Ramblings

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Please contact the website administrator if you believe this to be in error.
~~Title:Value Judgement~~
<WRAP column right 18%>
{{page>Templates:Philosophy}}
</WRAP>
<WRAP centeralign>Philosophy/\\
<fs xx-large>Value Judgement</fs></WRAP>\\
<WRAP box>
<WRAP centeralign group>
<WRAP 5% rightalign column>
<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
</WRAP>
<WRAP 80% column>
Well now that's a value judgement.
</WRAP>
<WRAP 5% leftalign column>
<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
</WRAP>
</WRAP>
</WRAP>

A value judgement is an opinion derived from a belief system. Pointing something out as a "value judgement" often implies that either the statement in question was either inappropriate in the context (because in some situations a mere opinion is not enough, for example in a debate), that an opinion was not //needed// in the context, or that the underlying belief system leading to that opinion is flawed. A value judgement categorizes something as "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", which is often problematic. Most conversations aren't talking about this((More often than not a conversation is meant to talk about //why// a thing is right or wrong, not //that it is//.)) and with the depth of the conversation, such a judgement is often too one- or two-dimensional to be reasonably useful in a discussion. For example, I can say that [[salad]] is "disgusting", which judges salad as a value, but this has no bearing on how we should actually think about salad (healthy).

====== Value Judgements in modern Philosophy ======
In real philosophy, value judgements are discrete, finite evaluations of things under an ethical system. It is about the ability of ethical systems to categorize things as //good// or //bad//, and these ethical systems can be used to judge the ethical **value** of //all// things. Example, my ethical system dictates that gay sex is a good thing. My ethical system is based on human pleasure, sex between two gay people has a net positive effect on them and society as a whole, therefore it is //good//.\\
Well, not quite, actually. To be nitpicky, [[Utilitarianism]] doesn't really care about //gay sex//. In the eyes of utilitarianism, gay sex is just a means to an end. Gay sex is a means towards pleasure, and it is that pleasure which this ethical system cares about. This is why utilitarianists can distinguish between consentual gay sex which does lead to pleasure, and unconsentual gay sex which leads to immeasurable suffering. The conclusion - like everything else, nothing is inherently good or bad, and gay sex is no exception.\\
\\
Compare and contrast to Christianity, which proposes its own ethical system based on the [[Bible]]. The [[maxim]] here is "make god happy", so using those values you will invariable come to make the judgement that gay sex is undeniably //bad// (because it makes god angry/sad/whatever).\\
\\
[[Virtue ethics|Virtue ethicists]] may point at self-restraint as one of their maxims, so they may consider gay sex a good thing when you do it sparingly. Virtue ethicists will not make a distinction between gay or hetero sex, as long as you do both of them with restraint. (Honestly I have no clue what virtue ethicists would say about sex, but I can say with confidence it would include a lot of big, positive-sounding words like "charitability" which, after a long discussion, would boil down to just very confused utilitarianism.)