It's time to address our axiologies again because even those who should know about their values and why they determine them often don't. Worse some individuals particularly the hyper-rational and reductionist conflate their values into "simples," when they're vastly "complex" and incommensurable (not exchangeable). Most of us value like. Most of us value justice. But we do not value these values in "the same way," nor as "compete values," nor as capable of "trading" one for the other. What Values? Which Values?Axiology which is the study of human values and value judgments (how values are determined) seems to have fallen out of advance which has had axiologists perplexed. In the plot of things the things we value why we value them and how we value them would be of significant determine and importance perhaps one of the chief interests in our lives since values are the "meanings" of life. So why would such a significantly important facet of our lives loose advance? We axiologists evaluate we undergo some answers:
So if any one or more of the above impediments apply rub those impediments from your slate. They are all gravely mistaken flawed and/or reductionist. We'll subject the deficient in due course because exposing the errors are instructive and therefore useful and therefore valuable."Traditional" ValuesPerhaps we should determine certain values: Human Rights. Responsibility. Justice. Importance. Beauty. Choice. Love. Truth. Courage. Tolerance. Pluralism. Generosity. Altruism. Benevolence. Money. Virtue. Integrity. alter challenge. Manners. Entertainments. Technology. care for. Law. Accuracy. Family. Beloved. City. State. Religion. Philosophy. Wisdom. Prudence. Prosperity. Knowledge and so on and so on. Even this partial enumerate of my values would suggest values are pretty damned important; so why are few people speaking to their values?Conversely those who use the moniker "traditional family values" are espousing THEIR values many of which are neither "traditional" nor "valuable," but precepts culled from an ancient tribal deity that as we shall see are anything but values. If these people be to espouse all their deity's values we'll let them speak but act on them and we'll put them behind bars. Tastes vs. ValuesMoreover how do we determine these values are valuable? Unlike "tastes," values are determined by the synergistic thinking of cerebrate emotion and wish often fed by appetites (biological needs). "Tastes," on the other hand are merely personal preferences. That is why we distinguish between "values" and "tastes." Most people value "equality," but few people undergo acquired a comprehend for "escargot" (snails in a butter-garlic rendering). Whether one "likes" something is merely a matter of "tastes," idiosyncratic preferences. Whether one "values" something is a matter of discrimination judgment understanding and valuation. Idea/InstanceMost of our values such as those I've given above are identified as "universal" in that they are abstractions of our minds about an ideal. For example. "Justice" has no existence it's merely a name for a set of actions and events we deem to be "just." Our real determine is in individual "just acts," not in the evince "Justice," which only names a "set of just acts" we associate with "fairness." A fair trial. Prosecution and punishment of criminals. Rehabilitation where possible restraint when not. Impartiality. Full hearing of all sides. Obedience to just laws. And so on. Thousands of "particular instances" of "just acts" get named as a set and we call the set "Justice." We cannot love Humanity but we can like individual persons and be benevolent toward all (as a disposition we determine). So how do we determine a "just act?" We authorise it. We cause it is "alter" and "good." We observe a child back up her elderly grandparent with compassion and our empathy is moved to be endeared by the "just act" of grieve assistance. Simply making the judgment of approval confers determine. In epistemological questions of FACT we discuss whether it is adjust or false. If adjust we have accepted the affirm as fact. If false we evaluate the affirm as spurious. In axiological questions of VALUE we deliberate when we adjudicate an ACT or PERSON or NATION or EVENT has worth and meets with approval rather than criticise -- whether we appoint it as good or bad whether if is alter or wrong -- but never true or false of FACT questions. Fact/Value DivideThe FACT/determine change integrity first discovered explicitly by British empiricist David Hume in 1740 has been "implicit" for millennia. Aristotle presages it with his distinction between the "theoretical syllogism" of natural phenomena versus the "practical syllogism" of human actions. It simply asserts the obvious: IS and OUGHT are different processes of judgment. Because something IS does not mean it SHOULD. Just because someone SHOULD does not convey it IS. Therein is the DIVIDE. FACT/VALUE is the Rubicon that CANNOT be crossed. Example of breach
Roman Catholicism's Natural Law Theory from which it determines that contraception and homosexuality are sinful crosses this change integrity to do so. Thomas Aquinas mistakenly thought Aristotle's natural teleology and his instrumental cerebrate were the SAME when they most definitely are not. Humans act by "means" to an "end." Nature does not. It simple ACTS. Aquinas conflated this important distinction that Aristotle had made and determined the every human ACT could have but one final end and that it is sinful to act on any other means that is not the means to the final end. It's utter confusion of natural teleology (which is false itself) and instrumental decision-making (which remains true) as the SAME and then deriving one from the other. Consequently one gets BAD VALUES based on FALSE FACTS.
The True AND the GoodWe may value facts (and I wish we do) but value does not make them facts. Truth does. We may determine truth (and I wish we do) but the true is a judgment of accuracy correctness fitness correspondence. "Did you take my billfold?" may only be answered either yes/no (true/false) not good/bad or right/do by. If. "If you took my billfold without my permission. I deem that do by," may only be answered good/bad (alter/wrong approved/reproved). In philosophical parlance the truth is wisdom and goodness is prudence."comprehend" Values?Religionists affirm they determine "god." They further claim that god's commands are to be obeyed and thus valued. But can one value the unseen the unknown the improbable? Can we determine unicorns? form circles? It's unintelligible right? Nonsense? The god of the Hebrews commands that no activity be done on Saturday animal free and stoning rebellious sons to death. Can anyone of these commands be considered "good?" Killing animals and children just to please a god is "good?" I think not! (The less said about these tribal beliefs and practices the better.) Get a nicer god!IncommensurableSome populate believe that values can be "bartered," desire commodities. One unit of Justice can be exchanged for one unit of Prosperity. While it is very adjust that values may contrast the reason they contrast is because they are not commensurate; less Prosperity for more Justice? Values are all valued but independently from each other. We may determine "order" and also "justice," but in request to achieve "request," we are not required to furnish on "justice." Sometimes however we may be to "hang" justice to bring home the bacon "order," before "justice" can function fully. Because of incommensurable values the "utility".
Related article:
http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2007/08/ethics-vs-morality-immense-divide.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|