|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
There is, in fact, an article in Wikipedia called "value judgment." The link "rightness" points to the incorrect article. In context, it should lead to the concept of things valued (good, just, correctness, truth), not to "right" as in a right( as in legal or human, etc.) or the right (a position along the political spectrum.)--220.127.116.11 07:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is also an economic term, so, err, what to do about that? --Getalifebud 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I question the categorization of two senses of "value Judgment" as positive and disparaging. These our superficial and unwarranted by common usage. Value judgments can be very praiseworthy to one person and highly repulsive to another. A person who carefully considers a topic and decides that his beleifs are best expressed one way; is no less to be disparaged than another who voices her opinion without hesitation. These two sentences are poorly thought out and should be removed.
In its positive sense,a recommendation to make a value judgment is an admonition to consider carefully, to avoid whim and impetuousness, and search for consonance with one's deeper convictions, and to search for an objective, verifiable, public, and consensual set of evidence for the opinion.
In its disparaging sense the term value judgment implies a conclusion is insular, one-sided, and not objective — contrasting with judgments based upon deliberation, balance and public evidence. Imersion (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Reference to geometrical systems
I have removed the proposed parallel with geometry, which is forced and diversionary. The idea that a set of mathematical axioms is a "value system" does not appeal to me, and if it is to be used the interpretation has to be developed in much more detail. My efforts to do this were unconvincing to me, so I had to drop the matter. To elaborate somewhat, a set of axioms is more naturally viewed as a set of rules for playing a game. You can play chess or checkers, but the rules of the games are hardly value systems. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions do not have to belong to one category
"Of course, putting all conclusions in one category does nothing to distinguish between them, and is therefore a useless descriptor except as a rhetorical device intended to discredit a position claiming higher authority."
To comment on this, a "conclusion" in itself could be place in multiple categories. There are many grey areas. Although a conclusion may derive that an intention, action, behavior, character, idea, or thing conflicts with our own values does not necessarily mean they are that way 100%... nothing is completely black and white.
I believe that this sentence should be removed or altered. Putting all conclusions in one and only (to be more clear) one category does nothing to distinguish them, this is true. But I do not believe that it is a useless descriptor, given other thoughts on the same subject. Affect comes into play here, nothing is 100% positive or 100% negative (except from a mathematical standpoint), and anything derived from an opinion on what can be "value judged" as good or bad is subjective, not objective. Contributed 09:30, 24 June 2008 by User:Jherm (talk | contribs)
What is the relevance of the G.H. Hardy quote?
In the section on "Value Neutral" is a quote by G.H.Hardy that doesn't seem very value neutral at all. Any good reason for it being there? It doesn't seem to do anything but make the section confusing. Dreamfoundry (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)