Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/08/06 20:40:50 Totally Clueless	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
riverc0il	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 447 03/08/06 20:43:15 Witty&Wise	*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 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.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/09/06 01:08:17 Totally Clueless	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.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/09/06 01:41:00 Totally Clueless	thanks for the welcome, river. cool site, great discussion group.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/09/06 12:57:35 Totally Clueless	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'tre, 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.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/09/06 15:39:16 Indisputable BookTalk Master	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.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#27	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 03/09/06 17:16:40 Indisputable BookTalk Master	*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
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/09/06 22:00:58 Totally Clueless	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.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/10/06 16:21:40 Indisputable BookTalk Master	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?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/11/06 01:09:25 Totally Clueless	dagege:: 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. MadArchitect: 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. dagege: That's because you continue to insist on critiquing each individual "good". Each individual "good" is not intrinsic. Rather it is of intrinsic value that all have decided to pursue a quality that is recognized as good. It is the drive toward "good", not the "good" itself that is intrinsic. What I'm propounding is that everyone and every living being seeks out his or her "good." That is, every being does not commit random acts but acts within a certain framework of their own construction. The drive toward constructing this framework, implementing it, and refining it is the intrinsic value. dagege: Transcendentalism, naturalism*, and other isms are viable avenues through which intrinsic value is expressed. MadArchitect: No, they're avenues through which intrinsic value is claimed. That someone has claimed it does not make it so. dagege: If intrinsic value is claimed as any of the above isms, I'd agree with you that these isms are not of intrinsic value. But at their core, the isms are useful when adapted individually and expressed. In fact, isms do not really exist at all. What exists is the narrative or expression of the isms' propounder, who knowingly or unknowingly is expressing intrinsic value. dagege: 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. MadArchitect: 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? dagege: The proof that we can satisfy our hunger is because our hungers are not constant. Our actions eventually relinquish them. The proof that hunger is not part of our present completeness is that we cannot remain hungry indefinitely. ------------ MadArchitect: 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? dagege: Exactly! But we do not change randomly, we change according to a framework - a set of natural laws if you will. That is why we must strive to complete the infinite number of factors that continue to challenge our balance. We balance (complete) and rebalance (complete again) ad infinitum.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#31	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 03/11/06 01:45:09 Indisputable BookTalk Master	*Quote:* That is, every being does not commit random acts but acts within a certain framework of their own construction. The drive toward constructing this framework, implementing it, and refining it is the intrinsic value. That sounds like 'existence' to me. Nothing intrinsically good or of value as I think we are talking about...just making it through life. 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
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#32	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 03/11/06 01:50:31 Indisputable BookTalk Master	*Quote:* 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. And since most religions are based on the ASSUMTPION of a god, and you yourself say that the existence of god is a-logical, how can you then say that ethical systems based on religion are logically consistent? How about this...Religious based ethics are spawned from the development of the primitive mind recognizing the need for an ethical system. The very simple powers of that mind hit upon equating an all powerful, wise and benevolent creator with the condition of ourselves...we created god in our image. This is just ME being philosophical...I have not done experiments on this. *Quote:* 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. And HOW do you support the assertion that religion is the best basis for a system of ethics? Do you think that all the religions agree? No they do not...so where is the unified systems of ethics you suggest religion best describes? Is it only one that fits the bill? Do we then impose this one on all? Do you really think that the system of ethics we have had for the past few millenia have produced an ethical civilization...what with the bloodshed in the name of god and the sexual abuse of priests today, not to mention the terrorism in the name of Islam? It comes down to individuals. A person is good, and will be good no matter what religion they follow or not. Those that fear they will become murderers and rapists if their religion goes away, those with such a limited grasp on reality, are those I fear the most. They would be the first to fall apart in crisis. *Quote:* 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. Well then we really have no right to assess it, no? So then the question cannot be mooted at all and value is still not intrinsic. *Quote:* It's a pretty complex question -- what do we mean by value? Since we are talking about ethics, I do not think that value in a materialistic (sustenance as it is a value to living, shelter..etc) sense is the right usage. I take value as indicating something inherent in a thing or idea that transcends the natural order of things...things necessary for existence...stark naked reality if you will. I do not believe such value exists at all outside of the human ability to cogitate on such matters. WE have invented value due to our need to not feel useless in a world we know we will leave forever upon death. We need to make ourselves and other things transcend reality so that we are no longer afraid of the mystery of it all. *Quote:* 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, Why? Look at it my way...I understand concepts of good and evil to be precursors to the need for religion. Fear can be equated to evil and comfort or safety to good. Just because religion has defined 'good' and 'evil' over the past few thousand years does not mean it owns the concepts. Good and evil are societal commentaries as I see it. A mass murderer is 'evil' whether her actions are a result of insanity or a bad day. It is evil because of the feeling it inspires in us as a majority. We can understand the loss involved and it scares the shit out of us that it can really happen to us, no matter how much we like to assuage our fears by saying 'it will not happen to me'. Some people may not care at all about it. But the 'majority' says it is wrong and the society sets the penalties according to it's own moral/legal code. Ethics are a concensus. I do not think you can deny that Mad. I do not know that there are any universal rules and regulations. 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
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/11/06 18:59:43 Totally Clueless	Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dagege:That is, every being does not commit random acts but acts within a certain framework of their own construction. The drive toward constructing this framework, implementing it, and refining it is the intrinsic value. mrpess:That sounds like 'existence' to me. Nothing intrinsically good or of value as I think we are talking about...just making it through life. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure. Intrinsic value is why we do what we do. We don't go to 7th grade and then to 2nd. The attempt at ordering the chaotic world is directed by the intrinsic value of and in our existence. A life does not consist of random events, it is self-directed. Direction comes from the framework established by intrinsic value. I think that you're almost convinced of the possibility of instrinsic value. A particularly exciting question to ask is: if it does exist, could recognizing it be the end of humanity's conceptual fissures?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
lanceman1971	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17 03/12/06 06:08:31 Kinda New Still	I notice that people within this forum seem to get hung up on words when a general question is asked. You must first qualify every generalization. I would say that as a rule we should stick to the nature in which the question is asked and answer it. Taking a universal question and reducing it to a quantum probability just takes to damn long to outline all the possibilities for every single possible reason the poster used the phrase do you think? Just say yes. I think we can all agree that everyone in this forum in fact human beings in general have a certain level of intelligence or at least the capacity for intelligence. So in that spirit let's stick to the point. My point on this topic is that we can debate whether or not we as human beings have natural intrinsic value until we are all blue in the face. Unfortunately we are all tainted by millions of years of human evolution and personal experience. It is an impossible question to answer with any degree of accuracy. I would say that humans are social creatures by nature and hold intrinsic value to one another. A mother holds a basic and primal intrinsic value to an infant. Unless we could study an early human being by it self or agree that we do exist independently and alone in the world within a vacuum. I would say we have to start in an area that is possible for us to intelligently provide some form of answer.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Meme Wars	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 101 03/12/06 11:21:23 Senior	Lanceman1971 has a point. I am curious: does the book try to place intrinsic values on our inherited sense of right and wrong that can be distorted by culture & religion? If so, that is different than exploring some intrinsic value outside of human life or earthly lifeforms. I do believe we have an evolved sense of right and wrong that works within the dynamics of a small hunter/gatherer tribe, that modern religions try to lay claim on. But humanists and free thinkers can also equally tap into this form of naturalistic 'right and wrong'. But our discussion appears to break from this and is about intrinsic values outside of evolved human 'value' instinct. In this arena, the concept of 'intrinsic values' is meaningless. I thank dagege for playing devil's advocate, but his writings reminds me of the intellectual babbles of post-modernist who think words are just some form of splashy art to impress prospective mates or gain promotions to a higher paid position in society. I call it the peacock phenomena. The words convey no meaningful information and say little about the scientifically testable real world. If it doesn't make sense, it probably is nonsense. I am at a disadvantage; I did not read the book. For those who read it, what is the best argument or explanation of 'intrinsic values' the author has to offer? Is he talking about evolved human instinct for right and wrong or some cosmic form of ethics beyond life on earth? Monty Vonn Meme Wars
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
dagege	Re: Does Intrinsic Value Exist?	#36	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 03/12/06 12:55:14 Totally Clueless	I take umbrage, meme. Furthermore, writing off postmodernism as nonsense makes you sound like one of those old fogies who can't understand how kids can listen that confounded infernal noise that they call music. -Not that postmodernism is the latest movement to come down the pike. It's already outdated by posthumanism. I stand by my assertion that intrinsic value exists as a useful label to describe the way that humans (living beings) approach, order, exist in, and exit the world. During this bulletin board discussion, I would have liked to have explored theories regarding the variations that shape the way in which intrinsic value is expressed but it seems that I've been forced into a rather heated debate of whether it's appropriate to use the term "intrinsic value" when describing living being's inner-most drive. When talking about the existence of the libido, I suppose adherents first ran into to trouble as well.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Meme Wars	Intrinsic Values & Postmodernism	#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 101 03/13/06 10:15:44 Senior	Post Humanism? Wow! Please explain more on this! Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the more correct one. Take a machine or car; keep stripping items off of it until it can no longer function. It is at that point you discover what the necessary components are and what is unnecessary decoration. Post modernism fails to do this task and resists scientific testing. It feeds upon itself with ever greater complexity with many unnecessary terms and conversations. We can have a meaningful conversation about values without the term 'intrinsic'. The word is not necessary. If we have no reality based demonstration of our theory or principle, then we are just practicing word art, hence, postmodernism. I am sufficiently intelligent to understand any concept a human being can throw at me. The burden is on the person presenting a view to be intelligible and tangible to our everyday experiences, not the listener or reader. If indeed we are moving away from modernism and humanism (science & reason), we are indeed sliding back into the chaotic realm of the dark ages. Religion, spiritualism, new ageism, postmodernism rarely if ever supply us with fresh water, abundant food, energy, medicine, & peaceful governments with workable international agreements. The technologies we enjoy have no religious or philosophical connections. They come from science and people who really work with down to earth reality. Flighty conversations have nothing to add to the betterment of humanity other than entertainment and senseless mental exercise. Sorry Monty Vonn Meme Wars
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
misterpessimistic	Re: Intrinsic Values & Postmodernism	#38	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 4113 03/13/06 10:58:09 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Monty: *Quote:* If indeed we are moving away from modernism and humanism (science & reason), we are indeed sliding back into the chaotic realm of the dark ages. Religion, spiritualism, new ageism, postmodernism rarely if ever supply us with fresh water, abundant food, energy, medicine, & peaceful governments with workable international agreements. The technologies we enjoy have no religious or philosophical connections. They come from science and people who really work with down to earth reality. Flighty conversations have nothing to add to the betterment of humanity other than entertainment and senseless mental exercise. Huzzzah!!!! (this one has nothing to do with Monty's post...I just like him...he is my new Signature-avatar) 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
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
tarav	Re: Intrinsic Values & Postmodernism	#39	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1052 03/13/06 17:50:42 Moderator	misterpessimistic- I like that little guy too! What a cute, ugly little fellow!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Intrinsic Values & Postmodernism	#40	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 03/13/06 18:45:24 Indisputable BookTalk Master	dagege: Rather it is of intrinsic value that all have decided to pursue a quality that is recognized as good. It is the drive toward "good", not the "good" itself that is intrinsic. What I'm propounding is that everyone and every living being seeks out his or her "good." Well, that has pretty much nothing to do with the subject of the book we're talking about. The question is, is there such thing as an intrinsic good. You're saying no, even though it looked initially as though you were saying there was. Rather, what is intrinsic for you is the drive towards what each person believes to be the good. Socrates and Plato would tend to agree with you. Freud would disagree to the extent that he'd say all things grope towards pleasure, whether that pleasure is good or bad. It's tengential to the topic of this thread, but let's consider it at least. Do all things incline towards their own concept of the good? Even if we grant that "higher" animals like primates can frame as abstract a concept as "good", it's doubtful that "lower" animals -- paramecium, say, or even worms -- conceptualize in similar terms. Their behavior seems to be more automatic. You could, I suppose, claim that good is thus built into their biological reactions, but that would be begging the question, wouldn't it? If we're willing to call any reaction "a concept of good" then of course all things tend towards their own good, simply by virtue of doing anything at all. So, no, not all things incline towards their own concept of good. Of course, you've been somewhat reticent about extending that tendency to all things, so we shouldn't hold you to much to the full version of that argument. But do even all humans incline towards their own conception of the good? Do the clinically insane, for instance, always behave so as to approach their own concept of good? Might they not instead choose to do what is in their own conception and by their own admission evil? Are humans with certain variations on autism even capable of a framing good in the same sense that you and I are capable of conceiving it? Or the utilitarian dilemma -- does a drug addict choose to take another hit because he believes it to be his own personal good, or does he choose it in spite of his conception of good; does he choose the greater good, or the more immediate pleasure? In some sense, don't some addicts get their fix in order to obliterate the good they think themselves incapable of attaining? dagege: The proof that hunger is not part of our present completeness is that we cannot remain hungry indefinitely. Why should we assume that completeness is, or even can be, achieved temporally? If we're only capable of attaining completeness in a given instance, then why shouldn't hunger be a part of our completeness in that given instance? If we discredit hunger because it is inconstant, then shouldn't we discredit the notion of completeness along the same lines? Who is capable of constant, enduring completeness in a naturalistic scheme? misterpessimistic: That sounds like 'existence' to me. Nothing intrinsically good or of value as I think we are talking about...just making it through life. Taking Degage's scheme with your qualification, the two of you have just described a very basic form of stoicism, which is, so far as I know, the closest the classical world ever came to describing a naturalistic philosophy. To my knowledge, stoicism never really resolved the question of morality into any sort of logical system. It took good for granted, mostly borrowing it from its religiously-influenced philosophical peers. And since most religions are based on the ASSUMTPION of a god, and you yourself say that the existence of god is a-logical, how can you then say that ethical systems based on religion are logically consistent? They're logically consistent given their premises -- which is all you can ask of any logical argument, since all foundational premises are inherently alogical. What's problematic with the naturalistic ethical systems that I've seen is that they're inconsistent with their very own premises. Weilenberg's, for example, posits an intrinsic good that seems to me entirely anti-thetical to his assertion of a naturalistic account of the universe. If an intrinsic good simply exists as part of "the furniture of the universe", then why should God? Weilenberg runs into the problem of how to introduce a criteria for ethical action into a strictly naturalistic cosmology, and he resolves that problem by asserting another premise, that of an irreducible, intrinsic good. Well, which premise is more basic? There are only two logically consistent answers that I can think of. The first is that both premises are equally basic, in which case Weilenberg is achieving the ethics by changing the terms of the question -- he's no longer talking about a strictly naturalistic universe, but a dualistic universe, one guided on the one hand by naturalism and on the other by a value that is, for all intents and purposes, super-natural. The other is that the intrinsic good is more basic, in which case naturalism must be reconceived as an outgrowth of intrinsic value. But, again, this is no longer naturalism -- naturalism is made a sub-system of a metaphysics that pre-exists natural law. It doesn't seem to me that Weilenberg can substantiate the argument that both claims -- naturalism and intrinsic good -- are valid but that naturalism is more basic unless he can demonstrate a way to derive intrinsic value from naturalism. I don't recall him doing this at all; the closest he comes is the bare assertion that intrinsic good is part of "the furniture of the universe", and without some sort of logical explanation of how or why that should be so, it seems more like a brand of mysticism than a logical argument. Depending on how badly he wants to maintain this objective, intrinsic good, he has to compromise one way or the other -- either naturalism has to share the status of basic, irreducible premise, or concede it. And either way seems anathema to his stated purpose. If we're willing to consider "intrinsic good" as something actually existing but irreducible in terms of naturalism, then why not the same for God? Have we any more evidence for one than for the other? Isn't "intrinsic good" basically playing the part of God in his scheme? If that's the case, then he's retained Karamazov's thesis, only with a change or terms. Religious based ethics are spawned from the development of the primitive mind recognizing the need for an ethical system. The very simple powers of that mind hit upon equating an all powerful, wise and benevolent creator with the condition of ourselves...we created god in our image. Actually, I'd say that's probably close to truth of it. There are a couple of catches, though. One is that I don't think you can posit that primitive humans recognized the need for ethics. The advent of ethical systems is creation in a very raw sense -- they probably had no idea what they were creating, but they created something anyway. The other catch is that imagining this sort of origin says nothing about the truth value of those primitive conclusions. Just because we created religion and ethics through imaginative work doesn't mean that they don't correspond to something real. You have to bear in mind that our little story for the origin or religion and ethics is just as imaginary -- if we assume that it could be true, then the story itself provides no basis for saying that their story wasn't also possible. And HOW do you support the assertion that religion is the best basis for a system of ethics? I don't. What I'm saying is that I don't know of any other system that is capable of producing ethics without drawing itself into irresolvable contradiction. Nor would I contend that the relationship between ethics and religion obliges is to stick with religion. What I would suggest is that any atheist willing to follow their atheism to its logical conclusion also consider the possibility that they may have to part with ethics. And it may be possible to have a society without ethics. But that is, as far as I know, a question that no one has put much effort into answering. Do you think that all the religions agree? No they do not...so where is the unified systems of ethics you suggest religion best describes? Is it only one that fits the bill? Do we then impose this one on all? Do you really think that the system of ethics we have had for the past few millenia have produced an ethical civilization...what with the bloodshed in the name of god and the sexual abuse of priests today, not to mention the terrorism in the name of Islam? Are these arguments against anything in particular that I've said, or are you railing against the arguments that other people have made in similar discussions? It comes down to individuals. A person is good, and will be good no matter what religion they follow or not. Again, you haven't answered the question of what criteria determines whether or not a person is good. Your individualistic ethics may work as a logically consistent ethical system provided that you can find some such criteria for defining good. Fear can be equated to evil and comfort or safety to good. Just because religion has defined 'good' and 'evil' over the past few thousand years does not mean it owns the concepts. If good and evil are only synonyms for fear and comfort, then yeah, there's really no reason to associate them so strongly with religion. But when we're dealing with ethics, we're not talking about fear and safety, we're talking about value apart from emotion along. The reason that religion has a stronger claim to good and evil is that it provides a basis for the existence of those things, one not provided for by a naturalistic system. If there is no good and evil outside of our perception of things, then ethics is merely a psychological game, and it has no real value in itself. But I seriously doubt that you see ethics as a mere psychological game, and I doubt that you would excuse unethical behavior in another person on the grounds that they perceive rape and murder to be a personal good regardless of your personal perception. But the 'majority' says it is wrong and the society sets the penalties according to it's own moral/legal code. Ethics are a concensus. I do not think you can deny that Mad. So if the majority in a society condoned genocide, that would make it ethical? That has, of course, happened before -- Nazi Germany is the best-known example -- but no, I'm not certain that makes it ethical. If we take that view, then we also have to take the view that those who acted to save the Jews, Poles, Gyspies and homosexuals in Nazi Germany were, within the context of their own society, unethical. Can I deny it? Not definitively. But I suspect that there might be an ethics that transcends our limited subjectivity. I'm just rational enough to know that such a claim is inconsistent with a naturalistic world-view. I'll try to get to more of the comments later on.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

Quick Reply