On "intrinsic value" and why it actually means "subjective value"

[frozen]

If you use the strict definition of "essential", you get something a little more workable. But you are still playing a losing game. If we moved to a different planet with a different star, then the sun loses its "intrinsic" value. How is this possible, I thought the value was intrinsic?

I'm no expert, but after mulling this over for many months and hearing various opinions, it seems very clear that all value is subjective. The value of object X exists if and only if there is an observer who chooses to value it. Frozen is extremely correct in his approach on the issue.

Well obviously if we are capable of surviving without the sun, it loses it's intrinsic value to us.

Again, it's based on relationships. If that relationship changes, the type of value can change as well.

I think there needs to be a distinction between that which we value because we have a choice in the matter and that which we value because we need it to continue existing (yes after I've made the choice to live)!

If a thing has the capacity to lose intrinsic value, how can it be said to have intrinsic value in the first place?

If all value is based on relationships, wouldn't that mean all value is therefore circumstantial and thus subjective?

That's the purpose of the word "because."

I value the sun because I prefer to live.

I value my car because I prefer not to have to carry 100lbs of groceries home from the store.

I value watching tv show XYZ because the guy with the gun to my head says that if i don't like it, he'll kill me, and because I value my life I therefore value this tv show.

[frozen]

I don't know how I could be more clear, it's beginning to get a bit frustrating though. How can you not understand what I am saying?

We do appreciate your patience. These discussions can be tough to get through.

A has intrinsic value to B if A is required for B to continue to exist (regardless if B wants to continue to exist or not)!

That's perfect. It's simple, and explains what it means. Let's use the above.

A is required for B to continue to exist.

or

A has intrinsic value to B

The purpose of language is to communicate meaning. Which sentence does a better job of that? In my opinion, the first sentence does a better job. Not only that, the second sentence could be interpreted to be forcing a value onto B that B may not even have.

Returning to the topic of bitcoin versus other monies, using the above definition provided by Holliday.

The argument is that bitcoin lack intrinsic value. Given Holliday's definition, this is true. Humans do not require bitcoin to live. Humans also do not require gold or silver to live. Thus, neither gold or silver would have intrinsic value. So, the argument used by those that would suggest that gold and silver do have intrinsic value and because of that, they are better alternatives to bitcoin is flawed.

[noedaRDH]

Intrinsic value is just someone's marginal value. People should know this if they studied any course in microeconomics.

One's intrinsic value can change over time, depending on his or her situation. It is very subjective not only to personal tastes but to external factors (income, culture, etc).

A bar of pure gold might be what you fancy in day to day life.

But if you're lost in the Sahara, you'd give up that bar of gold for a jug of water in a heartbeat.

[thefiniteidea]

A has intrinsic value to B if A is required for B to continue to exist (regardless if B wants to continue to exist or not)!

The argument is that bitcoin lack intrinsic value. Given Holliday's definition, this is true. Humans do not require bitcoin to live. Humans also do not require gold or silver to live. Thus, neither gold or silver would have intrinsic value. So, the argument used by those that would suggest that gold and silver do have intrinsic value and because of that, they are better alternatives to bitcoin is flawed.

I agree completely!

Using Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to help illustrate my opinion, I believe that gold, silver, Bitcoin, and money in general has intrinsic value to those who have fulfilled all of their inferior needs to exist.

Regardless of quality of life, keep in mind that nonphysical needs can often times be so strong, that people will kill themselves in lack of it.

So I would say that value is always subjective, and that intrinsic value is a subjective term.

To help us understand certain theories and make conclusions about the future, we can derive a consensus of what "most" people believe to be valuable (and thus what has intrinsic value for a majority), but that definition is not constant, always changes, and excludes many. Thus, it is useless in any discussion involving time-sensitive terms (of which there are few).

[Melonhead]

Wikipedia states:

An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. For example, mass is an intrinsic property of any physical object, whereas weight is an extrinsic property that varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which the respective object is placed. As such, the question of intrinsicality and extrinsicality in empirically observable objects is a significant field of study in ontology, the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being.

This seems reasonable and aligns with the way I have heard "intrinsic" most often being used. However, I think we have all come to the agreement that value depends entirely on the entities performing the valuation and their specific circumstances - which clear does not fit as "intrinsic property" as described above. This is why I was unsatisfied with the claims being made about "intrinsic" value.

If we wish to not accept this definition of intrinsic, then that may work. However it then seems we are no longer disagreeing about the actual nature of value - in that it is subjective and circumstantial -  we simply wish to use different terms.

Agreed, but I can't believe this discussion has gone on for so long. Nothing has INTRINSIC value. It's ridiculous. As shown above, "intrinsic" refers to the inherent or immutable properties of a thing that are in its very nature - regardless of who or what is or isn't in relationship with that thing. Things like mass and temperature are intrinsic properties. The fact that people grow old and die is an intrinsic property of being human. I like chocolate more than strawberry not because of some intrinsic chocolate-superiorty property of the ice cream. Little Veronica may be pretty, but she is not intrinsically pretty. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

To the people on the other side of this argument, saying that something has intrinsic value to someone, is a self-contradictory statement. You're basically saying that the value of a thing is both immutable and unchanging regardless of observer AND also has some variable and relative relationship with the observer depending on who that someone is. You can't have it both ways. But, of course, the sentence makes perfect sense if by "intrinsic" you mean "widely agreed upon" (which is what I think you mean). Intrinsic has a very narrow and precise meaning. It's tough enough discussing complex topics, but being hampered by disagreements about the basic definition of words is a serious waste of time.

[Impaler]

Their exist only intrinsic Properties and extrinsic valuations.  Intrinsic properties like for example the caloric content of a sandwich or the inability of element 79 to oxidate exist independent of human minds. 

Valuations are all by definition extrinsic because a value is a mental ordering process occurring in a human mind in which it creates a hierarchy of worth to it's own mental constructs of the outside world.  All things can be assigned valuation in the mind (even meta concepts like justice, love, or even the act of valuation itself) but only relative to other things making all valuations extrinsic to the objects in question.

Now it is quite common for the intrinsic properties of objects when know can form the basis of valuations that while extrinsic are rational.  The sandwich contains calories which will sustain life and thus further the very commonly high valued 'self-preservation' imperative our minds seem to be hard-wired with.  This is called use value because the mind has assigned a high worth to it's own utilization of the object.

When one mind knows the value other minds have placed on something and being rational knows that exchange allows it to obtain objects that it assigns high use value too, then it will rationally assign a high value to an item independent of its own use valuation.  This is exchange value and it is doubly extrinsic because it is an external valuations resting on another external valuation.  This type of valuation is more likely to be faulty and to be irrational because other minds are vastly harder to understand then are the intrinsic properties of an object.

This is the source of a great deal of the confusion, while all valuations are extrinsic because they are in the mind.  Some valuations are derived from rational consideration of concrete properties.  Other are built on the valuations of others.  Sloppy language omits one level of 'extrinsic' from each types and call the first type of valuation 'intrinsic-value'.  On top of that some individuals make the further error of confusing their irrational exchange valuation with a rational property based valuation.  Element 79 see's this a great deal.

So long as the group valuation remains somewhat anchored to the use value all is good.  But when exchange valuations begin to form a closed loop and detach completely from rational use valuations that bubbles become inevitable.

[myrkul]

If the sun's intrinsic value is based on a human's need for it to survive, then the sun's value to a particular human is dependent on that human's valuation of his own life, yes?

It's clear that different people value their lives different amounts. Therefore, each person values the sun different amounts. The sun's value is subjective.

[Melonhead]

If the sun's intrinsic value is based on a human's need for it to survive, then the sun's value to a particular human is dependent on that human's valuation of his own life, yes?

Strangely enough, your argument is sound because your premise is false and your conclusion is true 1) FALSE: "the sun's intrinsic value is based on a human's need for it to survive" 2) TRUE (more or less): "the sun's value to a particular human is dependent on that human's valuation of his own life".

Your argument is valid only because every false premise logically implies every true conclusion. For example: If the sky is pink with green poke-a-dots, then dogs are mammals.

It's clear that different people value their lives different amounts. Therefore, each person values the sun different amounts. The sun's value is subjective.

Yes, the sun's value is subjective. But its value is not intrinsic.

[myrkul]

Yes, the sun's value is subjective. But its value is not intrinsic.

I never claimed it was. That was Holliday.

[Impaler]

Your argument is valid only because every false premise logically implies every true conclusion. For example: If the sky is pink with green poke-a-dots, then dogs are mammals.

I think that means his argument (and your example) is a Non sequitur and is thus illogical and meaningless regardless of the truth or falsehood of it's individual components.

As for the Sun, it has intrinsic properties that giving off light that heats the earth.  Our valuation of a bright and warm Earth are subjective even when they don't have a bearing on our continued survival.