Original Post
What's your good? - (OR theories of values)
The following is drawn from a blog I read a few weeks ago. The blogger talks about the three main theories of value. He makes two analogies to attemp to clearly define what constitues good and bad in the three theories of value.
The first is;
* Intrinsic: "Eating a banana is good because food is good"
* Subjective: "Eating this banana is good because I feel like it"
* Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment"
The second is;
* Intrinsic: "Demon color is simply better than Chronos.
* Subjective: "Demon color seems better than Chronos; I like how it looks.
* Objective: "Demon color is better than Chronos because it's more rare and valuable, and signifies status"
So, my question to you is this, which theory of value do you follow, and, is any theory except for the objective even rational?
The first is;
* Intrinsic: "Eating a banana is good because food is good"
* Subjective: "Eating this banana is good because I feel like it"
* Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment"
The second is;
* Intrinsic: "Demon color is simply better than Chronos.
* Subjective: "Demon color seems better than Chronos; I like how it looks.
* Objective: "Demon color is better than Chronos because it's more rare and valuable, and signifies status"
So, my question to you is this, which theory of value do you follow, and, is any theory except for the objective even rational?
Last edited by Odlov; Apr 17, 2010 at 07:34 AM.
[doc]
I try to base my morals on whether or not any given thing will help or hurt the species to thrive. If it helps, its good, if not, its not good and it shouldnt be done. At first this seems to leave a lot of gray areas, but after some thought I have found it to pretty much cover everything in a logical way.
Not sure if that it what you were asking, sorry if it is off-topic.
Not sure if that it what you were asking, sorry if it is off-topic.
Organisation of Awesome: Member.
But you could also think:
"i am not really hungry but eating this banana is good because if i don't it will rot and i cant eat it anymore.
Under which one would that go?
that one could be very rational, if someone decides to believe because it makes him happy and not want to kill himself, no longer depressed but optimistic and therefore more open to life its chances.
Also this objectivity can easily turn into intrinsic
If i think this:
But i am actually allergic to bananas without knowing, it wasnt rational?
That is on of the most subjective objective views i have ever seen and it contributes to my belief that probably no person can be truly objective.
It says religion contradicts reason, without taking into account that people could very well reason in a totally different way then them. And even use reason to comprehend in their own way, their believe.
I think truly "believing" you are are 100% objective is very much similar to religion because it is also based on its own reason and also believes that reason to be correct. So then in this case the objective judging the reasoning of the intrinsic makes him/herself both intrinsic and subjective? or possibly just the biggest hypocrit of the 3.
:P
I am subjective and i try to be objective, but now that i see this im not really sure about objectivity.
"i am not really hungry but eating this banana is good because if i don't it will rot and i cant eat it anymore.
Under which one would that go?
* Objective: "Religion contradicts reason, which is requires for my survival, therefore it's bad"
that one could be very rational, if someone decides to believe because it makes him happy and not want to kill himself, no longer depressed but optimistic and therefore more open to life its chances.
Also this objectivity can easily turn into intrinsic
If i think this:
* Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment"
But i am actually allergic to bananas without knowing, it wasnt rational?
* Objective: "Religion contradicts reason, which is requires for my survival, therefore it's bad"
That is on of the most subjective objective views i have ever seen and it contributes to my belief that probably no person can be truly objective.
It says religion contradicts reason, without taking into account that people could very well reason in a totally different way then them. And even use reason to comprehend in their own way, their believe.
I think truly "believing" you are are 100% objective is very much similar to religion because it is also based on its own reason and also believes that reason to be correct. So then in this case the objective judging the reasoning of the intrinsic makes him/herself both intrinsic and subjective? or possibly just the biggest hypocrit of the 3.
:P
I am subjective and i try to be objective, but now that i see this im not really sure about objectivity.
"I dissaprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
Originally Posted by Squiziph
But you could also think:
"i am not really hungry but eating this banana is good because if i don't it will rot and i cant eat it anymore.
Under which one would that go?
Objective obviously.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
that one could be very rational, if someone decides to believe because it makes him happy and not want to kill himself, no longer depressed but optimistic and therefore more open to life its chances.
Rephrase that, I can't be bothered interpreting it at this late hour.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
Also this objectivity can easily turn into intrinsic
No it can't.
The response to the following quote will explain why.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
If i think this:
But i am actually allergic to bananas without knowing, it wasnt rational?
The intrinsic theory of value denotes that all the value the object holds is ipso facto. That means it's value is entirely dependant on itself. In this current example you are taking into account it's intrisic value and it's value to you (subjective). Meaning you are applying the objective theory of value to it.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
That is on of the most subjective objective views i have ever seen and it contributes to my belief that probably no person can be truly objective.
Proved wrong above.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
It says religion contradicts reason, without taking into account that people could very well reason in a totally different way then them. And even use reason to comprehend in their own way, their believe.
Reason is a virtue, it forms the value of rationality. A rational (reasonable) act is one that doesn't contradict any facts of objective reality. God and religion obviously contradict objective reality.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
I think truly "believing" you are are 100% objective is very much similar to religion because it is also based on its own reason and also believes that reason to be correct. So then in this case the objective judging the reasoning of the intrinsic makes him/herself both intrinsic and subjective? or possibly just the biggest hypocrit of the 3.
The objective theory of value is the amalgamation of the intrinsic and the subjective. I think your ignorance of that is what caused you to form the faulty premises you presented. The whole reason issue is discussed in the paragraph above this one.
Originally Posted by Squiziph
:P
:P
Originally Posted by Squiziph
I am subjective and i try to be objective, but now that i see this im not really sure about objectivity.
Check your premises. Also, thanks for answering the question.
Forgive the elliptical clauses, I really couldn't be fucked writing anything substantial at the moment.
[doc]
