# When is an object deemed valuable?



## Abu Bishr

Hi Guys

In recent discussions on the forum people debated the question of whether or not life is valuable or even sacred (whether appropriated by religionists or non-religionists)? This prompted me to ask what makes an object valuable? Is the value of an object something intrinsic to that object or is it something conferred onto it by a subject (whether that subject is an individual person, or group of people, or a spuernatural being, or other reasons? For example, what makes the following valuable:

(1) gold, silver, diamonds, & other precious stones
(2) paper money
(3) certain art works (e.g. paintings)
(4) antique collections
(5) life (by those who hold it to be valuable and even sacred)
(6) endangered species of animals and plants
(7) water
and so on.

At the same time when does something lose its value, and becomes cheap and valueless?


----------



## Brioche

Essentially, the value of an object is what _somebody_ is prepared to pay for it. It's just a case of finding that somebody.

I see "art works" that supposedly are worth millions of dollars, but for which I would not give 2 cents. For me, they are worthless.

A bucket of water is more valuable to a thirsty man in the middle of the desert than to a fisherman in the middle of Lake Baikal.


----------



## maxiogee

Rarity has a lot to do with value - the less likely one is to come across an example, the more valuable it will be - both to the individual and to 'society'.


----------



## Abu Bishr

maxiogee said:


> Rarity has a lot to do with value - the less likely one is to come across an example, the more valuable it will be - both to the individual and to 'society'.


 
... and what about the rare object's quality? I remember having read an article about someone owning a valuable painting, and as he was exhibiting it to a selected audience, he accidentally knocked his elbow into it, causing a tear the size of coin, and immediately the item decreased in value.


----------



## maxiogee

Abu Bishr said:


> ... and what about the rare object's quality? I remember having read an article about someone owning a valuable painting, and as he was exhibiting it to a selected audience, he accidentally knocked his elbow into it, causing a tear the size of coin, and immediately the item decreased in value.




Do not be confused between the 'value' and the 'price' of something.

The tear lowered the price the man might get if he sold it, but it was still a painting by XY and was, to him, still worth what he had paid for it.

Art is a strange area in which to discuss value as so often the intrinsic value of the item is so much less than the market price. Price here more often reflects the determination of two or more bidders to own an item. That determination and their resultant bids would dwindle like the morning fog if the experts suddenly determined that it was not painted by XY after all, but by a student in XY's atelier whom none have since heard of. The piece of art hasn't changed, so it's value can't have changed. What has changed is its apparent desirability.


----------



## Abu Bishr

I'm not confusing between artistic value and price value, as the artistic value generally has to do with beauty of the object which, in this case, was marred. What's a beautiful and exquisite vase if cracked or smashed into pieces. Perfect beauty in an object (if we maintain the objectivity view of beauty) is unblemished beauty and beauty free of defects. Beauty for Aristotle, if I remember correctly, had to do inter alia with an object's symmetry, and this quality of symmetry would be diminished if the object of beauty was marred and scarred. Needless to say Aristotle's is just one in many theories attempting to explain what an artistic object has its aesthetic value attributed to.

Finally, I think attaching a monetory value to a valuable object is one way of quantifying its actual value (whether it be intrinsic, subjective or even instrumental) and the price will increase or decrease depending on whether the actual value is increasing or decreasing.

Another point to consider in this regard, is that when Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa it was certainly the only painting of the Mona Lisa at the time (i.e. it was rare in a certain way) but because it lacked a certain aura which surrounds an object as time passes, it suggests that rarity is not a sufficient quality for an object to be valuable, at least not an artistic object.


----------



## .   1

What makes life valuable to Abu Bishr?

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

Brioche said:


> Essentially, the value of an object is what _somebody_ is prepared to pay for it.


I very much like this all-encompassing definition. 

We need to interpret _pay_ as _give or swap_. The _somebody_ part makes it easy to realise that value is a personal estimation and not of general meaning. 

Of course, what somebody might give for a certain object, in turn depends on why and how urgent he needs it. This again easily leads to rarity, quality, uniqueness or usage.

Kajjo


----------



## karuna

Kajjo said:


> Essentially, the value of an object is what _somebody_ is prepared to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> I very much like this all-encompassing definition.
> 
> We need to interpret _pay_ as _give or swap_. The _somebody_ part makes it easy to realise that value is a personal estimation and not of general meaning.
Click to expand...


That would be only the definition that is used in the economics but it is very  difficult to apply it outside this field. For example, how valuable is your sister's smile? Ok, not a good example because it is not an object, but then how valuable is the sun? Or moon that we can see in the sky, or even air that we breath. In most cases it is meaningless or extremely difficult to apply monetary value to these things yet it cannot be denied that they have great inherit value. The same is about human life that sometimes, as in court proceeding etc., is equalled to a certain amount of money, which really doesn't say anything about how valuable that person's life is to all involved persons.


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> Rarity has a lot to do with value - the less likely one is to come across an example, the more valuable it will be - both to the individual and to 'society'.



This however accounts only for the supply side of the equation; for something to be valuable, there has to be demand, too.  Many things are as rare as anything can be and yet possess little or no value.


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> This however accounts only for the supply side of the equation; for something to be valuable, there has to be demand, too.  Many things are as rare as anything can be and yet possess little or no value.



The other side of the equation is catered for in "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". One can substitute whatever word one finds most suitable for 'beauty' when it comes to ascribing 'value'.


----------



## danielfranco

I wonder if a discussion on this precise point was included in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (_Kritik der reinen Vernunft_). I hardly read any of it. Just selected passages. More like quotations, really. Actually, more like crib-notes...
Anyway, Kant was basically asking if some things were not intrinsic and absolute, like morals. Are they _a priori_?
Some people (like David Hume) didn't think so.
Me, I don't know. Is it really only a matter of opinion (personal or society's) what determines the value of things? Even of lives? Are some things valuable beyond any human reckoning?
It's difficult to give a straight answer. I just don't know...


----------



## Abu Bishr

. said:


> What makes life valuable to Abu Bishr?
> 
> .,,


 
I'm not sure how to take this question, but I'll nevertheless attempt an answer (trying my best to keep religion out of it).

What makes life (intrinsically) valuable to me are all the *positive* qualities associated with being alive as opposed to being dead. These qualities include: vibrancy, dynamism, growth (on all levels), creativity, innovation, exploration, discovery, unravelling mysteries, achievement, adventure, realizing my human potential, pursuing my dreams, loving, caring, making the most of life, dealing with Life's challenges in a way that makes me stronger (i.e. if Life throws a lemon at you, then take the lemon and make it into lemonade), etc. This, in my view, makes life worth living and valuable in and of itself. As Socrates once suggested: "An unexamined life is not a life worth living", which, for me, means that a life full of exploration (self- or otherwise) is a worthy and valuable life. Also, have you ever heard the expression "somebody wasting his life"? Well, I think it has to do with the above (or the lack thereof).

At the same time we all value (human) life because everyone has a right to live by virtue of him / her being a human being, and by having that right makes his / her life valuable such that it demands protection in the form of legislation and so on. This right to live, however, often conflicts with the right to autonomy and self-(de)termination which is held by many as just as valuable and invioble a right as the right to live, if not more. This, however, is another debate to which threads on euthenasia, assisted suicide, abortion, etc. have been dedicated.

I also believe life to hold instrumental and contributive value in terms of the valuable roles people play in the lives of others and in the community. My teacher and professor's lives have instrumental value in my life, since their efforts are a means for me to (inter alia) enhance myself mentally, intellectually and academically. The contributive value of life lies in the (positive) contributions that the lives of certain people have in society whether on a small or large scale.


----------



## Bonjules

So it may be better, then, for the purposes of this erudite discussion, to stick to material things....

There, as Brioche pointed out so succinctly, the answer is fairly easy:
One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

Or look at it from this angle: When we are all roasting away in our home-made little oven in a few years, these pink diamonds will become very cheap.
Everybody will be able to afford one! Now that will be true equality.

Sorry to point out that the the title of this thread merely reveals
an old banality: Everything is relative ( speaking of the material realm, of course).


----------



## maxiogee

Bonjules said:


> So it may be better, then, for the purposes of this erudite discussion, to stick to material things....
> 
> There, as Brioche pointed out so succinctly, the answer is fairly easy:
> One man's garbage is another man's treasure.


 
I'm not so sure that this applies only to the material realm. What to an observer might be a 'life not worth living' might well be, to the person living it, a thing they cherish more than the observer cherishes their own.


----------



## Bonjules

maxiogee said:


> I'm not so sure that this applies only to the material realm. What to an observer might be a 'life not worth living' might well be, to the person living it, a thing they cherish more than the observer cherishes their own.


Maybe so, Maxi; just trying to avoid duplicating a discussion that is raging in other threads...
The author of the thread  mercifully used the term
'object'.


----------



## maxiogee

Bonjules said:


> Maybe so, Maxi; just trying to avoid duplicating a discussion that is raging in other threads...
> The author of the thread mercifully used the term
> 'object'.


 

An immaterial thing can be an 'object' also.

*1 **object*, physical object
_a tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow; "it was full of rackets, balls and other objects" _
*2 **object*
_the focus of cognitions or feelings; "objects of thought"; "the object of my affection" _
*3 *aim, *object*, objective, target
_the goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable); "the sole object of her trip was to see her children" _

We can put value on many such immaterial objects.


----------



## Bonjules

maxiogee said:


> An immaterial thing can be an 'object' also.
> 
> *1 **object*, physical object
> _a tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow; "it was full of rackets, balls and other objects" _
> *2 **object*
> _the focus of cognitions or feelings; "objects of thought"; "the object of my affection" _
> *3 *aim, *object*, objective, target
> _the goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable); "the sole object of her trip was to see her children" _
> 
> We can put value on many such immaterial objects.


You are free to put a value on anything you want, Maxi.
As far as semantics go, it would need that focus, aim element your list seems to point out, once you leave the physical realm. Maybe something to argue on 'English only' about. Right now, I'd rather have lunch than be right.
saludos


----------



## .   1

Abu Bishr said:


> I'm not sure how to take this question, but I'll nevertheless attempt an answer (trying my best to keep religion out of it).


This is a straight lift from your own question.
When is a life deemed valuable?
What a scary question.
Who gets to do the deeming?
What do you do with a life deemed to be lacking in value?

.,,
Some questions reveal so much of the responders but others reveal too much of the enquirer.


----------



## cuchuflete

Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> At the same time we all value (human) life because everyone has a right to live by virtue of him / her being a human being,


Pol Pot, Hitler, Franco, suicide bombers in Iraq and other places obviously don't agree with you.  "We *all*...." is a false generalization.


----------



## karuna

My philosophy is that human life has value because of relationships. As exists in the five basic aspects that are existence, servitude, friendship, parental and conjugal love. And secondary aspects like compassion, laughter, chivalry, fear, hatred, frustration, horor etc.

Everything else what we cosider to be of value comes from these things. Even the negative relationships between two persons gives positive value to them because otherwise they wouldn't be able to experience these emotions and it also gives them possibility to correct their mistakes.


----------



## Abu Bishr

. said:


> Some questions reveal so much of the responders but others reveal too much of the enquirer.


 
Yes, I think you're absolutely right there.


----------



## Abu Bishr

cuchuflete said:


> Pol Pot, Hitler, Franco, suicide bombers in Iraq and other places obviously don't agree with you. "We *all*...." is a false generalization.


 
What I have put forward here is what I believe to be the classical Human Rights position which states that everyone has the right to live and exist, and no justification is required for his / her existence (apart from the fact that he / she exists), but when it comes to the termination of that life (by the person him/herself or by some other authority or so), then justification is required. Some might invoke other principles or rights (like the Right of Self-Determination, and so on) but none who subscribes to HR would deny everybody's inherent right to exist. 

This point raises a very interesting question, if it is that Pol Pot, Hitler, Franco and suicide bombers do not regard life as precious, should we hold them responsible for crimes against humanity? Put differently, should upholders of HR strive for its universality or universalization if others do not subcribe to it?

On another level, I believe everyone to value life except that some have found justification for the lives of others to be terminated due to warped ideologies and political agendas. If this was not the case, then they would have killed all and sundry including themselves. The way I see it is that all people value life they just don't all value it universally (i.e. for everybody). Even the person who commits suicide values life, he just doesn't value his own life (at that point in time).


----------

