1973. In Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Carl F.H. Henry, ed. Washington D.C.: Canon Press. [Reprinted in 1988 by Baker Book House.] Values
VALUES. Value theory or axiology is a general theory based
on the assumption that aesthetic value, moral value, political value, and
(consistently) physical value or health, are all species of one genus.
A distinction must be made. The criteria for judging a work
of art, the criteria of good health, and the criteria of moral action are not
plausibly species of one genus. How often have we heard the aesthetics decry
moral norms in art! On the other hand, a combination of health, wealth, morality,
and art may define the good life. In this sense Aristotle’s ethics is axiology,
for his good life has the proper proportion of each. However, this is not
axiology in the modern sense of making every value a species of an inclusive
genus.
As a distinct modern movement axiology first came to notice
in the non-realist school of Brentano and Meinong. Values as well as chairs and
tables exist independently of consciousness. Green exists in a chair; good
exists in a proposition. Whether or not minds exist or bodies exist, the proposition
“a diseased appendix ought to be removed” is a good proposition. But one
wonders whether a proposition can exist without a mind or an appendix without a
body.
Meinong was followed by Scheler and Husserl. In America axiology
was popularized by Ralph Barton Perry, John Dewey (though not a realist), S. C.
Pepper, and others. C. I. Lewis uses the term value in a narrow sense
and approximates Aristotle by subsuming axiology under ethics; but most make
ethics a subdivision of axiology. In some cases a good amount (or is it a bad amount)
of pedantic linguistics is mixed in.
Neo-realism seems to imply a theory of valuation that is
both cognitive and empirical. Absolute idealism and Calvinism are both
cognitive, but not empirical. The emotive theories of A. J. Ayer, Charles L.
Stevenson, et al, are empirical, but non-cognitive. These latter make valuation
arbitrary and irrational, and remove it from the sphere of discussion. Ayer and
Satre are good examples.
The great difficulty with the cognitive, empirical view is
its empiricism. Appendectomies, lies, and wars are as natural as plants and
planets. None of them comes with a tag saying, “I am valuable.” And example is
the war in Viet Nam from 1962. The American effort was widely denounced as
immoral and bad. But the denouncers think that riot, arson, murder, and treason
are moral and good. Anti-communists hold a different view. The difficulty is
how to determine by empirical observation which view is right.
The same difficulty occurs in music. Some people value Bach,
Beethoven, and Brahms; but others prefer ear-drum-splitting rock.
Empiricism is incapable of establishing norms. Perry may say
that “any object, whatever is may be, acquires value when any interest,
whatever it be, is taken in it.” But this may make heroin as valuable as, or
even more valuable than chocolate ice cream. To avoid this embarrassment, Perry
tries to show how one value is better than another. The better value is the one
that harmonizes many interests. But though this definition complicates the
observation, it is of no help to empiricism. There could be several harmonies,
each of ten different values. How then shall we choose one from among them? Or,
again, one harmonious combination might integrate five values, while a second
includes twenty. But could not a life of five values be better than a life of
twenty? The example of drug addiction prevents the theory from advocating a
highest value that includes all. Therefore observation cannot decide among
combinations; empiricism justifies no ought.
Various empiricists have tried to defend their theory
against this charge. But there can be no value in their arguments because it is
always and everywhere fallacious to insert into the conclusion a concept that
nowhere appears in the premises. The observational statement, X values rock,
does not imply that X ought to value rock, that Y and Z should value rock, or
that Back and Brahms are disvalues. If the rock example is not convincing, try
heroin.
Brand Blanshard, Reason and Goodness, London, 1961;
John Dewey, Theory of Valuation, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1959;
R. B. Perry, Realms of Value, Cambridge, Mass. 1954, Westport, Conn.,
Greenwood, 1968.
Gordon H. Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment