Talk:Value theory

message: This is a good wide-ranging discussion, and a useful accompaniment to the article on "Goodness". I enjoyed reading it. your father
No, I think that needs to be seriously reconsidered (vid. infra.)
--djenner 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unstructured

message: It errs in missing the entire, extremely involved discussion of values and value-hierarchies of the first quarter of the 20th century, especially associated with Max Scheler (the article on whom is equally defective).
Scheler articulates a very involved concept of values arising in feelings of preference, which are then organized in hierarchies, in turn constituting totalities.  Interesting as this perhaps was within the context of phenomenological psychology, its extension into politics was just a disaster.
This article needs major revisions, therefore.  It needs (1) to get into a discussion of the history of value theory, (2) the connection between values, value-hierarchies and value-totalities with evaluative consciousness and (3) a discussion of the problems this can present when extended in less than careful, extramural ways.
Absent the revisions (which requires both more time and greater scholarship than I possess), I think it might be appropriate to withdraw the article or flag it as inadequate.
--djenner 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is simply mistaken: Max Scheler missing 

message: This article needs much more philosophy in it.  Important contributors to the philosophical discussion of value are Nicolai Hartmann, C. I. Lewis, Max Scheler, Ralph Barton Perry, G. E. Moore, Franz Brentano, H. P. Grice, J. L. Mackie, David Wiggins, W. D. Ross and so on. KSchutte 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of philosophy 

message: This article seems to ignore the entire contribution of analytical philosophy to the Theory of Value.  For instance:  The fundamental theorem of the Theory of Value states that every value system must start with at least one arbitrary value assignment.
I support this statement 87.78.204.129 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article seems to ignore the entire contribution of analytical philosophy to the Theory of Value.  

message: To add  to the criticism, and not do anything about it, there is a section titled "axiology" but no mention of the term in the discussion. Sholto Maud 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. They're not the same. "Axiology" is an outmoded version of Value Theory, which contains a broader and more scientific range of study than the former. In philosophy, many -ology terms are attempts to answer "why" rather than "how" and I'd prefer to keep traditional attitudes away from contemporary ones. Thanks.- Thrif (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Axiology

message: I agree, also, there is a merge proposed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axiology ; The pages should be merged, as they are codependent and axiology been a crucial aspect of Value Theory, and in some contexts, sinonymous. There is an interesting text about the subject; "But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/ Lunatic0br (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. They're not the same. "Axiology" is an outmoded version of Value Theory, which contains a broader and more scientific range of study than the former. In philosophy, many -ology terms are attempts to answer "why" rather than "how" and I'd prefer to keep traditional attitudes away from contemporary ones. Thanks.- Thrif (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Request

message: It must be pointed out that the section regarding Economic Value addresses neoclassical or subjective theories of value. This is in contrast with classical or intrinsic theories of value (eg, labor theory of value). The value of "goods" are vastly different between these theories of value.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.206.201 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: I find this article fails to adress a most basic background question on the use of "value", that is, the place of the notion that values compare or should compare along a common 1-dimensional scale. I wanted to know whether or not this is a common-sense default when a US English speaker talks of values, and the article doesn't help imo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.131.106 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparability 

message: I have almost finished a proposal for rewriting this article.  The tentative lede is attached.  Responses welcome.
Value theory encompasses all efforts to explain the human practice of judging worth.  The noun “value” comes from the Latin verb valere, to be worth.(Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary unabridged 1986. value 3a:“relative worth, utility, or importance: degree of excellence: status in a scale of preferences”)  This effort was important for ancient Greek philosophers, who called it axiology or ethics.  The noun “axiology” comes from the Greek noun axios,  worth.(axiology: the theory or study of values, primarily of intrinsic values (as those in ethics, aesthetics, and religion) but also of instrumental values (as those in economics)…”
“Value” is both a verb and a noun.  As a noun, it is often treated as a synonym of “worth:” a value is a thing judged worthy.  As a verb, it requires identifying the criterion by which things are judged worthy, such as the utilitarian criterion of want satisfaction and the instrumental criterion of operational efficiency.  To avoid confusing the practice of judging with a result of judging, some scholars reserve the noun “value” for the criterion of judgment,  and name the result a “valuation” rather than a “value.” Robin Williams, Am Society:400; Foster in Tool; Koehler, Place of value, 31. Title 	American society : a sociological interpretation, by Robin M. Williams, Jr
 The place of value in a world of facts / by Wolfgang Köhler New York : Liveright Publishing Corporation, [©1938]$
This article provides three representative examples of modern value theory.  It starts with the theory of Immanuel Kant, famous for his categorical imperative.  Next, it examines the theory of Max Weber, famous for his analysis of intrinsic or absolute value .  Finally it reports the theory of John Dewey, famous for his analysis of extrinsic or instrumental value.  
For a discussion of modern philosophers’ distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value, see Zimmerman, Michael J., "Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/>.  For modern studies of value in sociology, see Norm (social)  and Value (personal and cultural).  For value theory in economics, see Value (economics), Intrinsic theory of value, and Theory of value (economics).TBR-qed (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seek feedback on proposed rewrite. 

message: Jennifer Cutbill has recently added a new sub-section named "Relational value", which I removed afterwards with the reasons given in the edit summary. She has responded on her talk page with the text:
Dear @phlsph7 - I appreciate you taking the time to add your comments in response to the subsection I added to the 'Value Theory' page yesterday (March 6th PST). I am curious to know more about your specific concerns and how they might best be remedied. I have reviewed the guidelines link you referenced but do not see any lack of compliance.
I have reinstated the revisions in the interim - so that others have the opportunity to add their insights and collaboratively upgrade the content - but I also look forward to better understanding your positions so that this content can be upgraded with the benefit of your insights also.
My reply is as follows: One problem with the current proposal is that it includes various unnecessary external links in the body of the article. This problem is easily solved by removing the links. Another problem is that some of the information is only marginally relevant, like all the titles of Dr. Kai Chan. Just using "Dr. Kai Chan" should be sufficient if his name appears in reference anyways.
It seems to me that this section gives undue weight to this specific position in value theory. I had a look: the Stanford encyclopedia article on value theory doesn't mention "relational value" and the Oxford handbook of value theory doesn't include "relational value" in its index. One way to address this problem is to cut down the size of this section, for example by removing the 2nd paragraph and removing the mentions of IPBES. I would also remove the reference to the "dominant capitalism paradigms". Phlsph7 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Relational value