what do you mean with value? you mean moral values? the value of goods? the value of life? the value of an opinion?

the word value has many different meanings.

True.

We could start with economic value. Then keep going deeper with ethics, i guess. Ramble on!

Are economic goods and services valued on a subjective or an objective basis? 

 

and then, what do you mean by objective and subjective? for me, wether something is subjective or objective depends on (and thus explain the definition of objective and subjective itselves): where does something be valued from? as in where does the value of something come from? from 'the valued' (object) or 'the valuer' (subject)?

notice how "value" is also a verb. so, objective or subjective (could also) mean the 'way'/method, not (only?) the 'destination'. or perhaps, it is impossible to treat 'value' as the destination, because you can not get to the destination without taking 'the way' first.

for example, when you want to go somewhere, you ask a stranger and they tell you "/from here/ (subjective), go north then turn left," and so on, or if you want to go to north pole, you dont care where you start the journey from, you just go to the point where the compass point, thats objective.

but how do we know if something is "objective" or "subjective"? i dont understand. you shouldnt ask 'Is Value objective or subjective?', the right question would be "how do/will we value something? objective or subjective?" and then "can we value something as subjective? can we value value as subjective? can we value something as objective? can we value value as objective?"

 

or, if you mean objective as "only have one answer" and whoever think it different than that is wrong, and subjective means "have many right answers". then, take for example this equation: (x+3)(x+4)=0. it has more than one answer, but could you say that it isnt 'objective'? or, will you say the answer is "-3 and -4" as one thing.. but then whats the different than subjective? subjective answers could also use 'and' and commas.

i guess you cant define something as subjective or objective.

That is an interesting approach. I regard objective value (given to 'reality') as that is considered 'rational' according to a set of rules (logic).

Subjective value, on the other hand, is what it still follows a 'rational path', yet it recognizes that it is virtually impossible to hold a perfectly rational and logical judgement of reality because of certain 'human limitations' and other elements that we have discovered throughout our scientific progress.

I am also considering a tautology that basically is: 'No human individual or collective can be perfectly aware of past, present and future knowledge'.

For instance, marxists believe that the value of an economic good or service is based on the resources employed to produce it and the amount of labor required. For them it is logical that value is based directly on the amount of resources and effort put to produce a certain thing.

 But i believe that rather, value given to all goods and services is completely subjective. Example: A cheeseburger

Lets say that 3 random individuals go to a fast food restaurant chain for a bite. Lets name them Tom, Larry and Judy.

They realize that the restaurant only provides 100% traditional cheeseburgers AND pickles, lots of 'em. They sell a cheeseburger with a small soda and a small pack of french fries for 5$. The actual cost of producing that little combo is something little over 4.80 $

They do not accept particular orders in this instance (like, no pickles, only soda, only fries, and so on)

Judy hates beef, and was expecting a chicken burger alternative to the cheeseburger, like many competitors to that restaurant. Tom loves pickles and classic cheeseburgers, and Larry is allergic to Gluten, and only wanted to purchase a soda, but according to the rules of the place, he has to buy the whole combo.

If the three of them had enough money to pay for the meal, only Tom would consider his 5$ to be worth less than the value he subjects the meal to. Neither Judy or Larry are happy with the place, and thus they value their 5 bucks to be worth quite a lot more than the meal that is being offered...

 

 

 

there is, actually, no inherent value to things.
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for"

 

I'll toss my hat in here.

The economic value of things is entirely relative. If we were on a planet made of gold, then gold would not have much value outside of any practical applications, for example. 

 

However according to the philosophy of Krishna consciousness.
Krishna, the All Attractive Supreme Whole, is the object, and His devotees are the subject.

This comes from the understanding that Krishna, while a distinct personality in Himself, is the resevoir of all qualities, and that individuals are discreet localizations of His qualities. Devotees, in particular, are special because they act as instruments, thus manifesting the supreme will on any and all planes of existence. As a result the particulars of their manifestations are absolutely glorious, especially in consideration of the cross-sections of time-space in which these machinations come about. 

Therefore, in this consciousness, things only have value according to their capacity to be used in the service of Krishna, or for His glorification. Otherwise everything else is worthless, on the absolute platform, due to their temporary nature..