Some pre-SPC Thoughts on Value

Just to get the proverbial ball rolling, here is a little bit on the nature of “value” for your consideration. If you like this and totally agree, or hate it and want to argue, or if it even sparks the merest passing interest, I invite you, dear reader, to join Philosophia Religioque one week from now, next Thursday night, February 11 for the Student Philosophy Colloquium!
So just to be fun, I want to present something perhaps extreme here. Many may think that, if presented the questions “What is ‘value’? What makes something ‘valuable’?” an answer like, “I think the concept of value is purely subjective,” would be a little controversial to say, that most people really believe and put great stock in, say, the value of their savings account. That to say that it is just a figment of your imagination, and that money is just green paper, would be a novel concept –– maybe not for us educated folk, but the others out there, wouldn’t they have some qualm with the notion that all value is subjective? I do not believe that it is necessarily the case. I think there are not a large amount of people who truly believe otherwise. Most will work within the system in any case, but relatively few have deluded themselves into thinking the numbers comprising their brokerage account translate into “real,” objectively quantifiable value. In our long and glorified American tradition, individualism and liberty (and plurality) of thought and belief is nothing new to us. Personalization, distinctiveness, and independence is common to our very nature. It is not surprising then that we think that “value” is as subjective a notion as religion, truth, and beauty, etc. It is not surprising for one to consider that “value” is what I make of it, or what society makes of it. “Man is the measure of all things” and we can say what is valuable and how much; it is also common to hear something analogous to a quote from Hamlet: “There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.” There is nothing valuable but thinking makes it so; value is in the eye of the beholder. Opinions make up the value of an object–– it’s all subjective.
Well, I want to shy away from that, for I think it’s much more exciting to do something less common and widely accepted. Instead of going the “value is objective” route, however, I will argue that “value” is non-existent, and hopefully you’ll see how this is different from it’s being considered subjective. Saying the proposition that “value is purely subjective” is not enough; I would deny inherent value entirely. That phrase itself, “inherent value,” doesn’t, in my opinion, even make sense. Nothing is valuable in and of itself –– there is nothing intrinsic to something called “value” that would exist in the fabric or quintessence of the thing. If we think of everything as having a platonic form, what is essential to that form, what is its essence, has nothing to do with some quantifiable “value.” That is completely apart from an object, like the form of a bottle of water, or from a concept, like the form of justice. “Value” is an empty idea that doesn’t really refer to anything. It is not something revealed or recognized, because it is not there to begin with.
This is different than saying that value is subjective, that we assign a value to some thing, or person, or idea, or action based on context and circumstance, based on its scarcity or our wants or needs. When we’re thirsty and then drink some water, someone might say that the water was very “valuable” to me then, because I was thirsty and I needed it. And because it was valued that specific amount at that specific time, but will surely not be the same for someone who is not thirsty, or even to you after your thirst is satisfied, value must be subjective or relative. And indeed we could say that even people could have a sort of quantifiable value – You value your best friend more than a complete stranger. What you mean is that you value what they mean to you, what they do for you and your life, and how they’ve influenced you or provided for you. People can make us happy, make life a better place, and some, will mean more than others. Does that mean that, because your value is subjective to my feelings or proximity to you, that you, maybe my enemy, as a person actually have less value based on my perception, that your value has more to do with others than with you yourself?
Making “value” subjective is like putting everything on a scale or, better, on a number line, so that it is a continuous measurement that could be positive, negative, or zero. I could say that, to me, this apple is z amount, whereas the color blue is this, and playing a game of tennis is that. But I cannot conceive of things having this idea of “value,” so that even if z amount is zero, it still by some strange way “has” this strange thing called “value.” In what way does it “have” it? Value is instead better thought of as nonexistent and neutral, which is not to say a numerical zero. There is again no thing we call “value” in the essence of something; it is just used in such a way in our language as to give the appearance that all things in space and time, and including space and time (“time is money,” right?), “have” it and that we can assign it to objects, actions, and ideas, like some other adjective like “dark,” “big,” or “just.” It is used as to give the appearance of what is in reality nonexistent, but still, this is a useful illusion we use. We can make normative claims as to what should be valued, and to what extent. It may be a needed term for society to function expediently and well, within a single society itself or in relation to others.
If a car x is worth a cost y to me, we’re using the idea of “value” primarily in reference to a monetary number, but can keep in mind the worth of transportation or good feelings of independence and whatnot, too, and add that in the calculation. What does that ultimate price represent? Maybe a sum of cash. And what is that? I’m no economist, but I guess money is supposed to be representative of other, concrete precious things. And what are they? A bar of gold is so valued not because of its color or use as a paper weight, but for its scarcity on the earth. It is rare; and so is each individual person, so we say they’re “invaluable.” But let’s say we really bought into the idea that gold was very valuable. Well, just for a quaint example, for believers of the Christian faith, in heaven gold is the new asphalt, that’s what the streets are paved with. And you can ask Midas or Silas Marner (major cool points to you if you actually know that allusion) what the real “value” of gold is. It seems an endless series of “valuables” to quantify everything: from an object to a person’s opinion to dollar sign to an amount of gold or some other resource to… what?
There is, ultimately, nothing inherent in something that makes it valuable. The idea of “value” does not refer to anything in existence that is anything more than an appearance we assign to things, actions, ideas, and people in our language and thought. If I am in some other universe where I experience the essence of a thing, and I do not see it per say, so that it is not beautiful or ugly, and I do not have any sense of feeling, so that it is not pleasant or painful, there just is the essence of the object by itself without any other use or context for it, there would simple not be a “value” that I’d experience (or give it), because value does not exist. If you were to experience a tree, say, in its essential form, apart from your own senses, and I asked you, “What is the inherent darkness of the tree?” You couldn’t answer. So too do things lack some notion of “inherent value,” if I asked you the “value” of that tree, because it does not exist. There is neither darkness nor value to it. That sole essence of an object does not even have a “value” of zero, but no value whatsoever.
What do you think? If this has been at all enjoyable or thought-provoking, I invite you to let those thoughts marinate for the next week, and then come and join us for the SPC on Thursday, February 11. Hope to see you!