Jump to content

User:Phlsph7/Value theory - History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

[edit]

The origin of value theory lies in the ancient period, with early reflections on the good life and the ends worth pursuing.[1] Socrates (c. 469–399 BCE)[2] identified the highest good as the right combination of knowledge, pleasure, and virtue, holding that active inquiry is associated with pleasure while knowledge of the good leads to virtuous action.[3] Plato (c. 428–347 BCE)[4] conceived the good as a universal and changeless idea. It is the highest form in his theory of forms, acting as the source of all other forms and the foundation of reality and knowledge.[5] Aristotle (384–322 BCE)[6] saw eudaimonia as the highest good and ultimate goal of human life. He understood eudaimonia as a form of happiness or flourishing achieved through the exercise of virtues in accordance with reason, leading to the full realization of human potential.[7] Epicurus (c. 341–271 BCE) proposed a nuanced egoistic hedonism, stating that personal pleasure is the greatest good while recommending moderation to avoid the negative effects of excessive desires and anxiety about the future.[8] According to the Stoics, a virtuous life following nature and reason is the highest good. They thought that self-mastery and rationality lead to a pleasant equanimity independent of external circumstances.[9] Influenced by Plato, Plotinus (c. 204/5–270 CE) held that the Good is the ultimate principle of reality from which everything emanates. For him, evil is not a distinct opposing principle but merely a deficiency or absence of being resulting from a missing connection to the Good.[10]

In ancient Indian philosophy, the idea that people are trapped in a cycle of rebirths arose around 600 BCE.[11] Many traditions adopted it, arguing that liberation from this cycle is the highest good.[12] Hindu philosophy distinguishes the four fundamental values of duty, economic wealth, sensory pleasure, and liberation.[13] Many Hindu schools of thought prioritize the value of liberation.[14] A similar outlook is found in ancient Buddhist philosophy, starting between the sixth and the fifth centuries BCE, where the cessation of suffering through the attainment of Nirvana is considered the ultimate goal.[15] In ancient China, Confucius (c. 551–479 BCE)[16] explored the role of self-cultivation in leading a virtuous life, viewing general benevolence towards humanity as the supreme virtue.[17] In comparing the highest virtue to water, Laozi (6th century BCE)[a] emphasized the importance of living in harmony with the natural order of the universe.[19]

Religious teachings influenced value theory in the medieval period. Early Christian thinkers, such as St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE),[20] adapted the theories of Plato and Plotinus into a religious framework. They identified God as the ultimate source of existence and goodness, seeing evil as a mere lack or privation of good.[21] Drawing on Aristotelianism, Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274 CE)[22] said that communion with the divine, achieved through a beatific vision of God, is the highest end of humans.[23] In Arabic–Persian philosophy, al-Farabi (c. 878–950 CE)[24] asserted that the supreme form of human perfection is an intellectual happiness, reachable in the afterlife by developing the intellect to its fullest potential.[25] Avicenna (980–1037 CE)[26] also regarded the intellect as the highest human faculty. He thought that a contemplative life prepares humans for the greatest good, which is only attained in the afterlife when humans are free from bodily distractions.[27] In Indian philosophy, Adi Shankara (c. 700–750 CE)[28] taught that liberation, the highest human end, is reached by realizing that the self is the same as ultimate reality encompassing all of existence.[29] In Chinese thought, the early neo-Confucian philosopher Han Yu (768–824) identified the sage as an ideal role model who, through self-cultivation, achieves personal integrity expressed in harmony between theory and action in daily life.[30]

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)[31] understood values as subjective phenomena that depend on a person's interests. He examined how the interests of individuals can be aggregated to guide political decisions.[32] David Hume (1711–1776)[33] agreed with Hobbes's subjectivism, exploring how values differ from objective facts.[34] Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)[35] asserted that the highest good is happiness in proportion to moral virtue. He emphasized the primacy of virtue by respecting the moral law and the inherent value of people, adding that moral virtue is ideally, but not always, accompanied by personal happiness.[36] Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)[37] and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)[38] formulated classical utilitarianism, combining a hedonist theory about value with a consequentialist theory about right action.[39] Hermann Lotze (1817–1881)[40] developed a philosophy of values, holding that values make the world meaningful as an ordered whole centered around goodness.[41] Influenced by Lotze, the neo-Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband (1848–1915)[42] understood philosophy as a theory of values, claiming that universal values determine the principles that all subjects should follow, including the norms of knowledge and action.[43] Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)[44] held that values are human creations. He criticized traditional values in general and Christian values in particular, calling for a revaluation of all values centered on life-affirmation, power, and excellence.[45]

Pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (1859–1952)[46] formulated an axiological naturalism. He distinguished values from value judgments, adding that the skill of correct value assessment must be learned through experience.[47][b] G. E. Moore (1873–1958)[49] developed and refined various axiological concepts, such as organic wholes and the contrast between intrinsic and extrinsic value. He defended non-naturalism about the nature of values and intuitionism about the knowledge of values.[50] W. D. Ross (1877–1971)[51] accepted and further elaborated on Moore's intuitionism, using it to formulate an axiological pluralism.[52][c] R. B. Perry (1876–1957)[54] and D. W. Prall (1886–1940)[55] articulated systematic theories of value based on the idea that values originate in affective states such as interest and liking.[56] Robert S. Hartman (1910–1973)[57] developed formal axiology, saying that values measure the level to which a thing embodies its ideal concept.[58] A. J. Ayer (1910–1989)[59] proposed anti-realism about values, arguing that value statements merely express the speaker's approval or disapproval.[60] A different type of anti-realism, formulated by J. L. Mackie (1917–1981),[61] asserts that all value assertions are false since no values exist.[62] G. H. von Wright (1916–2003)[63] provided a conceptual analysis of the term good by distinguishing different meanings or varieties of goodness, such as the technical goodness of a good driver and the hedonic goodness of a good meal.[64]

In continental philosophy, Franz Brentano (1838–1917)[65] formulated an early version of the fitting-attitude theory of value, saying that a thing is good if it is fitting to have a positive attitude towards it, such as love.[66] In the 1890s, his students Alexius Meinong (1853–1920)[67] and Christian von Ehrenfels (1859–1932)[68] conceived the idea of a general theory of values.[69] Edmund Husserl (1859–1938),[70] another of Brentano's students, developed phenomenology and applied this approach to the study of values.[71] Following Husserl's approach, Max Scheler (1874–1928) and Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950) each proposed a comprehensive system of axiological ethics.[72] Asserting that values have objective reality, they explored how different value types form a value hierarchy and examined the problems of value conflicts and right decisions from this hierarchical perspective.[73] Martin Heidegger (1889–1976)[74] criticized value theory, claiming that it rests on a mistaken metaphysical perspective by understanding values as aspects of things.[75] Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)[76] said that values do not exist by themselves but are actively created, emphasizing the role of human freedom, responsibility, and authenticity in the process.[77]

References

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ This period is given in traditional sources. Some contemporary scholars have suggested later dates or questioned whether there was a single person by that name.[18]
  2. ^ Clarence Irving Lewis (1883-1964) accepted and further elaborated many of Dewey's insights.[48]
  3. ^ Ross is primarily known for his deontological pluralism about different types of prima facie duties, which is related but not identical to his axiological pluralism about different types of values.[53]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^
  2. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 178
  3. ^
  4. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 156
  5. ^
  6. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 13
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^ Borgolte 2019, p. 97
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ Sharma 1999, p. 230
  15. ^ Wilson 2010
  16. ^ Littlejohn, § 1b. Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) of the Analects
  17. ^
  18. ^ Chan 2018, Lead section, § 2. Date and Authorship of the Laozi
  19. ^
  20. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 16
  21. ^
  22. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 185
  23. ^
  24. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 63
  25. ^ Germann 2021, § 2.1 Happiness and the afterlife
  26. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 19
  27. ^ McGinnis 2010, pp. 209–210
  28. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 175
  29. ^ Dalal 2021, Lead section
  30. ^
  31. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 88
  32. ^ Hardin 2009, p. [1]
  33. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 91
  34. ^
  35. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 105
  36. ^
  37. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 25
  38. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 132
  39. ^
  40. ^ Woodward 2015, p. i
  41. ^
  42. ^ Dafermos 2018, p. 20
  43. ^
    • Heis 2018, § 3.1 Conception of Philosophy: Philosophy as Theory of Value
    • Kinzel 2024, § 2. From Kant to the Philosophy of Values
    • Hiles 2008, p. 52
  44. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 144
  45. ^
  46. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 52
  47. ^
  48. ^ Hart 1971, pp. 37–38
  49. ^ Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 443
  50. ^
  51. ^ Kunnan 2020, p. 86
  52. ^
    • Mason 2023, § 1.1 Foundational and Non-foundational Pluralism
    • Simpson, Lead section, § 6. Ross’s Ethical Theory: Main Components and Principles
    • Findlay 1970, p. 2
  53. ^ Mason 2023, § 1.1 Foundational and Non-foundational Pluralism
  54. ^ Anderson 2013, p. 222
  55. ^ Townsend 2006, p. xvi
  56. ^
  57. ^ Edwards & Hartman 2023, p. 173
  58. ^
  59. ^ Tuboly 2021, p. 2
  60. ^ Hart 1971, pp. 34–35
  61. ^ Bunnin & Yu 2009, p. 406
  62. ^ Sayre-McCord 1988, pp. 11–12
  63. ^ Rosenkrantz & Hoffman 2011, p. 332
  64. ^
  65. ^ Kriegel 2018, pp. 2
  66. ^
  67. ^ Kuijper 2022, p. 298
  68. ^ Zimmer 2017, p. 135
  69. ^
  70. ^ Kuijper 2022, p. 298
  71. ^
  72. ^
  73. ^
  74. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 83
  75. ^
  76. ^ Dehsen 2013, p. 168
  77. ^

Sources

[edit]