Are values purely subjective?

[Into the Night]

I'm willing to hear other opinions, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Beauty is is a universal value
Ugliness isnt valued.

Courage is universally valued.
Cowardice isn't.

Whether one likes a sunset, a snowclad mountain, or the aesthetic charms of Boston those are all just individual facts


What underlies them all is a universal human need for beauty and aesthetics. We objectively hold beauty to have intrinsic value.

None are values. None have a unit of measurement.

 

[Cypress]

None are values. None have a unit of measurement.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[BidenPresident]

I'm willing to hear other opinions, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Beauty is is a universal value
Ugliness isnt valued.

Courage is universally valued.
Cowardice isn't.

Whether one likes a sunset, a snowclad mountain, or the aesthetic charms of Boston those are all just individual facts


What underlies them all is a universal human need for beauty and aesthetics. We objectively hold beauty to have intrinsic value.

You confuse valuing beauty with people agreeing on what it is. I mean, people value honesty but that does not mean everyone is honest.

 

[Cypress]

You confuse valuing beauty with people agreeing on what it is. I mean, people value honesty but that does not mean everyone is honest.

Yes, no one proudly states they are dishonest because it is recognized honesty is a universal human value, and those that practice dishonesty realize they are practicing social deviancy.

 

[Cypress]

Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this.

Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1]

Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[2] Said concepts of the different intellectual (Wikipedia)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I don't agree that there no values that are objectively right or wrong.

And I don't think it follows logically that because cultures have different values, all behaviors should be tolerated. The traditional Hindu practice of Sati doesn't have to be tolerated, and can be criticized.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't agree that there no values that are objectively right or wrong.

If you don't believe, as I do believe,

that the entire universe and all that occurs therein

are merely the random confluence of sub-atomic particles

in what's otherwise the infinite vacuum of space,

then it would indeed be possible to believe

in values that are objectively right and wrong.

From my view of reality, however, we behave as though some standards of good and bad exist,

not from free will, but rather from how the sub-atomic particles happen to collide.

There's no proof for either theory,

but to me, at least,

mine seems more likely

and is MUCH easier to comprehend.

 

[BidenPresident]

I don't agree that there no values that are objectively right or wrong.

And I don't think it follows logically that because cultures have different values, all behaviors should be tolerated. The traditional Hindu practice of Sati doesn't have to be tolerated, and can be criticized.

No one is arguing for moral relativism.

 

[Cypress]

If you don't believe, as I do believe,

that the entire universe and all that occurs therein

are merely the random confluence of sub-atomic particles

in what's otherwise the infinite vacuum of space,

then it would indeed be possible to believe

in values that are objectively right and wrong.

From my view of reality, however, we behave as though some standards of good and bad exist,

not from free will, but rather from how the sub-atomic particles happen to collide.

There's no proof for either theory,

but to me, at least,

mine seems more likely

and is MUCH easier to comprehend.

I would have to accept that being human means nothing more than being a collection of quarks and electrons.

That's not something I believe.

 

[AProudLefty]

If you don't believe, as I do believe,

that the entire universe and all that occurs therein

are merely the random confluence of sub-atomic particles

in what's otherwise the infinite vacuum of space,

then it would indeed be possible to believe

in values that are objectively right and wrong.

From my view of reality, however, we behave as though some standards of good and bad exist,

not from free will, but rather from how the sub-atomic particles happen to collide.

There's no proof for either theory,

but to me, at least,

mine seems more likely

and is MUCH easier to comprehend.

Are you more than sum of your parts?

 

[Cypress]

No one is arguing for moral relativism.

Niftyniblick is, and so did many philosophers of the 20th century.

Personally, I think moral relativism doesn't standup to scrutiny and it not logically supportable

 

[BidenPresident]

Niftyniblick is, and so did many philosophers of the 20th century.

Name those philosophers.

 

[BidenPresident]

Niftyniblick is, and so did many philosophers of the 20th century.

Name those philosophers.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I would have to accept that being human means nothing more than being a collection of quarks and electrons.

That's not something I believe.

Got it.
It makes a difference.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Are you more than sum of your parts?

I very honestly don't know.
I must confess to not even being able to name all of my parts.
Fortunately, I spend a minimal amount of time pondering that particular question.

 

[Cypress]

Name those philosophers.

Encyclopedia Britannica:

Ethical relativism, the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society.

Beginning in the 1960s and ’70s, ethical relativism was associated with postmodernism, a complex philosophical movement that questioned the idea of objectivity in many areas, including ethics. Many postmodernists regarded the very idea of objectivity as a dubious invention of the modern—i.e., post-Enlightenment—era.

The development in ethical relativism they contend, is due largely to the work of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and his followers.

During the last half of the 20th century, the most prominent advocates of this view were Michel Foucault (1926–84) and Jacques Derrida (1930–2004).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-relativism

 

[PostmodernProphet]

There are unequivocally universal values widely common to all human cultures.

the statement itself is contradictory....."universal" values would not be "widely common.....they would be totally common......your very statement shows values are relative......

 

[Cypress]

the statement itself is contradictory....."universal" values would not be "widely common.....they would be totally common......your very statement shows values are relative......

Nope. There are even exceptions to Newton's laws of mechanics, because deviations from them occur at relativistic conditions. But it's still fair to call Newtonian mechanics universal laws in everyday speech.

Mentally ill people aren't fully functional humans, and cannot be expected to neccessarily share in the experience of fully functional humans.

 

[AProudLefty]

the statement itself is contradictory....."universal" values would not be "widely common.....they would be totally common......your very statement shows values are relative......

It's common because some are retard.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Are values purely subjective?

G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica gives three thought experiments that suggest there is an objective side to value beyond the purely subjective.

A first argument is that beauty can have an intrinsic value, even if no one is around to see it. A universe that lacks any conciousness, but has the grand canyon, sunsets, waterfalls is still better than an opaque and colorless universe. Moore claims this shows beauty has an intrinsic objective value, even if no one is around to see it. .

The second argument is the magic button thought experiment. You have a choice to push a button which will convert us all into brains in a vat where Matrix type technology creates the neural experience for all of us of a living a pleasant best-possible digital pseudo-life. Moore says very few people would push the button because there is an intrinsic and object value to having contact with reality.

The third argument is the principle of organic unities. The case in which a person takes pleasure in a child's pain. The fact that someone takes pleasure in anothers pain does not mean the value of the whole is simply the value of the pleasure minus the pain. This kind of pleasure is morally tainted, what matters is the objective nature of the relationship between the two sensations. Here again, there is an objective side to values.

Purely from a human social perspective. Individuals have individual values, but much of that is shaped by the society in which they were raised.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think I've ever met a mentally balanced human being in my life who wouldn't perceive the purely objective beauty of a place like that.

Key point being "human being".

IMO, evolution plays a part in what we perceive to be "beautiful" just like it does in making sex pleasurable. A better question is "why?" Why would evolution favor humans who find sunsets and majestic peaks beautiful? Because it's not directly related to species survival but simply a result of other factors such as finding beauty in a mate?