I would recommend reading "an enquiry concerning human understanding" by Hume.

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki

A person born with the evolutionary instinct that fire is bad. Naturally has more worth in nature than one born without

In nature worth is measured by survivability

Goblin, you're not refuting my arguments, you're just re-stating your point in different ways.

You need to address what I said.

I just did

What you said does not make much sense, if he did not address it.

"How can you say that worth is not relative to individual preference?"

It isnt individual preference in nature when measured by survivability

What do you mean exactly?

Are all people equal, based on an ideal?

I stated it in different ways when you didnt understand it

"Philosophers" are often wrong in some nuonces. Hence why philosophy isnt a sciencr

Philosophy created science, it is very valuable to know philosophy.

Philosophy was a handy way to take science and adapt it to every day.

But you should never take it as unabridged fact

No, it was a way to explore ideas.

Nobody does

Mittens does

To elaborate further. One cannot separate an is from an ought. For one to say someone has "worth", this claim is an ought claim. It is one which is relative to emotional preference. Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Objective means "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." If one is to say they find this or that trait preferable, then they are making a subjective claim, one which is according to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. That would make it an "ought" claim, because something someone feels ought to be, cannot be what something "is". What something is, would be objective, which means not influenced by personal opinion. So, to say someone has worth, that would be an ought claim, because you're making a claim about preference.

Marxists do

https://i2.wp.com/www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/is-ought.jpg?fit=400%2C400&ssl=1

Philosophy is not factual, ever.

Here is a picture that may help.

Hume would say "it is not contrary to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the prick of a finger".

This is to demonstrate that emotions can never be objective fact.

What I am basically saying, if I could summarize it very briefly, is, reals over feels.

Okay so. The man who makes a better hammer than the man next to him, is better at making hammers. They are not equal. They have difference. The other guy might be really good at USING hammers though.

but what if you are taking your perception of reals and passing it off as actual reals?

meaning your reals are actualy your feels?

I know the difference between objective and subjective. But you dont understand nature vs societal worth. A bird evolving to eat a certain bug is a value in nature, compared to those that dont and die

But, that is too brief, because logic is a slave to the passions, and the philosopher Kant saw this problem, which is why he constructed the categorical imperative. Which means a way of constructing a system which is not based on personal preference. Although I find Kant troublesome in some ways.

So unless you feel that being efficient is not a necessity, then.

I am trying to say, value is subjective.

Yes

Saying that someone has "objective" value is impossible.

So no one can be inherently more worth someone else.

its like an eductation

its valued by some

not al

From evolutionary and natural standpoint you can