I do not know much history, but it is clear that we in the West live in an age of moral nihilism. The inconvenient shackles of religion have largely been cast off. Its objective assertions have made way for objective assertions of subjectivity. Bad knowledge has been rejected in favor of no knowledge at all. The slate has been wiped clean.
Now that the broken value system of religion has been overthrown, we can rebuild the notion of objective value in a rational way.
The necessity of an objective value system
This is necessary because even nihilists are not nihilists. In daily life, all of us avoid pain and seek pleasure every step of the way. You know, as if these were somehow valuable. We value laws against things like rape and murder because they probably help us avoid that which we value negatively. Rapists and murderers are no significant exceptions to this; in the worst case they might disagree on this or that law.
Given that we necessarily act based on some implicit value equation in daily life, is there any reason this value equation should be different from the more explicit, philosophically justified one we intellectually accept? Is it defensible to flesh out a coherent worldview and accompanying value equation, and then throw it all to the wind when it actually comes down to making decisions, basing them on some separate value equation you actually use instead?
For example, I have a drinking habit which makes it hard for me to do that which my philosophical value equation tells me I should do. My daily-life equation evidently says it is good to go get drunk, or I would not feel a desire to do so. But I should work toward influencing my daily-life equation so that eventually it matches my philosophical equation.
In other words, we should let our everyday lives be guided by rationality, not by the whims of our biology. Nature has revealed its true colors beyond doubt: it does not work in sentient life’s interests. I think that to defend a difference between your philosophical value equation and the equation you “actually use” is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
So, an objective value system is necessary, and the best one we can come up with should be honored.
An objective value system
Nihilism appears to be right in that there is nothing of objective value. But this is mere wordplay. Since value is subjective, there would be no value at all if it weren’t for sentient life (the subjects). We can construct a notion of objective value based on their subjective values.
By definition, negative sensations are subjectively valued negatively, and positive sensations are subjectively valued positively.
“Earwax tastes good” is subjectively true or false, but “I think earwax tastes good” is objectively true or false. If I think earwax tastes good, me tasting earwax is objectively good. (Obviously, this should be seen as an isolated case.)
Thus, a subject’s experience of negative sensations should be objectively valued negatively, and a subject’s experience of positive sensations should be objectively valued positively.
Implications
Evidently, objective value exists: I have described it to you.
To reject it, you must either show that there is no need for an objective value system, or that the proposed system is worse than some alternative (given the need for an objective value system).
To accept it, you must recognize that you do not live solely for yourself. (This does not mean you have to go out of your way to step over every bug you would otherwise crush. This is where value equations come in.)
Notes
I have handwaved my way across some things here, such as what exactly a value equation might look like, and how complicated decisions can be made in a practical way on the basis of the value system described. These are not really the point of this post, but I intend to write about them in the future.
The system described is, as far as I know, just utilitarianism, and the usual criticisms apply. The point of this post is to show that we are obliged to establish, improve and discard in favor of superior alternatives an objective value system in the same way we do this for scientific theories, and that we should honor the value system established in this way.
Anyone interested in such a promisingly sane future should visit No Bad Memes, the author of which intends to set up a small community based on this and similar ideas (in order to avoid having to wait for popular opinion to change for the better).
2011-04-12 at 12:38:13 |
This was great.
I will use it as inspiration to write.
Thank you.
2011-04-12 at 12:39:32 |
This was great.
I will use it as inspiration to write my own stuff.
Thank you.
2011-04-14 at 08:27:54 |
Thanks for the plug. I’ve been meaning to comment on more blogs lately anyway in order to get a sense of who’s who and what the future for this direction might hold, but when there are only four or five blogs other than mine that touch on the topics, it can be tough!
“I think that to defend a difference between your philosophical value equation and the equation you ‘actually use’ is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.”
It’s interesting how commonly people throw around names of “formal” fallacies, as though it automatically lends credence to their arguments, but when informed that the appeal to nature is, in fact, a formal fallacy like any other, they recoil in surprise. I think the naturalistic fallacy — or at least the fact that there’s an entire Wikipedia article about it and how widely supported its logic is — would be a good meme for antinatalists to get a hold of for their arguments; I definitely don’t see it enough. A quick “That’s just the way the world works? Are you aware that that’s a form of sophistry on par with non sequiturs and begging the question?” every now and then would suffice.
Also, when someone’s practiced value equation contradicts their ideal value equation (because they don’t have practical ideals), that’s cognitive dissonance on top of an appeal to nature, which makes it even worse than one or the other by itself.
On the end of religion bit, just today I was thinking about how we seem to have replaced our old gods with human gods. Ostentatious displays have moved from grand Baroque cathedrals to pop concerts with confetti and outrageous outfits. When “atheists” claim that they don’t worship anything, they’re usually concealing the fact that they’ve more or less implicitly agreed to worship each other. It really is incredible how so many people talk about their inspirations.