David Schwartz wrote:
> "jmh" <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:C4ZTa.43273$AD3.4191@lakeread04...
> 
> 
>>That might be true. The problem is we dont know that.
>>We don't even know that about our selves. Most people
>>still seem to value live over death but not all; are
>>you the one who decides which is more valued or the
>>actual person whose life it is?
> 
> 
>     You are using the phrase "more valued" to mean how much someone values
> something. I'm not talking about "value" in the sense of considering to be
> of value. I'm talking about actually being of value. It doesn't matter what
> most people happen to value, I'm talking about what actually is of value,
> that is, what is actually capable of benefitting a person.

Then simply remove the word more. The meaning iis still the same.
Who is to decide what a person values? That person or someone else?
I agree that because we are all humans we can make some fairly
informed suppositions about what another person values but we
never really know without clear confirmation from the other
person.

If that's the case then it's not labor that is what
produces value. Labor produces objects that are
valued but the value is the subjective appraisal of
each person.

> 
>>>>Why not sit down an itemize exactly what is and is not a
>>>>benefit to human beings, such that we all agree, and see
>>>>just how simple it really is rather than talking about watering
>>>>plants as a means of addressing the question.
> 
> 
>>>    Because every human being is different. However, given the set of
> 
> facts
> 
>>>about a particular object and a particular human being, it is (at least
> 
> in
> 
>>>principle) an objective process to determine how much that object
> 
> benefits
> 
>>>that person.
> 
> 
>>But then doesn't that say something about a claim that
>>it's the labor that produces the value, as opposed to
>>labor that is very important in producing the objects
>>of value. I'm arguing against both the former proposition
>>and rhetorical styles that are easily confused with that
>>proposition.
> 
> 
>     No, it says nothing. I'm not saying that labor is the sole determinant

You aren't really saying that your statement about is vacuous
are you? :-)

> in the amount of value. I'm saying labor produces the value.

So prior to the invention of mechanical engines there
was no value to being able to either go faster or directly
to a location rather than being at the mercy of the wind?

I think you're using the term value in a purely reified
manner and the result is that you equivicate between value
and the object that is valued. In some cases that distinction
makes little difference but if you're going to discuss value
the distinction is critical.

Can you explain the difference between the car and the value
such that I can understand that labor is producing the value
and not just the car?

Since this is the heart of the matter in my mind I'll stop here.

jmh