What I would call instinctive ends are reserved for unreasoning animals and
infants until they reach the mental maturity to calculate in the abstract.
However, answering your question does not require this differentiation
since all value is attributed by individual mind as opposed to discovered;
meaning that ends (value attributed) is still ALWAYS subjective.
Mr. Crocker wrote:
>>And be clear what I mean here: I do not wish to test an action; the
>>results of an action /are/ easily testable against the outcome I
>>desire. I wish to test an hypothesis about which outcome I should
>>desire, independent of any action to achieve it.
You responded:
>You should desire species survival, without which we wouldn't be having this
>discussion.
I see your end desire stipulated and implicitly coupled with the wish that
Mr. Crocker attribute value to the end you name. What is missing is why he
should do so other than to please you. Where is recognition of Mr. Crocker's
choice in the matter? The reality is that Mr. Crocker does have a choice and
to not recognize it, whether it pleases you or not, is not dealing with AS
IS, but denial of AS IS, which is to say, denial of the existent, Mr.
Crocker. This is literally what every claim of discovered "objective value"
does. In other words, the concept, objective value, is an illusion and
inherently anti individual.
It is my personal preference that the terms, ought and should, be entirely
eliminated from the language. Getting rid of these non scientific terms
would no doubt aid in holding focus upon the reality of a thing or
situation. Having expressed this desire, I remain aware that my end chosen
is not the end desire of most. Consequently, I will continue to deal with
the real by exposing the fact that ought and should have no connection to
objective reality except as personal preference and subjective declarations.
Delmar England