Holder of the Heel
Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 8,850
- Location
- Alabama
- NNID
- Roarfang
- 3DS FC
- 1332-7720-7283
- Switch FC
- 6734-2078-8990
I've not too long ago wondered about objective values, and what does it mean to say that something has value in itself without bias. Does it have this "valueness", a "thisness" to it intrinsically. Do humans have the power to impart this thisness to things? The idea of either of these things is very strange to me, and I could never accept such mystical talk (my point is, the only difference between saying something has value and treating something as if it has value, practically speaking, is absent, and I see no necessity to say a thing "has" value outside of how we are treating it). And yet, a lot of people speak of happiness as the one thing that is objectively valuable, in fact utilitarianism says this is the intrinsic good. While I agree that all acts, in influence, are aimed to please our own happiness and relinquish desires, but I still have trouble attributing this mystical quality I spoke of earlier to it, but I left that and asked myself this: why would we say it is objective? Do people strive for the idea of happiness without bias? Is not happiness something of our mind, involving opinions? Though people who think it is objective would say that it is universally possessed by all humans, whether they like it or not, for example, no one has chosen that they must strive after desires.
Now, does it mean that if something universally is possessed, it is objective? That depends on the way in which it is acquired. If something were to be universally chosen with bias, it would not be objective because it was still bias that selected it. But one might say, "Necessity still makes everyone desire "desire". There's no deliberation at all of it." This doesn't suffice though, whether we are forced to hold a bias or not still makes it a preference, a partiality, that we have. Universal necessity doesn't negate the partiality of the view.
So while happiness may not have inherent value, I'd contend, nor has it any objectivity outside of it objectively being possessed by everyone (for example, if everyone objectively enjoyed pop music, that does not mean pop music is objectively good), it is universally possessed with a bias. In determining a moral philosophy (or a practical philosophy, perhaps more aptly put), objectivity of values isn't needed, but simply one that allows for living well, and applied on larger scales, a family, state, country, etc. This seems right pretty intuitively by now, for such things as anthropology and the like has taught us that morals, or "conduct" is simply a method of learning how to live well, a survival mechanism (and of course happiness and pleasure are motivators and help us live healthily).
To conclude, happiness is in a unique position to receive this confusion, for while bias may indicate different types of desires, happiness, in the form of desire itself, is possessed universally, irrespective of what the desires actually entail in the "means". While yeah, I didn't say anything profound here, or anything new, just some thoughts that were occurring to me when I listened to a debate about God and how it was a reason to believe in its existence because without God there aren't objective values, and that there are objective values (therefore, there is God), and that we need these. I was confused as to why we needed them. These thoughts also occurred when reading some selections of utilitarianism and Aristotle for my Introductions to Ethics class (yeah I'm still a newbie, ha). I like expressing whatever pops in my head on the topic, hopefully someone thinks there is something interesting to say about this or anything related.
Now, does it mean that if something universally is possessed, it is objective? That depends on the way in which it is acquired. If something were to be universally chosen with bias, it would not be objective because it was still bias that selected it. But one might say, "Necessity still makes everyone desire "desire". There's no deliberation at all of it." This doesn't suffice though, whether we are forced to hold a bias or not still makes it a preference, a partiality, that we have. Universal necessity doesn't negate the partiality of the view.
So while happiness may not have inherent value, I'd contend, nor has it any objectivity outside of it objectively being possessed by everyone (for example, if everyone objectively enjoyed pop music, that does not mean pop music is objectively good), it is universally possessed with a bias. In determining a moral philosophy (or a practical philosophy, perhaps more aptly put), objectivity of values isn't needed, but simply one that allows for living well, and applied on larger scales, a family, state, country, etc. This seems right pretty intuitively by now, for such things as anthropology and the like has taught us that morals, or "conduct" is simply a method of learning how to live well, a survival mechanism (and of course happiness and pleasure are motivators and help us live healthily).
To conclude, happiness is in a unique position to receive this confusion, for while bias may indicate different types of desires, happiness, in the form of desire itself, is possessed universally, irrespective of what the desires actually entail in the "means". While yeah, I didn't say anything profound here, or anything new, just some thoughts that were occurring to me when I listened to a debate about God and how it was a reason to believe in its existence because without God there aren't objective values, and that there are objective values (therefore, there is God), and that we need these. I was confused as to why we needed them. These thoughts also occurred when reading some selections of utilitarianism and Aristotle for my Introductions to Ethics class (yeah I'm still a newbie, ha). I like expressing whatever pops in my head on the topic, hopefully someone thinks there is something interesting to say about this or anything related.
