Jump to content

User:Phlsph7/Value theory - Methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methods

[edit]

Value theorists employ various methods to conduct their inquiry, justify theories, and measure values. Intuitionists rely on intuitions to assess evaluative claims. In this context, an intuition is an immediate apprehension or understanding of a self-evident claim, meaning that its truth can be assessed without inferring it from another observation.[1] Value theorists often rely on thought experiments to gain this type of understanding. Thought experiments are imagined scenarios that exemplify philosophical problems. Philosophers use counterfactual reasoning to evaluate the possible consequences and gain insight into the underlying problem.[2] For example, philosopher Robert Nozick imagines an experience machine that can virtually simulate an ideal life. Based on his observation that people would not want to spend the rest of their lives in this pleasurable simulation, Nozick argues against the hedonist claim that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value. According to him, the thought experiment shows that the value of an authentic connection to reality is not reducible to pleasure.[3][a]

Phenomenologists provide a detailed first-person description of the experience of values. They closely examine emotional experiences, ranging from desire, interest, and preference to feelings in the form of love and hate. However, they do not limit their inquiry to these phenomena, asserting that values permeate experience at large.[5] A key aspect of the phenomenological method is to suspend preconceived ideas and judgments to understand the essence of experiences as they present themselves to consciousness.[6]

The analysis of concepts and ordinary language is another method of inquiry. By examining terms and sentences used to talk about values, value theorists aim to clarify their meanings, uncover crucial distinctions, and formulate arguments for and against axiological theories.[7] For example, a prominent dispute between naturalists and non-naturalists hinges on the conceptual analysis of the term good, in particular, whether its meaning can be analyzed through natural terms, like pleasure.[8][b]

In the social sciences, value theorists face the challenge of measuring the evaluative outlook of individuals and groups. Specifically, they aim to determine personal value hierarchies, for example, whether a subject gives more weight to truth than to moral goodness or beauty.[10] They distinguish between direct and indirect measurement methods. Direct methods involve asking people straightforward questions about what things they value and which value priorities they have. This approach assumes that people are aware of their evaluative outlook and able to articulate it accurately. Indirect methods do not share this assumption, asserting instead that values guide behavior and choices on an unconscious level. Consequently, they observe how people decide and act, seeking to infer the underlying value attitudes responsible for picking one course of action rather than another.[11]

Various catalogs or scales of values have been proposed to measure value priorities. The Rokeach Value Survey considers a total of 36 values divided into two groups: instrumental values, like honesty and capability, which serve as means to promote terminal values, such as freedom and family security. It asks participants to rank them based on their impact on the participants' lives, aiming to understand the relative importance assigned to each of them. The Schwartz Scale of Values is a modification of the Rokeach Value Survey that seeks to provide a more cross-cultural and universal assessment. It arranges the values in a circular manner to reflect that neighboring values are compatible with each other, such as tradition and security, while values on opposing sides may conflict with each other, such as tradition and self-direction.[12]

References

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Moore's isolation test is another influential thought experiment about intrinsic value.[4]
  2. ^ This problem is the main topic of Moore's controversial open question argument.[9]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
    • Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 109–113
    • Karp 2000, § The Rokeach tradition, § The Schwartz Scale of Values

Sources

[edit]
  • Powe, Neil A. (2007). Redesigning Environmental Valuation: Mixing Methods Within Stated Preference Techniques. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84720-711-1.
  • Laskowski, Nicholas; Finlay, Stephen (2017). "34. Conceptual Analysis in Metaethics". In McPherson, Tristram; Plunkett, David (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-81791-2.
  • Chrisman, Matthew (2016). What is this Thing Called Metaethics?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-315-43832-0.
  • Moritz, Manfred (1972). "Axiology and Analysis". In Kuypers, K. (ed.). Human Sciences and the Problem of Values / Les Sciences Humaines et le Problème des Valeurs. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-010-2424-2.
  • Staiti, Andrea (2020). "Reduction". In Santis, Daniele De; Hopkins, Burt C.; Majolino, Claudio (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-17042-9.
  • Smith, Joel. "Phenomenology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
  • Zaibert, Leo (2018). Rethinking Punishment. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-58261-2.
  • Hart, James G. (1997). "Introduction". In Hart, James G.; Embree, Lester (eds.). Phenomenology of Values and Valuing. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-017-2608-5.
  • Direk, Zeynep (2014). "Phenomenology and Ethics: From Value Theory to an Ethics of Responsibility:". Studia Phaenomenologica. 14. doi:10.5840/studphaen20141418.
  • Grünberg, Ludwig (1990). "The Phenomenology of Value and the Value of Phenomenology". In Tymieniecka, Anna-Teresa (ed.). The Moral Sense and its Foundational Significance: Self, Person, Historicity, Community: Phenomenological Praxeology and Psychiatry. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-009-0555-9.
  • Dabbagh, Hossein (2022). The Moral Epistemology of Intuitionism: Neuroethics and Seeming States. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-29758-6.
  • Stratton-Lake, Philip (2020). "Intuitionism in Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 14 September 2024.
  • Martin, Robert M. (2002). The Philosopher's Dictionary (3 ed.). Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-494-1.
  • Audi, Robert (2004). The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-2607-0.
  • Hiles, David R. (2008). "Axiology". In Given, Lisa M. (ed.). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods: A-L ; Vol. 2, M-Z Index. SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4129-4163-1.