I wanted to see if there was a connection between objective/subjective value, and free will/determinism. The following is what I came up with:
Is value subjective or objective? If the goal is to describe human action, i.e. why good A is preferred by an individual over good B, then an objective theory of value should provide a way of calculating the values of goods A and B for an economic actor and say then that the actor will choose good A or B because of a higher value. However, doing so, or coming up with such a calculus, would mean that all actions entertained by an individual can be predetermined; i.e., that action is deterministic.
In sum, an objective theory of value implies determinism. Therefore, if free will is true, then we must have a subjective theory of value. That is that a person prefers and thus chooses good A compared to good B because of his individual preferences.
Thoughts?
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
A typical definition of "value" implies some mental process being necessary to reach it. In other words, a value is a result of a evaluative process. So if values were objective per se, then the processes by which they're reached will be necessarily present in every human mind. There would be no possibility whatsoever of reaching a different result, because there are literally no other results. Actually, because of that, there'd be no need for any process at all. Objective values would simply be sensed from outside.
Of course, the fact that every human mind is different in one or more ways (even if they all follow the same "blueprint") means that values don't exist outside of the mind. I think one of the reasons why people believe that values are objective is because they perceive the process of valuation as somehow being outside of their conscious thought. Also, people seek out certainty in the world around them. This can lead them to consider their own values as somehow being certain (after all, they "know" them).
If values were objective, then everyone would prefer good A over good B. There would be no difference in individual preferences.
Nevertheless, because I believe that the universe is entirely deterministic, I therefore believe that human behavior is ultimately deterministic. So how do I reconcile determinism with subjective valuation? I take into account the unimaginably large amount of information needed to calculate the state of a human being at some point in the future. Without taking into account all information, one can only speak in terms of probability, which provides no certainty at all. Hence, the concept of free will arises due to everyone's inability to calculate anyone else's (or even his own) future states.
In other words, free will is, strictly speaking, an illusion, but it's a useful illusion.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
This assumes that individuals are in completely identical situations. It may be entirely possible that good A is not preferred to good B in one case due to exogenous factors that would be included in the utility calculus of an objective value scale.
So how do I reconcile determinism with subjective valuation?
I feel I should iterate that I am making that claim that objective values implies determinism, and that free will implies subjective values (at the moment I can make no connection to the converses of those statements). I still admit the possibility that determinism implies subjective values. I think the point you make in this regards is very similar to the phenemona of organized complexity that Hayek brings up. And so to reiterate, I see no issue as of yet in having determinism and a subjective value scale.
Fephisto:This assumes that individuals are in completely identical situations. It may be entirely possible that good A is not preferred to good B in one case due to exogenous factors that would be included in the utility calculus of an objective value scale.
Good point. :)
Of course, the question is whether two individuals can ever be in completely identical situations. Strictly speaking, to be in completely identical situations, they'd have to be the same person. For one thing, this means they'd have to have exactly the same life experiences. But in order for them to have exactly the same life experiences, literally everything in the universe would have to be exactly the same for each of them. This means that each one would have to be in his own universe, with the two separate universes being completely identical to one another.
Fephisto:I feel I should iterate that I am making that claim that objective values implies determinism, and that free will implies subjective values (at the moment I can make no connection to the converses of those statements). I still admit the possibility that determinism implies subjective values. I think the point you make in this regards is very similar to the phenemona of organized complexity that Hayek brings up. And so to reiterate, I see no issue as of yet in having determinism and a subjective value scale.
Those two implications are backwards with respect to one another, aren't they? I think a stronger case would be for subjective values to imply free will (with the corollary that my definition for "free will" is used). You're right, of course, that determinism does not (necessarily) imply subjective values.
Anyway, I was just trying to bridge the gap between determinism and free will. My point was that one doesn't need a supernatural (e.g. mystical or spiritual) explanation for free will in the face of physical determinism.
To the first, right, I entirely agree.
To the second, I am taking the second implication to be the contrapositive of the first, so theoretically the two implications are equivalent. However, if your point is to bring up, which it seems like it is in some sense, that there are definitional issues in saying that the negation of objective value is subjective value and more importantly that the negation of determinism is free will; then I'd agree to that criticism.