Value is The Key

Okay, I need one more post before I can lay out my theory of morality that (I believe) is: (1) compatible with the idea that God created morality; and (2) compatible with the non-existence of God. Recall also that if there is a plausible account of morality that does not require the existence of God, (3) Plantinga's "the existence of evil proves the existence of God" argument is refuted.

I need to do a post on "value."

Let's start with the obvious question: "What is value?" Think about this for any length of time and you will be thinking in circles. Is value an independently existing thing - like "moral values" or "family values?" Is value something that attaches to other things? Is it a property of things, or ideas, or circumstances? Is it a phenomenon - and if so, what sort of phenomenon? Is it a medium - like time?

After thinking about this question for a considerable period of time (prior to practicing law, of course), I concluded that the best understanding of "value" is that it is a "measurement of importance." Putting my thesis in the form of an SAT answer, I am proposing that "value" is to "importance" as "temperature" is to "molecular activity." The more important a thing is, the more value it has. The more molecular activity there is, the greater the temperature. In both cases, the inverse is equally true.

The "measurement of importance" conception of value unites all things to which we apply the term "value." Economic or market value, moral value, instrumental value, intrinsic value, sentimental value, and so forth, all refer to ways in which things are important to us. Importance, as Plato would say, is the characteristic common to all instances of value. Importance is the characteristic or quality that makes all valuable things valuable. When we say that something is "valuable," we are, without exception, saying that it is important.

Importance, in other words, is the essence of value.

The conception of value as a "measurement" also comports with our conviction that the various kinds of value can be quantified and compared - not perfectly or with certainty, but meaningfully and rationally. It is completely natural for us to gauge the relative importance of various sorts of things (or considerations) and to prioritize their [acquisition, performance, realization], with respect to our assessment of their relative significance.

There are, of course, numerous complexities associated with the idea of "importance." We think people can be mistaken about what is important - which implies that importance is, in some sense or other, an objective matter. Importance is also an undoubtedly subjective feature of our existence - none of us ranks the importance of things identically (although there is considerable culturally based agreement regarding what sorts of things are generally more important than others). Our commitments, interests, and personal circumstances also vest various things with importance - there is nothing important about a T.V. show, but it is important to fans or regular viewers.

Putting all these complexities aside (for now - philosophers spend all their time on these questions and others like them), if we agree that "value" is a "measurement of importance," we have a basis for answering the most basic of moral questions, which is "how should one live?" The answer recommended by these premises is, we should strive to achieve the most value possible - we should act in a manner that accomplishes or respects or preserves or realizes what is most important, both in the long and short term.

Living morally is maximizing value realization. It involves figuring out what is truly important, both in the context in which one is currently acting, in one's particular life circumstances, and for human existence generally, and then acting to insure that what is truly important - or most valuable - is achieved or preserved or respected . . .

In my next post I will explain how the nature of our existence as volitional beings, in combination with the circumstances of our existence: (1) consign us to be value realizers - or moral agents; and (2) prescribe the content of morality. I will further explain how our existence as moral agents is compatible with God's setting the terms of morality and with God's non-existence. And if I do that, particularly the part about showing that the existence of morality does not require God's existence, I will have refuted Plantinga.

Okay - enough with the preliminary information. As they sing during the introduction to Loony Tunes, "On with the show this is it!"

Joe H.