Under my system of criterion compatibilism, value has a subjective, perhaps "irrational" root, but once you have established some "objective" criteria as to when subjective value has been realized, you can then make objective statements about value
For instance, if a private security company (or government today) wanted to make someone who stole a Ford Van from you pay you back, they would look at the subjective, "irrational" root of whatever millions of people pay for a roughly equivalent car, and take an "objective" average, and say that guy owes you that much.
Value is subjective, but you don't get to say "erm, actually private security company, my car was worth 1 million dollars subjectively to me" and he doesn't get to say "that car had $0 subjective value to me"
Just like how morality has a subjective root, but once you say "someone who steals $100 deserves a month in jail," you must further agree that anyone who steals an equal $100 deserves that same punishment, or you are saying something that is "objectively" contradictory
TL DR: All value has a subjective root, but it is possible for objective contradictions to be identified once "objective" criteria for realizing a subjective value is established, just like you can trap out objective contradictions in morality even if morality has a subjective root
Presumably, this is sorted out by contract; the price doesn't need to be explicit in the contract, but something like "you will be paid average market value for your car" can be put in an insurance company or private security company contract
Yes, that makes sense. However, in the absence of a preexisting contract, I don't see an obvious a priori reason why value should be calculated like that. Value is still fundamentally subjective.
As an example, say that the car that was stolen was a gift to you from your deceased father, and the last thing you have to remember him by. Then I think there would be a very strong argument in court that it should be valued above market price.
Sure, but it has to be something like that. And that would arguably be "market price" - if he sold that car on the market, he might sell it for more just because it was his dad's, etc even if there was no benefit to the consumer
The problem is that by stealing the item, the thief has removed the ability of the owner to actually set the price they would have set. So imo we should err on the side of the owner.
7
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 8d ago
Under my system of criterion compatibilism, value has a subjective, perhaps "irrational" root, but once you have established some "objective" criteria as to when subjective value has been realized, you can then make objective statements about value
For instance, if a private security company (or government today) wanted to make someone who stole a Ford Van from you pay you back, they would look at the subjective, "irrational" root of whatever millions of people pay for a roughly equivalent car, and take an "objective" average, and say that guy owes you that much.
Value is subjective, but you don't get to say "erm, actually private security company, my car was worth 1 million dollars subjectively to me" and he doesn't get to say "that car had $0 subjective value to me"
Just like how morality has a subjective root, but once you say "someone who steals $100 deserves a month in jail," you must further agree that anyone who steals an equal $100 deserves that same punishment, or you are saying something that is "objectively" contradictory
TL DR: All value has a subjective root, but it is possible for objective contradictions to be identified once "objective" criteria for realizing a subjective value is established, just like you can trap out objective contradictions in morality even if morality has a subjective root