|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.)--126.96.36.199 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)
The term value judgment can be used objectively to refer to any injunction that implies an obligation to carry out an act, implicitly involving the terms "ought" or "should". It can be used either in a positive sense, signifying that a judgment must be made taking a value system into account, or in a disparaging sense, signifying a judgment made by personal whim rather than objective thought or evidence.
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.
Value judgment also can refer to a tentative judgment based on a considered appraisal of the information at hand, taken to be incomplete and evolving, for example, a value judgment on whether to launch a military attack, or as to procedure in a medical emergency. In this case the quality of judgment suffers because the information available is incomplete as a result of exigency, rather than as a result of cultural or personal limitations.
Most commonly the term value judgment refers to an individual's opinion. Of course, the individual's opinion is formed to a degree by their belief system, and the culture to which they belong. So a natural extension of the term value judgment is to include declarations seen one way from one value system, but which may be seen differently from another. Conceptually this extension of definition is related both to the anthropological axiom "cultural relativism" (that is, that cultural meaning derives from a context) and to the term "moral relativism" (that is, that moral and ethical propositions are not universal truths, but stem from cultural context). A value judgment formed within a specific value system may be parochial, and may be subject to dispute in a wider audience.
section on Non-judgemental looks like agenda-driven edit, and a very petty agenda at that
it looks like someone is trying to modify the definition of value judgement so that they can say their value judgements are more meaningful. ironic, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)