Do Atheist Value Objects? Most Do I Would Think.

[Solitary]

What are Values?

We can't properly discuss this issue without first understanding what we are supposed to be talking about: values. What does it mean to "value" something? To value something is to find it important, to regard it as having worth, or to find it preferable. Key in all of this is the presence of some being capable of valuing — a thing can only have "value" if it is "valued" by some being capable of having preferences and interests.

This means that the notion of "intrinsic" values is arguably incoherent because it suggests that a thing can have value independent of the existence or notice of beings which value it. If intrinsic value exists, then in theory a universe devoid of any life and without any gods could contain objects, systems, or events which have value. Does that really make much sense? Does a very old rock have intrinsic value? It doesn't have value unless people value it. Should it not be valued just because it is a rock without intrinsic value?   :-k  Solitary

[Aupmanyav]

Value is a subjective thing. I like aboriginal paintings, the taliban destroyed the Bamian Buddha.

[mykcob4]

What are Values?

We can't properly discuss this issue without first understanding what we are supposed to be talking about: values. What does it mean to "value" something? To value something is to find it important, to regard it as having worth, or to find it preferable. Key in all of this is the presence of some being capable of valuing — a thing can only have "value" if it is "valued" by some being capable of having preferences and interests.

This means that the notion of "intrinsic" values is arguably incoherent because it suggests that a thing can have value independent of the existence or notice of beings which value it. If intrinsic value exists, then in theory a universe devoid of any life and without any gods could contain objects, systems, or events which have value. Does that really make much sense? Does a very old rock have intrinsic value? It doesn't have value unless people value it. Should it not be valued just because it is a rock without intrinsic value?   :-k  Solitary

It is inherent that people, all people value things. Things are assets and assets are the security of life. Therefore people naturally place a value on things. Some even value those things more than anything else, nature, humanity, everything.
I don't need a god to have values. I value nature, life, humanity, honesty, integrity, things that are ideal. I do value things(assets), but my priorities are the ideal rather than the things.
Some value things so much that they value the status fo owning the things. I do not value status symbols.
I measure a person by their priorities and what they value most. For example, if someone values how much money they have or make, I discount them as superfiscial. If they value nature and people, I generally respect them. There in lies my politics as well.
For example I don't respect those that hunt very much. For one they hunt as a sport. They don't respect the life of the animal they hunt to kill it out of need instead of pleasure. They think that they have a right to fulfill their pleasure over the life of the animal they kill. Their priorities are screwed up. Their values are screwed up.
It is alright to seek pleasure but not at the cost that it is purposely destructive to anyone or anything.

[Solitary]

What are Values?

We can't properly discuss this issue without first understanding what we are supposed to be talking about: values. What does it mean to "value" something? To value something is to find it important, to regard it as having worth, or to find it preferable. Key in all of this is the presence of some being capable of valuing — a thing can only have "value" if it is "valued" by some being capable of having preferences and interests.

This means that the notion of "intrinsic" values is arguably incoherent because it suggests that a thing can have value independent of the existence or notice of beings which value it. If intrinsic value exists, then in theory a universe devoid of any life and without any gods could contain objects, systems, or events which have value. Does that really make much sense? Does a very old rock have intrinsic value? It doesn't have value unless people value it. Should it not be valued just because it is a rock without intrinsic value?   :-k  Solitary

It is inherent that people, all people value things. Things are assets and assets are the security of life. Therefore people naturally place a value on things. Some even value those things more than anything else, nature, humanity, everything.

I don't need a god to have values. I value nature, life, humanity, honesty, integrity, things that are ideal. I do value things(assets), but my priorities are the ideal rather than the things.
Some value things so much that they value the status fo owning the things. I do not value status symbols.

I measure a person by their priorities and what they value most. For example, if someone values how much money they have or make, I discount them as superfiscial. If they value nature and people, I generally respect them. There in lies my politics as well.

For example I don't respect those that hunt very much. For one they hunt as a sport. They don't respect the life of the animal they hunt to kill it out of need instead of pleasure. They think that they have a right to fulfill their pleasure over the life of the animal they kill. Their priorities are screwed up. Their values are screwed up.

It is alright to seek pleasure but not at the cost that it is purposely destructive to anyone or anything.

I agree! Good post! =D>  Why do I think I need to hide now?  8-[    Solitary

[Jmpty]

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not? Need anyone tell us these things?"

[mykcob4]

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not? Need anyone tell us these things?"

If someone needs to tell you what is and what is not good by the time you have become of age, then you have never reached adulthood.
There is such a thing as common good or that that the current society has deemed good. Even so there is eternal good which is not a religious thing, but good that is ever lasting that is good no matter the number that are in favor of it or not. The Constitution addresses such things like:
Self-determination
Freedom
This is what makes the Constitution of the United States such an imporatnt document.
It states that it cannot and shall not be able to fortell or rule on what is good or not, but by the very act that the Constitution exist allows us/we to make that determination as it arises. The Constitution exist to insure that ALL is good unless it is determined to not be good or specifically ruled upon to not be good.
Now one does not have to guge what is or is not good by the standard of the Constitution. After all the Constitution is a reflection of what we ourselves can  determine as moral, ethical, and or good.

[lumpymunk]

It is inherent that people, all people value things. Things are assets and assets are the security of life. Therefore people naturally place a value on things.

The value of things isn't "inherent" that is the explicit.  Inherent is that the standard of value is your life (without which no concept of "value" would even be possible).  People who spend their lives "making a living" (i.e., converting their life (time) into wealth and assets) is really the preservation and enrichment of your life.  When you forego consumption now to save and invest for later consumption, you're reallocating how life is "spent."

When you take care of the car you've purchased, you purchased that using an accumulation of time spent working to earn that car... so really the "value" is not on the car... but on the life you spent earning it.

Why life?  Because your life will come to an end at some point, making it a "scarce resource."  We all try to make the best use of it we can.

I don't need a god to have values.

Correct, in fact the concepts of "god" and "value" are incompatible.  Immortality and Omnipotence are incompatible with "value" because no alternative exists.  An Immortal wouldn't care how time is spent, because there is no limit to the amount of time that could be spent.

I measure a person by their priorities and what they value most. For example, if someone values how much money they have or make, I discount them as superfiscial.

I'll agree with you in most cases, but what is money?

http://dauthazbeechphagein.blogspot.com ... -from.html

For example I don't respect those that hunt very much. For one they hunt as a sport. They don't respect the life of the animal they hunt to kill it out of need instead of pleasure. They think that they have a right to fulfill their pleasure over the life of the animal they kill. Their priorities are screwed up. Their values are screwed up.

This is stereotyping.  Responsible hunters respect the country a great deal more than the city-dwellers that would pave it over in favor of "developing it."  You should be criticizing poachers, who do show the type of disregard for wildlife that you describe.  Most hunters believe in preservation, which is why they don't kill beyond the quotas... most don't even take the full quota... a single deer, a single turkey.

I would rather kill a wild turkey for Thanksgiving or Christmas than give one god damn dollar to those fucking Tyson foods warehouses where they deprive wildlife of an actual wild life.  You want to talk about respect for the environment?  Every time you go buy packaged lunch meat, burgers, chicken, eggs, jerky, and any of that processed genetically modified shit you're granting legitimacy to the companies that are truly behind disrespect of nature.

Leave the people who actually live in the country, and respect the environment, alone.

[PickelledEggs]

I rely on things for survival, so I guess I value those things in that way because they are necessities.

I rely on my house and heater to keep me warm in the winter so I don't freeze to death. If I didn't value that, I'd be dead from living outside with no heat or shelter.

[mykcob4]

It is inherent that people, all people value things. Things are assets and assets are the security of life. Therefore people naturally place a value on things.

The value of things isn't "inherent" that is the explicit.  Inherent is that the standard of value is your life (without which no concept of "value" would even be possible).  People who spend their lives "making a living" (i.e., converting their life (time) into wealth and assets) is really the preservation and enrichment of your life.  When you forego consumption now to save and invest for later consumption, you're reallocating how life is "spent."

When you take care of the car you've purchased, you purchased that using an accumulation of time spent working to earn that car... so really the "value" is not on the car... but on the life you spent earning it.

Why life?  Because your life will come to an end at some point, making it a "scarce resource."  We all try to make the best use of it we can.

I don't need a god to have values.

Correct, in fact the concepts of "god" and "value" are incompatible.  Immortality and Omnipotence are incompatible with "value" because no alternative exists.  An Immortal wouldn't care how time is spent, because there is no limit to the amount of time that could be spent.

I measure a person by their priorities and what they value most. For example, if someone values how much money they have or make, I discount them as superfiscial.

I'll agree with you in most cases, but what is money?

http://dauthazbeechphagein.blogspot.com ... -from.html

For example I don't respect those that hunt very much. For one they hunt as a sport. They don't respect the life of the animal they hunt to kill it out of need instead of pleasure. They think that they have a right to fulfill their pleasure over the life of the animal they kill. Their priorities are screwed up. Their values are screwed up.

This is stereotyping.  Responsible hunters respect the country a great deal more than the city-dwellers that would pave it over in favor of "developing it."  You should be criticizing poachers, who do show the type of disregard for wildlife that you describe.  Most hunters believe in preservation, which is why they don't kill beyond the quotas... most don't even take the full quota... a single deer, a single turkey.

I would rather kill a wild turkey for Thanksgiving or Christmas than give one god damn dollar to those fucking Tyson foods warehouses where they deprive wildlife of an actual wild life.  You want to talk about respect for the environment?  Every time you go buy packaged lunch meat, burgers, chicken, eggs, jerky, and any of that processed genetically modified shit you're granting legitimacy to the companies that are truly behind disrespect of nature.

Leave the people who actually live in the country, and respect the environment, alone.

You assume a great deal. You give labels to people that live in the city. The fact is that it is suburbia that is the greatest fault of destroying the environment, not the people of the city. But that isn't the point at all. Killing for pleasure as if it is a sport is what I don't respect. There is no need to hunt and saying it is morally correct just because someone wants to isn't valid either. Just because some hunters preserve areas of land doesn't mean that hunting is valid either. You can preserve land without hunting.
We can debate all day about corporate crimes concerning processing foods. It doesn't change the fact that hunting, i.e. killing for pleasure isn't morally correct. People don't even hunt anyway. What people do today isn't hunting. It isn't a contest. Deer leases with tame deer coming in each evening for their daily feeding of corn less than 50 yards from a man cave hunting blind. High powered scopes and highpowered rifles with lasar targeting. In my 22+ years in the USMC I have been in combat situations that you actually had to hunt down the enemy. And guess what? The enemy shoots back. Sure you can call in an airstrike if the situation meets the criteria and my side had an overwhelming advantage. Now take that same advantage and take away the defense of your enemy.....thats hunting nowadays. It's bullshit, and killing something just for fun is also bulkshit.

[Sal1981]

I value (pun intended) stuff that is measurable and repeatable more than any subjectively derived value. Reason being that stuff that you can measure has a strict defined value that everyone can agree on, whereas subjective values, e.g. if blue is a 'warm' colour or not, more often than not lead to conflict of interest/values.

Doesn't mean I don't have subjective values, just that they're secondary to measurable and repeatable ones.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I value (pun intended)

Nobody cares if your puns are intended. :P

[Sal1981]

I value (pun intended)

Nobody cares if your puns are intended. :P

Oh, that unoriginal and inflated ego has a jive with the pointing out of puns? Colour me unimpressed.