AXIOLOGY

THEORY OF VALUES

1. INTRODUCTION.

   Axiology [Greek, axios, value, worth, and logos, reason, account] is the philosophical science of values. It investigates the nature, criteria, and ontological status of values. It is a modern term but it had its origin in Plato's theory of Forms or Ideas (the Idea of the Good), and was developed by Aristotle in his Organon, Ethics, Poetics, and Metaphysics (Book Lambda). The Stoics and Epicureans investigated the summum bonum [the highest good]. The Neo-Platonist identified the good with being; ens est umun, veritas, bonum, [being is one, true and good]. Thomas Aquinas built on Aristotle's identification of the highest value with the final cause in God as "a living being, eternal, most good."

2. THE PROBLEM OF VALUES.
   1. Statement of the Problem.
      What is the criterion of values?

   2. Analysis of the Problem.
      There have been two historical solutions to this problem:
      1. Absolutism or Objectivism: from the inevitability of value judgments it is concluded that there is a universal and necessary moral standard (this is a rational criterion). This is the solution usually proposed by rationalism. Since this solution asserts that every man must have this absolute criterion, it is a deterministic theory of values.
         1. The main argument against this view is factual; the moral standards vary from one culture to another and from one man to another.

         2. The conclusion then is drawn from these facts is that there is no universal and necessary criterion of values. Every man has some criterion of values, but it is not always the same criterion. There is therefore no necessary criterion of values that every man must have and hold.

      2. Relativism or Subjectivism: from the absence of a universal and necessary criterion of values it is concluded that there is no objective standard of right and wrong and that it is subjective, varying from culture to culture and from man to man, and there is no objective criterion of values. Values are relative to the culture and the individual. That is, values reflect only the private preferences of the individual. Words denoting values, such as "good" and "right", are all reducible to matters of taste, either personal or social. The relativist's favorite argument against absolute standard for values is based on the lack of univeral agreement concerning the standard by which good and evil are judged. He usually points out that the conception of what is good varies from culture to culture and from man to man. Among certain Eskimos, for example, it is the duty of a son to kill his father when the latter has grown too old to fend for himself. And among many primitive people the first duty of a good host is to lend his wife to an overnight guest. The relativist defies his opponent to prove that any of these "local customs" is "better" than another. In the absence of proof he concludes that judgments of right and wrong, good or evil, merely reflects private preferences, and one man's opinion is a good as another.
         1. The main argument against this subjective view is also factual; even though there is no universal and necessary criterion of values, every man do have some criterion of values.

         2. The main difficulty with this subjective view is that it leads to the disintegration of cultures, societies, and the human personality.

   3. The clue to the Solution to the Problem.

      The fact that there is no universal and necessary criterion of values, of right and wrong, is explained by the human freedom of choice. Each person has the freedom to choose his own criterion of values. But not all men choose the same criterion of values. This accounts for the fact that there is no universal and necessary criterion of values. But from the fact that there is no universal and necessary criterion of values, it does not follow that man does not choose any criterion of values. Though each person may choose his own criterion of values, he cannot avoid making the choice. Man has the freedom of choice, whether he believes it or not. And every attempt to eliminate value judgments presupposes and involves the value judgment that is good and right to eliminate value judgments.

   4. The Solution to the Problem.

      Since value judgments cannot be eliminated from human discourse, the problem of values can not be avoided. The fact that there is no universally accepted absolute standard of values does not mean that there is no absolute standard of values. The rationalistic theory of value (that there is a universal and necessary criterion of values) is not the only theory of an absolute theory of values. Thus our problem: "What is the criterion of values? What shall I choose as the criterion of the good?" becomes upon analysis "What is the true absolute criterion of values? What absolute criterion shall I choose as the criterion of the good?"