value wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 5:52 am
No, value is assigned
meaning, the result of 'the act of valuing' or signification. A number in mathematics or physics is value, for example.
Well, you're using a term, "value," whose meaning you don't understand (or have re-defined) and then attempting to define it using another term, "meaning," whose meaning you also don't understand. Assigning a value to something has nothing to do with any "meanings." Meanings
are the referents of words, signs, symbols, etc. The term is not applicable to value assignments. Value
is term for quantifying the strength or priority order of someone's desire for something. It also has another meaning, where it denotes a numerical quantity or a substitution instance for some variable ("The value of pi
is 3.1416 . . ."). You seem to be confounding those two meanings above.
The slightest departure from pure randomness implies value.
Value to whom? Which sense of "value" are you using there? Randomness has nothing to do with value, in either sense, and certainly doesn't imply it. That claim of yours is incoherent. Propositions asserting "value," BTW, in the strength-of-desire sense, requires that a valuer be specified in order to be meaningful. If they don't they will be non-cognitive (lacking any determinable truth value).
GE Morton wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 11:52 am
Moreover, "moral valuing" is a confused concept. It confuses deontology (theories of moral rules) with axiology (theories of value). A morality is a set of rules governing human conduct. "Valuing" is the act of assigning a value to something, i.e., expressing or exhibiting a desire for it.
A 'set of rules' is ethics (which belongs to politics) and not morality. Morality is found in the process
of denoting good and bad (an eternal quest for 'good' with value
as a result).
Ethics and morality are one and the same thing (in the history of philosophy). And, no, morality is not "the process of denoting good and bad." It is a set of principles and rules governing human behavior. "Good" and "bad" are terms for indicating our approval or disapproval of something, or denoting our belief that something is harmful or beneficial. We may deem a human behavior "bad" if we disapprove of it, or deem it to be harmful. And what is this "eternal quest for good"? Whose quest is that? And if that "quest" were successful, what would be found?
That process of morality requires a potential . . .
Morality is not a "process" of any kind (see definition above), though the effort to develop
a set of rules governing human behavior may be a process, of course. And (as I said before) the only way we have of knowing whether any X has a potential for producing Y is our past experience with X. Also, any claim that for an existing X "there was a potential for X" would be an truism, and thus uninformative.
Rights for Nature would provide a basis for the potential for moral consideration on behalf of animals and eco-systems.
Those would be legal rights, which may or may not be morally defensible.
What would you say that the difference is between morality and ethics?
In the history of moral philosophy there is none; the terms are interchangeable. In common speech there is some difference, with "ethics" denoting various codified sets of rules governing a particular activity ("legal ethics," "medical ethics," etc.).
As mentioned to @Pattern-chaser, morality would be a concept applicable to a human context while its fundamental nature (the act of valuing or signification) would correspond with what would lay at the root of the cosmos and thus conscious experience.
Well, there is that "word salad" again. The "fundamental nature" of morality is the "nature" I gave above. "Metaphysicians" constantly make claims about the "fundamental nature" of this or that, which claims are totally baseless and usually presume some sort of "transcendental reality" inaccessible to observation, thus rendering those claims unfalsifiable and unconfirmable --- i.e., vacuous. Likewise with any claims regarding what may lie at the "root of the cosmos." What lies at the "root" of conscious experience is a certain type of physical nervous system.
The recognition of patterns necessarily involves the act of valuing. This would be evidence.
That is another misuse of terms. Pattern recognition has nothing whatever to do with values, or valuing.