Talk:Value (ethics and social sciences)/Archives/2016

Unreferenced "Duration" and "Total value"
I removed the following sections from the article. They are reasonable, but yet need references or demonstrations of actual usefulness before reinsertion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Duration
Philosophic or ethic value duration is the time that an object exists, or more specifically, has any intensity.

It is contrasted with chain of events duration, which is the time it takes for a chain of events to reach its terminal event, in this case the object with intrinsic value.

The chain of events duration may be significantly longer than the value duration, especially for objects with long term instrumental value. In the intervening time, the value of the object is converted into the value of the intervening objects in the chain of events.

Average and instantaneous value
With time in mind, there is a distinction between average ethic or philosophic value and instantaneous ethic or philosophic value.


 * The average ethic or philosophic value is the average of the ethic or philosophic value of an object during a certain amount of time. If not else specified it is assumed to be the value duration of the object in mind. It can, however, also be the chain of events duration or other specified amount of time.
 * The instantaneous ethic or philosophic value is the ethic or philosophic value of an object at a certain point of time. If may be a present, past or future point of time.

Total value
The total ethic or philosophic value of an object can be regarded as being the product of its average value, average intensity and value duration. It may be either absolute or relative or both.

Any decrease in the whole value, intensity or duration of an object decreases its total value and vice versa. For example, again taking a fictional life-stance regarding waffles as of ends-in-themselves, it still doesn't generate any total value if there are no waffles, no intensity, no matter how much average value a waffle has.

Alternatively described, the total value can be regarded as being the sum of the total intrinsic value and total instrumental value. Still, it may be either relative or absolute, or both.

No explanation
I think the following sections needs an explanation for what this term means before reinsertion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Explicit or implicit
While the larger part of research in ethics focusses on explicit value statements such as in constitutions or corporate image brochures, recent approaches focus rather on the implicit nature of value communication. - [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2368340 Common values? Fifty-Two Cases of Value Semantics Copying on Corporate Websites] by Steffen Roth. Human Systems Management 32(4) (2013): 249–265. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-130801

Merge Value system to Value (ethics)
The Value system article seems to deal with the same topic as Value (ethics). It is already explained in the Value (ethics) article that "A value system is a set of consistent ethic values and measures used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity. A well defined value system is a moral code". For the rest, I find nothing in the Value system article that doesn't fit just as well in the Value (ethics) article, so there is no reason to confuse readers by spreading out this topic across two separate articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've performed the merge now. The value system mentions the following reference at the bottom:
 * Wenstøp, F. and A. Myrmel (2006). "Structuring organizational value statements " Management Research News 29(11): 673 - 683.
 * However, I haven't been able to read that source text, and the article does not specify what segments are supported by it. I therefore had to merge as if it all was unreferenced. If you can access that source, it should be used with wp:in-line citations. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge Ethonomics to Value (ethics)
The term Ethonomics is a strategic effort to introduce a new brand name and not a field or specialization in an ongoing academic discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.202.226 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The definition of ethonomics and the link to the website ethonomics.org is without any names or persons as authors the website ethonomics.org has no reference to an actual organization, group or person and seems to be there to obfuscate (even the whois registration is anonymous). A reference in the wikipedia article to "academia" in relation to ethonomics is not based on links or references to back it up. I think the whole section needs to be deleted as it seems that someone tries to anonymously introduce just another "new" term for topics that are already part of ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.202.226 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree... these should be kept separate and NOT merged.

Value (ethics) is a classic field of philosophical study – vibrant and alive today.

Ethonomics is described as an applied, analytical, discipline allowing the comparison and valuing of systems, apparently with an economic/social evaluative bent… a useful tool… but not properly Philosophical Ethics.

Just as Value (economics) appears at the end of Value (ethics), Ethonomics could/should appear there as a short summary and link to its own page. --Sdekeater (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Like the section above, I find the Ethonomics article to deal with ethical values, and its content may therefore belong to the Value (ethics) instead of being an wp:Orphan. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)