Value

The word "Value" is used by philosophers in many different context, without definition. I have asked many schools of values for the definition that guides their activities and not received a single coherent reply. Can you help me?

Comments

At the turn of the last century, G.E. Moore famously argued that the word "good" can'tbe defined. Goodness, according to Moore, is simple and (hence) undefinable.The same might be true of the word "value" and its cognates.

Of course, there are some definitions that promise to be relatively uncontroversial. We mightsay, for example, that something is valuable if, and only if, it is worth pursuing or promoting. Alternatively, we might say that something is valuable if, and only if, we have a reason to pursue or promote it. Both of these definitions are at least prima facieplausible, but they are also rather uninformative. By asserting that "xis valuable" means the same as "x is worth pursuing," we have merelysubstituted one phrase in need of definition for another. That is, the terms "worth" and "reason" seem to be just as mysterious asthe word they are supposed to replace: "valuable."

This suggests that we need to look for a more substantive definition. Moore, however, claimed that more substantive definitions of the word"good" all fail for a simple reason: it remains an "open question" whetherthe property named in the definition really is good. For example, suppose I assert that "x is good for A" means the same as "A desires x." Moore's observation was that this definition cannot be correct, since we can intelligibly ask whether what A desires really is good for A.Yet if "x is good for A" just meant the same as "A desires x," thiswould not be an open or intelligible question at all. That is, it wouldbe as unintelligible as asking whether all bachelors really areunmarried.

The upshot of all this is that your search for a definition of the word "value" may be vain.

Read another response by Matthew Silverstein

Read another response about Value