The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature…
Here, we're describing learning as a conditional value. It's value is dependent upon another. If our goal is graduate (assume that graduate is better than not), then passing the Eng. Lit. final is better than failing (another conditional value) and since learning Astronomy tonight is opposing passing the Eng. Lit. final, then learning Astronomy - tonight - is not better than learning Astronomy.
Here's the hierarchy I'm referring to: learning Eng. Lit. > Passing Eng. Lit > Graduating. Each of the subsidiary values are dependent upon the value of graduating. IF graduating does NOT have value, then the others lose their value.
Conditional values get their name by requiring certain conditions in order to be true.
Again, terms.
So choosing,we we are making choices we are, hopefully, following the logic of: IF I want X, I need to do/choose Y.
Each conditional value can be state as a "because". Shorthand summary in this case could be: Learning is better than not learning because I want to graduate.
But then we reach: Why is graduating better than not? Before I mentioned being frozen if all we had was logic and conditional values. Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever.
IF all we have are conditional values and make our choices purely logically. We never run out of the need for the next "why/because".
This is also a limit of logic or reason. Each "proof" is a reason. And we can ask of each new reason, "why?"
Until we come upon something unconditioned - or assumed or axiomatic, "self-evident", etc.. Which we in certain cases call absolute (or objective.) This is a "just because" (no reason needed).
Whether these absolute values exists, are true, can be known etc., are what we were looking at earlier. I took this road of illustration in hopes of better communicating what I felt I was not communicating well.
Now, your statement: fundamentally it all comes down to feels good-feels bad
To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"? Or is it conditional? Is it like learning above? Would you do something that feels bad because it fulfills a higher goal?
It's gets complicated; what does "feels good" mean? I get a shot that "feels bad" but taking care of my health "feels good."
But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.
You can say he did because to avoid a life of feels bad if he didn't; the ultimate avoidance of "feels bad". But at least we are a level above pure survival instinct and sense gratification.
What of conscience? Does not doing something that hurts your conscience, "feels bad" in this sense, tell us anything about humans? Does it tells us anything about non-conditional values? Is "feeling bad" the cause or the result?
Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively? If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite? Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?
This may be your position. If so, I'd still appreciate your view of what conscience is.
I've gone on too long. Thanks.
I have no disagreement with your line of reasoning here except the implication that everything we do is done for a purpose or because it is perceived as "better."
Not only do we not know what will turn out to be "better" for us, but even on a short-term scale we may not even know why one would be better than the other. Some things have "equal" value, neither good nor bad, both desirable, etc. often leading to a dilemma.
The astronomy buff in my example may fail English lit and end up becoming a leading astronomer in which case failing English lit was much "better" than passing it. But his parents may have thought otherwise when he told them he flunked English lit.
Sometimes we set our goals not sure what we want. Many a college freshmen starts with one major and ends up going through half a dozen before the hormone-enraged bodies can settle on more long-term.
Some are not even sure they want to graduate, and others have no particular desire to stay in college because they could be making money in lucrative trades. Also, sometimes your major and your goal, even your marriage are decided for you, etc.
So, I hope you can see that placing values such as "better" or "worse" or doing things "just because" is not the real world we live in.
Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever
I disagree. We eventually reach a point of not knowing why. In such circumstances, some allow their fancy to fill in the lack of knowledge (i.e. religion, a priori assumption, blind faith) and proceed from there on to live in their world often ignoring the physical world around them.
Call it escapism, or whatever, it provides certain amount of comfort because that's one of the things they most often site (peace, no fear, being loved, etc.) directly or indirectly. They also find others who share their beliefs (more or less) and find more comfort in numbers. It becomes a "reality" even if it is illusionary. How far is that from psychosis?
To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"?
No. What feels good for me may not feel good for you.
But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.
Doing what's 'right' is not the same thing as 'feels good.' We don't ask for sacrifice because it feels good but because we believe it's the right thing to do. Two different and unrelated concepts.
We tend to do what feels 'good' to us. That is by no means necessarily 'good' for our health, wealth or life goals. We usually do what we feel is 'right' when it comes to our wealth, health and life goals.
A woman (and this is just a random example and not a gender=specific truism) may really love being with one guy because he 'feels good' but ends up marrying someone who is not even close but who will provide the 'right' kind of environment and lifestyle for her children to grow up in.
What of conscience?
Conscience is a learned value. It's determined culturally and otherwise.
Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively?
I don't understand your question? Where is the 'objectivity' in these values?
If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite?
If lying serves a purpose to get you off the hook, it may feel 'right'. If being compassinate will get you nothing but grief and ingratitutde, some people may have doubts about compassion being the 'right' approach. Is stealing 'wrong' under any circumstance?
Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?
Yes, they are man-made values. You will not find them among animals and the physical universe in general. Someone may argue they are "not of this world" (and that's a loaded concept!).