(I say this all the time, but I think that [the thing you call “values”] is a closer match to the everyday usage of the word “desires” than the word “values”.)
I think we should distinguish three things: (A) societal norms that you have internalized, (B) societal norms that you have not internalized, (C) desires that you hold independent of [or even despite] societal norms.
For example:
a 12-year-old girl might feel very strongly that some style of dress is cool, and some other style in cringe. She internalized this from people she thinks of as good and important—older teens, her favorite celebrities, the kids she looks up to, etc. This is (A).
Meanwhile, her lame annoying parents tell her that kindness is a virtue, and she rolls her eyes. This is (B).
She has a certain way that she likes to arrange her pillows in bed at night before falling asleep. Very cozy. She has never told anyone about this, and has no idea how anyone else arranges their pillows. This is (C).
Anyway, the OP says: “our shared concept of Goodness is comprised of whatever messages people spread about what other people should value. … which sure is a different thing from what people do value, when they introspect on what feels yummy.”
I think that’s kinda treating the dichotomy as (B) versus (C), while denying the existence of (A).
If that 12yo girl “introspects on what feels yummy”, her introspection will say “myself wearing a crop-top with giant sweatpants feels yummy”. This obviously has memetic origins but the girl is very deeply enthusiastic about it, and will be insulted if you tell her she only likes that because she’s copying memes.
By the way, this is unrelated to “feeling of deep loving connection”. The 12yo girl does not have a “feeling of deep loving connection” to the tiktok influencers, high schoolers, etc., who have planted the idea in her head that crop-tops and giant sweatpants look super chic and awesome. I think you’re wayyy overstating the importance of “feeling of deep loving connection” for the average person’s “values”, and correspondingly wayyy understating the importance of this kind of norm-following thing. I have a draft post with much more about the norm-following thing, should be out soon :) UPDATE: this post.
I think that [the thing you call “values”] is a closer match to the everyday usage of the word “desires” than the word “values”.
Seconded. The word ‘value’ is heavily overloaded, and I think you’re conflating two meanings. ‘What do you value?’ and ‘What are your values?’ are very different questions for that reason. The first means roughly desirability, whereas the second means something like ‘ethical principles’. I read you as pointing mostly to the former, whereas ‘value’ in philosophy nearly always refers to the latter. Trying to redefine ‘value’ locally to have the other meaning seems likely to result in more confusion than clarity.
Concrete example: I hold ‘help sick friends’ as a considered and endorsed value (or subvalue, or instance of a larger value, whatever). But when I think about going grocery shopping for a sick friend and driving over to drop it at their doorstep, there is zero yumminess or learning, it mostly feels annoying. You could argue that that means it isn’t really one of my values, but at that point you’re using ‘value’ in a fairly nonstandard way.
Good points as usual! On a meta note, I thought when writing this “Steve will probably say something like he usually says, and I still haven’t fully incorporated it into my models, hopefully I’ll absorb some more this time”.
Anyway, I don’t think I want to deny the existence of (A). I want to say that “style X is cool” is a true part of the girl’s values insofar as style X summons up yummy/yearning/completeness/etc feelings on its own, and is not a true part of her values insofar as the feelings involved are mostly social anxiety or a yearning to be liked. (The desire to be liked would then be a part of her values, insofar as the prospect of being liked is what actually triggers the yearning.)
I do want to say that stuff is a true part of one’s values once it triggers those feelings, regardless of whether memes were involved in installing the values along the way. I want to distinguish that from the case where people “tie themselves in knots”, trying to act like they value something or telling themselves that they value something when the feelings are not in fact there, because they’ve been told (or logically convinced themselves) they “should” value the thing.
This touches on an interesting issue for looking at human values. It seems we have systems inside of ourselves that are training what we feel as positive affect aka yumminess. It is classical conditioning. Pavlov’s dog probably feels positive affect in response to the bell in expectation of food. ( I think this was confirmed with studies of monkeys with bananas in boxes that beep. ) So then, which do we want to identify as our values? The things that currently feel yummy? Or the things the system within us is trying to train us to obtain?
(I say this all the time, but I think that [the thing you call “values”] is a closer match to the everyday usage of the word “desires” than the word “values”.)
I think we should distinguish three things: (A) societal norms that you have internalized, (B) societal norms that you have not internalized, (C) desires that you hold independent of [or even despite] societal norms.
For example:
a 12-year-old girl might feel very strongly that some style of dress is cool, and some other style in cringe. She internalized this from people she thinks of as good and important—older teens, her favorite celebrities, the kids she looks up to, etc. This is (A).
Meanwhile, her lame annoying parents tell her that kindness is a virtue, and she rolls her eyes. This is (B).
She has a certain way that she likes to arrange her pillows in bed at night before falling asleep. Very cozy. She has never told anyone about this, and has no idea how anyone else arranges their pillows. This is (C).
Anyway, the OP says: “our shared concept of Goodness is comprised of whatever messages people spread about what other people should value. … which sure is a different thing from what people do value, when they introspect on what feels yummy.”
I think that’s kinda treating the dichotomy as (B) versus (C), while denying the existence of (A).
If that 12yo girl “introspects on what feels yummy”, her introspection will say “myself wearing a crop-top with giant sweatpants feels yummy”. This obviously has memetic origins but the girl is very deeply enthusiastic about it, and will be insulted if you tell her she only likes that because she’s copying memes.
By the way, this is unrelated to “feeling of deep loving connection”. The 12yo girl does not have a “feeling of deep loving connection” to the tiktok influencers, high schoolers, etc., who have planted the idea in her head that crop-tops and giant sweatpants look super chic and awesome. I think you’re wayyy overstating the importance of “feeling of deep loving connection” for the average person’s “values”, and correspondingly wayyy understating the importance of this kind of norm-following thing. I have a draft post with much more about the norm-following thing, should be out soon :) UPDATE: this post.
Seconded. The word ‘value’ is heavily overloaded, and I think you’re conflating two meanings. ‘What do you value?’ and ‘What are your values?’ are very different questions for that reason. The first means roughly desirability, whereas the second means something like ‘ethical principles’. I read you as pointing mostly to the former, whereas ‘value’ in philosophy nearly always refers to the latter. Trying to redefine ‘value’ locally to have the other meaning seems likely to result in more confusion than clarity.
Concrete example: I hold ‘help sick friends’ as a considered and endorsed value (or subvalue, or instance of a larger value, whatever). But when I think about going grocery shopping for a sick friend and driving over to drop it at their doorstep, there is zero yumminess or learning, it mostly feels annoying. You could argue that that means it isn’t really one of my values, but at that point you’re using ‘value’ in a fairly nonstandard way.
Good points as usual! On a meta note, I thought when writing this “Steve will probably say something like he usually says, and I still haven’t fully incorporated it into my models, hopefully I’ll absorb some more this time”.
Anyway, I don’t think I want to deny the existence of (A). I want to say that “style X is cool” is a true part of the girl’s values insofar as style X summons up yummy/yearning/completeness/etc feelings on its own, and is not a true part of her values insofar as the feelings involved are mostly social anxiety or a yearning to be liked. (The desire to be liked would then be a part of her values, insofar as the prospect of being liked is what actually triggers the yearning.)
I do want to say that stuff is a true part of one’s values once it triggers those feelings, regardless of whether memes were involved in installing the values along the way. I want to distinguish that from the case where people “tie themselves in knots”, trying to act like they value something or telling themselves that they value something when the feelings are not in fact there, because they’ve been told (or logically convinced themselves) they “should” value the thing.
This touches on an interesting issue for looking at human values. It seems we have systems inside of ourselves that are training what we feel as positive affect aka yumminess. It is classical conditioning. Pavlov’s dog probably feels positive affect in response to the bell in expectation of food. ( I think this was confirmed with studies of monkeys with bananas in boxes that beep. ) So then, which do we want to identify as our values? The things that currently feel yummy? Or the things the system within us is trying to train us to obtain?
Do you explore that idea in your linked post?