by J.K. Gregg » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:10 am
So the problem here is you don't accept my premise that value has a solitary standard of measurement: a thing’s effect on one's own life. Even though I've shown that only life gives the concept of value meaning; that furthering one's life requires specific, reasoned action; that those actions are inextricably tied to reality and objectively determined based on the nature of our being.
You respond by saying that people may value things that do not have an effect on their lives. But, as I’m sure you know, I’m building a case that leaves no room for such “values.” The mere fact that someone “values” something that does not impact their lives does not invalidate my argument. Some people like sadism, mass-murder, racism, or bigotry. My argument is not designed to account for all variations of human behavior.
What I’m trying to do is build an argument from the ground up, based on pure facts observable by anyone, to show that to properly value something is to objectively determine its effects on one’s life.
I’m not sure where to even go from here.
Objectivist, IT professional, news junkie, geek, and husband. Formally known by Tetracide. I do the twitter @jk_gregg.
You're wrong until proven correct.