[net.philosophy] ethics, values, and valuers

tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (05/12/85)

Migrating into net.philosophy (random glitch willing):

>From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
>When you refer to 'An ethically subjective approach to
>values', I initially take that to entail a notion that values
>have no existence EXCEPT to the valuer.  What you may mean to say is that
>values do not have an existence INDEPENDENT of the valuer. [...]
>If you
>say that no values exist independent of the valuer, then you say that there
>is no objective code of priorities -- no objective code of ethics.

(The adverb "ethically" would have been misleading if I had intended the
first interpretation.)  The conclusion is a non sequitur; the observer of
the valuer (at least in this case) is a valuer (of a specific kind) as well.

					David Hudson

schwrtze@csd2.UUCP (Eric Schwartz group) (05/14/85)

	The sample passage in the base note concludes:

	A. "If you say that no values exist independent of the valuer,
then you say that there is no objective code of ... ethics."
	
	The conclusion is objected to:

	B. "The observer of the valuer (at least in this case) is a valuer (of
a specific kind) as well."
apparently on the grounds the conclusion does not follow.

	If it were true that: "If Z is a valuer then Z is also a value", then
B. would follow.
	However, since the distinction between valuers and values is 
relevant, A. follows.

						Bill Light