Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- value_judgement [2025/08/14 10:05] – ultracomfy
+++ value_judgement [2025/08/28 20:45] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 </WRAP>
-A value judgement is essentially an argument based on a [[personal preference]] opinion in a debate that requires a stronger argumentation than just personal preference.
+A value judgement is an opinion derived from a belief system. Pointing something out as a "value judgement" often implies that either the statement in question was either inappropriate in the context (because in some situations a mere opinion is not enough, for example in a debate), that an opinion was not //needed// in the context, or that the underlying belief system leading to that opinion is flawed. Importantly, it's a value //judgement// because it is finite. In the line of thinking, the judgement is always the end result and all consideration ends along with it. In the context of a conversation, this is often premature.
-For example, personal preference is enough to justify the statement "red cars look like shit". While opinions may vary, everyone's opinion here will be based on personal preference. **However**, to say "red cars should be banned from the roads", it is not enough to say "red cars look like shit".
+====== Value Judgements in modern Philosophy ======
+In real philosophy, value judgements are discrete, finite evaluations of things under an ethical system. It is about the ability of ethical systems to categorize things as //good// or //bad//, and these ethical systems can be used to judge the ethical **value** of //all// things. Example, my ethical system dictates that gay sex is a good thing. My ethical system is based on human pleasure, sex between two gay people has a net positive effect on them and society as a whole, therefore it is //good//.\\
-Here, that same statement is now a value judgement where personal preference is used to justify an action/a policy for which personal preference is //not enough// justification((See [[Personal Preference]] for more on that.)).
+Well, not quite, actually. To be nitpicky, [[Utilitarianism]] doesn't really care about //gay sex//. In the eyes of utilitarianism, gay sex is just a means to an end. Gay sex is a means towards pleasure, and it is that pleasure which this ethical system cares about. This is why utilitarianists can distinguish between consentual gay sex which does lead to pleasure, and unconsentual gay sex which leads to immeasurable suffering. The conclusion - like everything else, nothing is inherently good or bad, and gay sex is no exception.\\
+\\
+Compare and contrast to Christianity, which proposes its own ethical system based on the [[Bible]]. The [[maxim]] here is "make god happy", so using those values you will invariable come to make the judgement that gay sex is undeniably //bad// (because it makes god angry/sad/whatever).\\
+\\
+[[Virtue ethics|Virtue ethicists]] may point at self-restraint as one of their maxims, so they may consider gay sex a good thing when you do it sparingly. Virtue ethicists will not make a distinction between gay or hetero sex, as long as you do both of them with restraint. (Honestly I have no clue what virtue ethicists would say about sex, but I can say with confidence it would include a lot of big, positive-sounding words like "charitability" which, after a long discussion, would boil down to just very confused utilitarianism.)