Oh I agree it’s difficult to determine if there is objective value in any case – and if so, what exactly it is ( though it is still a worthwhile question – it is difficult to empirically investigate a range of queries or experiences e.g. concerning the supposed supernatural, the possibility of life after death, and so on, but it is conceivably possible, and the answer potentially holds great reward. )
To clarify the question, we may have to ask, is there really ever any objective ‘meaning’ or ‘value’ ( something that exists, like a real ‘object’, completely independent of human beings and their contexts )? – or is it always subjective ( completely dependent on the human ‘subject’ in any given case who is perceiving and (de)valerising perceived elements of the universe )?
I find it helpful to put it this way : if language were to reflect reality accurately, should ‘value’ always be a verb – something only expressed as a function of a human subject ( e.g. “right now I value tables ‘cos I wanna eat (a biological input) and in my culture we only eat sitting at a table (a cultural input).” ) Or can ‘value’ sometimes accurately be used as a noun – something objective and essentially fixed, not dynamic and variable, indeed entirely dependent on, a human subject ( e.g. many faith systems teach that it is just wrong to commit murder etc. – this assertion may be claimed to be a logical truth in the light of the character of God, i.e. evil is that which is not in line with the character of God, but it seems to me such systems may always end up requiring people to accept that eventually there are certain moral values which are essentially statically true, period, relying on faith or trust in e.g. the existence of God and his/her/its nature. )
This is NOT an abstract question. For example, America and other Western nations say they believe in objective human rights and the value of the human person without distinction. Do our belief systems here essentially line up with reality – or not? In life “red in tooth and claw” such questions can rise to become the proverbial horns of dilemma, questions that shape our character and perhaps worth, questions that lead logically to decisions of life and death – others or our own. Think of the examples of ‘selfishness’ vs. ‘sacrifice’ witnessed in W.W. II. Are such terms even objectively meaningful? I remember death camp survivor Viktor Frankl’s comment in ‘Man’s Search For Meaning’ that those who survived lived in the consciousness that some of the best of them (who would not compromise and steal to survive, or whatever) did NOT survive – they were among the first to die, at least in part due to their principles. Was such death in reality no different in moral value to the choice of abandoning all principle and abusing others for selfish gain (as some did), because there are no real (i.e. objective) moral values? What are we to make of it all? How are we to live?
Look, folks, I really encourage you to add worthwhile content to this discussion. In a medium that is so full of flash-in-the-pan entertainment of dubious lasting value, the answer to ‘The Big Questions’ stand out as one of the few things really worth spending time and effort investigating in an objective manner. Even to put it on merely selfish terms, many popular faith systems seem to claim that the state of one’s eternal soul depends on our ‘enlightenment’ and right response to metaphysical truth. And, hey, while I don’t pretend that after thousands upon thousands of years of human history with signs of religo-spiritual activity without conclusive logic/evidence for any purported answer to ‘The Big Questions’ we can expect to be the first ones to hit paydirt, we all contribute to a pool of learning that may one day help us see sense.
While the end truth may be simple, and may be able to be simply expressed, this subject requires a large book to systematically describe the branches of possible models and arguments and systematically prune ‘em on the basis of best available logic and empirical evidence, and focus on what stands. I should say that since first posting this question I’ve seen further models, with sometimes subtle differences, to possibly explain the metaphysical state of thing; so my input on this thread for now only reflects particular aspects of this question that have come to mind at particular times.
A FINAL NOTE:
In my own life I desire and seek to uphold the law and moral principles that are and have been near-universal among all our human communities throughout history; law at its best is an (imperfect) attempt to describe principles reflective of generally agreed feelings of justice and conscience etc., but where legal and moral ‘law’ are clearly in conflict, like heroic human and religious leaders like Christian Dietrich Boenhoeffer, living under the oppression of the Nazi system, I seek to stand for my best understanding of what is good, fair, just and right. By honestly admitting the difficulty in empirically ‘proving’ the existence of objective meaning, value/s and hence morality, I do not wish to encourage others to doubt or act against valid law and morality in any way. Just because we cannot prove something using particular tools and methodologies, does not mean it is not real and true. Further, just because I cannot prove to you I exist, does not mean I should abandon my acceptance of my existence – such a step could likely cause harm to myself and others. In the same way, just because I cannot prove whether my conscience (which may, significantly, at core agree with universal conscience, whatever it’s ultimate origin) corresponds with independent metaphysical reality (well, such a reality would be difficult for materialistic science to test in any case) – does not mean that my conscience is wrong, that it does not relate, perceive, sense, react to something real and true. For the good of one’s self (perhaps one’s ‘soul/spirit’ – if such exist) and the good of others, we should do ‘the right thing’; at the very least at a psychological and physical level, thinking e.g. fantasizing / speaking / acting against what we deep down sense is morally right holds a potentially damaging transformative cost. Look at the psychology – indeed, physiology, habitual body language, including facial expression and so forth, and habits of speech, action and human relation etc. – of ‘hardened’ criminals as individuals and communities. Do we want to be like that? *Let’s continue seeking to do what is agreed to be lawful and right without ceasing our open-eyed pursuit of truth in all areas of human experience.
(I should note that so-called ‘universals’ in Linguistics, the Science of all Language, and my field of training, are highly valued because they are empirically helpful in modelling an underlying or universal linguistic system for human beings, even if one believes we can never actually observe and define the actual linguistic system itself. But in some cases ‘universals’ are in reality ‘near-universals’ – there are statistically uncommon exceptions (this will not surprise some scientists). This does not mean it is not truthful, or at least useful, to consider and treat such prevalent patterns as ‘universals’; the exceptions may be atypical ‘marked’ examples conditioned by particular factors.
I think the same may hold of morality : for example, perhaps healthy adult homo sapiens basically share a set of experienced ‘moral principles’ we may discuss via terms like ‘conscience’, ‘guilt’ etc. – whether or not our experience reflects metaphysical reality.
One aspect of this ‘conscience’ may be expressed so : “It is wrong for a human being to kill another human being” – a principle prevalent in most major religions, to my knowledge, with admittedly significant apparent breaches or exceptions within various systems. Now, I know there are complexities here, but I think we may reduce or eliminate apparent exceptions e.g. by understanding the trauma, perhaps guilt, of survivors of even defensive wars like W.W. II, which on balance are necessary or a lesser evil in an imperfect universe, by understanding that this felt ‘law’ is still in operation even when one has to kill another human being supporting or participating in the commission of worse evil. Think of the trauma of some people working in the apparatus of Death Row; they must ‘know’ that some of the people they help execute are guilty of hideous crimes – but to what extent does this knowledge effectively diminish the impact of their own actions on their mental health etc.?
So, to return to our experience of the murder prohibition, for whatever reason/s it exists, I would suggest that the sanctioned killing of other human beings in some groups etc. (usually weaker groups) in some cultures may be the result of special factors in those societies – which very well may, admittedly, need to include the possibility of free will, with or without net motivation.
For example, I may suggest that human beings could be wired genetically to experience killing other human beings as ‘evil’, that most culture reinforces this felt prohibition in various ways, but that this experience of ‘morality’ can be suppressed, repressed and even abolished through the ‘searing’ of conscience in the case of physical or psychological ill-health or damage and/or strong/repetitive conditioning contexts such as culture – even to the extent of things like cruel cannibalism (a general taboo in itself) or a large-scale sociopathic Hitler being possible. The license to severely punish women for perceived sexual offences in various religious traditions, as today in some Moslem traditions, may be atypical or marked situations generated by a complex of factors and forces which may be explicated, but in the end operate in opposition to this basic shared morality we are talking about (which may explain why some perpetrators of what many Westerners and others would describe as injustice can break down and experience sometimes severe guilt and remorse – with the golden potential for repentance and rehabilitation – for the crimes they have done; and how victims of injustice, such as some women in some Moslem countries, can feel a sense of what they may call ‘natural human’ outrage at injustice in what they see and experience. ‘Natural justice’ is an interesting thought/word in itself.)
Composing members:
0
