After considering the significance of value, in the axiological sense, I have arrived at an unexpected conclusion. For something to have value, that object must first be referenced in some conceptual framework. No object innately possesses the qualities “good” or “bad,” that object can only be good or bad for something in a correlative framework. An example of this would be to consider a rock. Is a rock good or bad? Well, some rocks are good for building, but this is only because there is an established framework with certain criteria concerning what qualifies as good building material. Without specifying any intended use, or some framework with which it can be referenced, the rock is not good or bad, right or wrong, it just is. This theory may seem inconsequential, but there are deeper and clearly significant repercussions when applied to other metaphysical subjects. For example, if something cannot have value outside of some conceptual framework, then there is no objective or absolute moral right and wrong. For an action to be considered a morally good action, that action must be good for someone or something.
It's true to assert that no object innately possesses the qualities “good” or “bad,” but it's less accurate to say there is no objective or absolute moral right and wrong. Let me demonstrate using your example:
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that a rock can't be measured as valuable or non-valuable intrinsically. This is accurate. There must be a scale to measure against, like building material quality. Once you have this scale, a measurement becomes possible.
An action, as you say, also cannot be measured as valuable or non-valuable intrinsically. Like the rock, however, with something to measure against, like a moral code, it also becomes measurable.
The accuracy of that action's measured value then becomes dependent on the accuracy of the moral code. Likewise, the accuracy of the rock's measured value becomes dependent on the accuracy of the building material quality definitions.
To summarize: Given a sufficiently accurate moral code, morality is a framework within which actions have value.
The point that you bring up is really the direction that I am trying to go with this. Modern philosophy is trying to establish an absolute and objective morality, one that is without or above any framework. While I understand the quest for knowledge of any kind for the sake of knowing, I question the use functional of such knowledge. Morality without framework, if such a thing could exist, would be meaningless. What is lacking is a sufficiently accurate moral code, one that is universally applicable, by which morality can be measured.
ReplyDelete