"In what I highlighted above, what I am understanding is that you are saying that your own personal life is of greatest value. This is the subjective value from facts about the world."
Well, the existence of the valuer needs to be at the bottom of the valuers hierarchy of values. The valuer’s existence is essential to any value that he might hold. This is an objective fact so it is not merely a subjective value. As I have shared with Metacrock, I think the term “subjective” is confusing since all judgments made by the subject are subjective but some of them also comport with reality and so they are objective as well. A belief can be merely subjective, or it can be objective as well, in which case it is more essential to say that it is objective. And you say,
I guess one could say that it is an objective fact that homo sapiens need to be alive in the first place in order to have values. But this does not therefore equate that an individual homo sapiens needs to maintain its existence in order to be coherent with his hierarchy of values, for he may value something, someone, or be principled to valuing humans in general, even if at the cost of his own life.
The cost to his own life is used by me to easily highlight a hierarchy of values.
Just as the term “subjective” is often confusing, the term “atheist” is even more so. We are all atheists with respect to all the notions of God that contradict our own. In this sense, all of us are atheists
I could have said materialist as that is what I meant for atheist. My point here was to highlight someone not believing in life after death, or God of any kind, and yet having a system of values in which the greatest value was not simply himself but to a higher principle or value.
Take the value of freedom. Freedom means nothing to a rock. Freedom means nothing to a corps either. But it is very essential to a life worth living. This is objectively true.
I am not sure this is objectively true that freedom is essential to a life worth living. I think a life worth living is a subjective evaluation.
The point I’m wanting you to get is that freedom is only a value to subjects who are living. Once I am a corps, it is of no value to me in the least.
The point I’m wanting you to get is that freedom is only a value to subjects who are living. Once I am a corps, it is of no value to me in the least. If I die so that you can be free, your freedom has no value to me in the least. If I die and the whole world becomes free, it still has no value to me in the least because corpses do not hold values of any kind. Now, I don’t think you disagree that my freedom is an objective value that I ought to hold. And, I don’t think you disagree that my life is an even deeper objective value that I ought to hold. But please demonstrate why the life and freedom of another ought to be of greater value to me than my own?
You have argued that freedom, love and value of any kind become incoherent once the valuer ceases to exist (quoted just below this paragraph). What I highlighted above is to point out that I am not exactly arguing that others lives are worth more, but questioning why your life is of the greatest value, in regards to how I am understanding your points.
".......freedom is essential to a life worth living, but it is not a value at all if you the valuer are not around to experience it. As such it cannot trump the life of the valuer. Once the valuer ceases to exist, freedom, love, value of any kind become incoherent. The existence of the valuer is at bottom of any value chain (whether the valuer grasps this fact of reality or not)......"
I was saying that within a value system which puts oneself as the greatest value, that it is logical that one's values become incoherent
when existence ceases. That valuer valued himself to the greatest degree, he is now non-existent and the thing he valued, is gone too.
But, I argued, that in a value system which values the other, dying for freedom, or for the love of others, are values which are actually coherent
to that value system. A person with this value system can live and die a "life worth living and dying for", for what he valued was to a higher principle. In other words it is much more harmonious.
You have stated above that one must exist to value. It is the human choice of what to value as far as I can see. To choose the will to the good of the other, and to die (or live) with such values, or at least have such a tendency even if small, seems more coherent to me. This does not therefore equate to one necessarily being abused without care to yourself either, but that you live and die, with the idea of a principle of higher worth and last, than ones own life. I do not think this disvalues the valuer but brings more meaning and so value.
Whereas, taking oneself to be the greatest value, one must live with the knowledge of incoherency.
Where does the basis for such a claim come from? If you say love (not to put words in your mouth), this doesn’t help at all because love is the emotional response that we often have for things that we value and it says nothing to say that the reason we should value another more than oneself is because of our emotional response to value.
How is placing one's life as the greatest value objective and not emotional? How can one not be emotional about holding oneself as the basis of value?
And even if we everyone took one's own life as the greatest value than we'd all be subjectively holding our lives as the greatest value.
It seems to me, that it is more objective, in the sense of being more impartial, to expand one's values, and I imagine one would then find higher principles and have the ideal of applying them fairly and trying to live by them.
This quote below, articulates, why I am saying that how I understand what you are saying, is that you, or everyone, ought
to have themselves as the ultimate value
from that fact that, "our nature as an organism to prefer to live and thrive".
A value system such as this does not in include that one ought to value each person. It is each person having themself as the greatest value.
.......In terms of value, since nothing will be of value to me if I no longer exist, I need to maintain my existence in order to make value of any kind coherent in any sense..........