A friendly introduction to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics

[Amanojack]

@Graham Wright

I thought your position was that in theory there could be a satisfactory argument (proof) of objective ethics, but that AE is not it. But here you are making the stronger statement that objective ethics is an incoherent nation, i.e. that ethics is a subjective discipline like aesthetics.

No you’re right, strictly speaking I can only await a coherent definition of “objective ethics.” Both those words have a lot of definitions, and anyone could of course conceivably come up with a new one that allows the term to make sense.

Why do I say that value is subjective? Because value requires a valuer. To me, the noun value is derived from the verb value. I make this case in detail here. An excerpt:

The reason I find all value to be fundamentally subjective is that subjectivity is inherent in my interpretation of the word value itself. Why should you care how I interpret the word value? Because you just might interpret it in the same way. Stop me where we differ:

1. It seems to me that the noun value is just a nominalization of the verb to value. Just as we can’t have exploitation without an exploiter, I don’t see what it would even mean for there to be value without some entity doing the valuing. (Could be man, God, or anyone.)

2. Since I reject methodological collectivism (in both economics and philosophy in general), the entity doing the valuing has to be an individual, not a group. (Could still be God, any individual person, etc.)

3. Therefore the only way I see to interpret the noun value is to refer to some individual entity valuing something (the act of individual valuation).

4. The act of individual valuation of something is exactly what I mean by the term subjective valuation, A.K.A., subjective value. Hence, the only way I can see to interpret the noun value is as (automatically) “subjective value.” All value is subjective because all acts of valuation are subjective (that is, done by an individual, even if it is God doing the valuing).

All that said, I think it would be much clearer if we never used the word value as a noun, but instead substituted a word like valuing or valuation. That way, the connection to the verb “to value” would not be lost, and then - I think - anyone who adheres to methodological individualism would automatically understand the word valuation to refer to a subjective phenomenon (something an individual does).