Subjective vs. Objective Value: The Economist and the Philosopher

Some people like rock music, and others like country. Some people prefer chocolate; others prefer strawberry. Economics calls value subjective to reflect these different tastes and preferences. Philosophy uses the term "value" objectively, to refer to things such as rights. Prof. Aeon J. Skoble shows how both conceptions of value are legitimate and, in fact, complement each other.

[MadPutz]

Thanks for the very clear definitions that are applicable in all fields of thought and life, not just libertarianism. Great stuff and good work dispelling myths about liberty.

[Sewblon]

Objective morality does not necessarily need to be based on the idea of rights. It can be based on the idea of duties. It can be based on the idea of utility. It can be based on the idea of virtue. There are many ways to argue that people should treat each other a certain way because it is an inclusive and generic conclusion. I don't mean inclusive and generic in a value judgment sense. I mean that there is no one ideology that has a monopoly on the idea of moral objectivity.

[ImAznnn]

@karozans Value can only be measured with respect to other values. E.g the value of 1 roll of yarn is the exact same as the value of 1 gram of gold because each takes the same amount of labour time to make (hypothetically speaking).
For labour, the value derives from the amount of labour time it requires to produce a human being (keeping the person alive as well as making sure a new generation of labourers is produced).

[akienzle]

@gergenheimer A. Just because a value is subjective doesn't not mean it is false. Subjective and false are not the same. Subjective and relative are closer. So fairness is relative. And by your same logic, freedom is also subjective. Freedom from government intrusion may make some people freer to pursue their own happiness, but freedom from government help makes many people less free to pursue their own happiness. "Subjective value" does not negate the ideologies you dislike.

[ImAznnn]

@karozans As I already stated to you, those two equal to one another in value because in this hypothetical situation the labour time required to make both is the same. The PRICE however of those 2 may be different.
We're not talking about who should get paid what. We're talking about how much value labour is worth. Your labour is worth the same as any other labour as there is no difference between types of labour. Again, the price however is different amongst different types of labour.

[LasNoches]

I completely agree, now lets move on to a harder subject: defining those objective values. Lately, it seem that the objective values are more subjective than we think

[Magicwillnz]

I wouldn't say profit is "evil". But there are specific and complex reasons why it's destabilizing to society, and conducive to worker exploitation. By focusing purely on consumer decisions, you lose sight that exactly the same product with the same price can have very different profit margins depending on the process of production, so it's unfair to argue the profit represents the "will" of the consumer.

[Magicwillnz]

@gergenheimer That's not actually the foundational argument of socialism, merely a caricature of it. The foundational argument is that labor is the only source of value in a competitive market. Competitive forces have a tendency to lower prices to the value of labor. Subjective demands cause price fluctuations and the allocation of resources, but over time they do not raise prices unless supply is restricted (i.e. by a monopoly). It's much more complex than that but it's not what you say it is.

[LasNoches]

@TheCapitalistdog the question if not to state whether these values exist, but to define them. Self-Ownership means many thing to many people. The best example of this is the contraception issue: insurance sees it beneficial to offer the service and most women want the service, but congress seems to have a different opinion on the basis of someone else's belief.

[ImAznnn]

@Slipknotyk06 SToV is not just about saved time. It's about all the personal preferences an individual has to take into account for him/her to put a worth on something.
You're right price isn't exactly the SToV. The only difference between SToV and price is that price is the average amount that any person will pay for a product.
Still that leaves us with value. You can ignore the fact that objective value exists but you can't deny its existence as every product can be deduced to labour time.

[hubbardjohnathan]

Entrepreneurship is a form of labor as well, representing both the effort of abstaining from consumption as well as the risk factor. Workers get paid in advance of profit and loss. Ownership of capital requires upkeep and decision-making that has real effects in the world, and this is a form of labor. The form of labor (abstract/concrete) is not what is important, it is what people are willing to pay for the product which determines the wages of workers in the field, which is important.

[ImAznnn]

@Slipknotyk06 As I said, the subjective theory of value is incorporated as he wrote much on price and how it deviates from value. Price is the subjective value in bourgeois terms
How can the two not be compatible with one another? Say if I buy a pair of nike shoes. The shoes itself does not possess much value as it is created out of a few dollars by sweatshop workers. The price however is very high.
If both price and value did not both exist, the capitalist would make absolutely no money

[tgmolitor]

Excellent explanation of the Mengerian subjective value theory and linking its relationship to an objective moral framework.

[normativeRandroid]

We can understand what economist mean but they are still using the concepts imprecisely. Different preferences for diff ppl can be a value but that doesn't make it subjective automatically. The chocolate vs. vanilla distinction is a question of "optional values" and these can be objective. What makes it objective vs. subjective is if there is a specific reason for that value in relation to your life. I'm going w/ the philosopher on this one.

[sanitydotorg]

2/2

If your position is one of mental health (as opposed to mindless collectivism), it actually takes the most number of assumptions to believe the official story since you would have to assume that all of the laws of physics were suspended so that 3 skyscrapers collapsed at free fall speed directly into the path of maximum resistance because of a few isolated fires that had mostly died out on their own.

[sanitydotorg]

? I'm not sure what you mean. The point I was trying to make is that an axiom is something very different from a maxim. Maybe I should have chose a less contentious example like this:

Occam's Razor states that the world is flat. I mean, I can look at it and see quite clearly that it is flat, so it takes an enormous amount of assumptions to assume otherwise.

[sanitydotorg]

"Maxim equates more to a rule of thought, like Occam's razor? "

Yes. Exactly. But O.R. is nothing but a blind assertion made from the position of personal prejudice. The simplest explanation can only be defined if you already start from a frame of reference (e.g. popular opinion). O.R. could be used to justify the idea that 911 was carried out by Osama since how could so many people be wrong? It could also do the opposite, since one must deny the laws of physics to support the official story

[gergenheimer]

@Magicwillnz incorrect. Labor is not a source of value at all. Value only exists in the human mind. Imagine that I'm walking in the forest and I find a shiny stone that i think is incredibly beautiful. Someone may offer to trade me a ring that took many hours of labor to create. It's easy to imagine that I may still value the stone more, even though I expended no labor to attain it. Conversely, if someone expends many hours of labor to create something nobody wants, it's value is zero.

[LasNoches]

@TheCapitalistdog yes. I believe that a person has the right to do as he/she sees fits, And adding that because everyone has this right, one's rights stops another's begin. But that line is where the problem is: most people want to impose their right, despite others's

[Magicwillnz]

Entrepreneurship can involve labor, but it is not labor itself. You can't know the "value" of an entrepreneur's labor by examining their income. Take Steve Jobs for example. He was clearly a very hard-working man, but would he have earned the same money if he made the exactly same decisions except as an employee and not an entrepreneur? So you can see that a lot of money is earned by virtue of position and not necessarily by job.