarantee that we do or even can satisfy our hungers. For that matter, what proof do we have that our hunger is not part of our present completeness? How can constant change be proof of our incompleteness -- if we didn't change, wouldn't we be incomplete by virtue of our lacking the dynamic element of change?


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT