How can we find value?

Higher principles of value

In looking at what is Value, we have seen that there are different accounts of whether intrinsic value resides inside or outside our minds, and that these can only be resolved through debate between the relevant belief systems. However, this does not mean that to find values we have to wait until this debate is resolved.

We already have a large number of firmly held value intuitions (firmly-held beliefs about what has value) which guide our actions and which are difficult for us to change. These values are generally about quite specific things or actions e.g. that it is wrong to kill or lie. I think that when we are looking for values, what we are generally looking for then are higher principles of value that can do two things:

• Provide a higher sense of purpose to our lives: many of our existing value intuitions provide our lives with meaning and purpose e.g. valuing our friendship, jobs or children. But research finds that people are happier when they have a source of purpose that encompasses their whole life (I will go into detail on the psychological needs for meaning in The Meaning of Life section of the website). So what we are looking for is something with intrinsic value that the whole of our life can connect to and gain meaning from. It must therefore also explain and justify our existing value intuitions, which are an important part of our lives.

• Help guide our actions: we may have come across situations where our existing values are silent or in conflict. For instance, I would like guidance on whether to be vegetarian or not. Society at large is in need of ethical principles to help guide decisions about the use of bio-technology. And in the future we may need ethical help in judging whether intelligent computers have value.

Finding higher principles of value

So how can we go about finding these higher principles of value? Hume’s Law means that for any value statement to be justified, it has to be justified by another value statement. This chain of value statements cannot go on for ever, and so sooner or later we will come to a value statement that is not justified and which we just have to believe. Let’s call this a basic value assumption. It may be the same as the principle(s) of value, or it may help to justify it. For instance, for the Christian the basic value assumption may be that ‘Whatever is created has a moral obligation to obey its creator’s commands’. This can then be used to justify the value principle that ‘obeying God’s commands has value’. In my attempt to outline Nietzsche’s belief system, it is ‘For human’s to have intrinsic value they must be unique in the universe’ that is the basic value assumption. This is then used to justify the value principle that ‘To have intrinsic value humans must actualise their potential for self-perfection’.

So how do we decide which value statement to accept? Truth is not relevant because we are not interested here in the accurate prediction of sense experiences. I think the answer is simply ‘the one that is most rational for us to adopt given our reasons for seeking higher principles of value’ i.e. the one that is most useful. If my above account of our reasons for seeking higher principles of value is correct, then we can say that a value statement is rationally justified if it is or supports a value principle that is:

• Logically consistent with one's belief system: if we are to believe the value principle then it has to fit in with our other beliefs. For instance, if you an atheist, the value principle ‘obeying God’s commands has value’ is not going to work!

• Able to answer ethical questions that we want guidance for: these will include both those questions that our value intuitions already provide answers to, and any questions we have that our values currently do not help us with. For instance, easy questions like ‘is it wrong to murder?’ as well as more difficult ones like ‘is it wrong to eat meat?’ or ‘is abortion wrong?’.

• Able to explain and justify our value intuitions: this can be identified by whether it answers the ethical questions in the same way as our existing value intuitions.

Now in practice it is unlikely that any value principle will be able to fully meet all three requirements. This is not necessarily a problem since there may be good reasons for relaxing each of the requirements. In the case of requirement a), if the value principle is so useful in providing purpose and guidance to your life, it may cause you to change your wider belief system. For instance, an atheist may convert to Christianity because it gives him a greater sense of purpose. In the case of requirement b), it may be unreasonable to expect the value principle to answer all your ethical questions. And with requirement c), it may be that some of your existing value intuitions are wrong and that in the face of such a powerful principle you find yourself willing to adjust them.

In case no value principle is able to fully meet all three requirements, the most rational procedure is therefore as follows. Firstly, select the value principle that meets them most closely (where you decide the relative importance of the requirements). Secondly, adjust both the requirements and the value principle if necessary to achieve fully consistency. The resulting consistency is called a reflective equilibrium.

As you go through life, each of the three requirements may change, thereby disturbing the equilibrium: your beliefs may change; you may have new ethical questions; and your value intuitions may change. In which case you will need to repeat the procedure to find equilibrium again.

For a tool to assist you in finding a suitable value principle, see Value System Analysis.