We need to make everyone understand the nature of values (axiology).
So, one could ask what is axiology?
Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation.
Yes, axiology, the very impartation of value consciousness is what is required.
So, one could ask what is Value Consciousness?
Value consciousness / Value awareness or Aware Value Critiques / Valid Value Judgments.
There can be several different ways to view “Value Consciousness” such as following specific thinking tools people use and assessing them reliably: some limited thinking tools we employ are desire, interest, taste, feeling, faith, etc. The characteristics of these or such tools must not conflate there truth acquisition or truth conformation ability or potential. First assessing them with a “Value Consciousness” exposes that they have obvious limitations or even inability to see or adequately judge objective truth worthy to be called knowledge. Instead “they” (desire, interest, taste, feeling, faith, etc) at best can only project a situational subjective half-truth and are in stark contrast to valid distinctions rightly following forms of Value consciousness / Value awareness or Aware Value Critiques / Valid Value Judgments such as logical thinking and proven evidence necessarily to be products of specific thinking tools people use and assessing them reliably to reach truth or reliable knowledge.
*Axiology (value/worth/usefulness/beneficialness/beauty/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.
Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and metaphysical status. More often than not, the term “value theory” is used instead of “axiology” in contemporary discussions even though the term “theory of value” is used with respect to the value or price of goods and services in economics.
  1. Some significant questions in axiology include the following:
    1. Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a behavioral disposition, or simply a human interest of some kind?
    2. Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum (i.e., (“there’s no accounting for tastes”) or do objective standards apply?
    3. Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What ultimate worth, if any, do human values have?
  2. Axiology is usually divided into two main parts.
    1. Ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral problems: e.g., (1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good or desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy.
      1. Consider this example analyzed by J. O. Urmson in his well-known essay, “Saints and Heroes”:”We may imagine a squad of soldiers to be practicing the throwing of live hand grenades; a grenade slips from the hand of one of them and rolls on the ground near the squad; one of them sacrifices his life by throwing himself on the grenade and protecting his comrades with his own body. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that such a man must be impelled by the sort of emotion that he might be impelled by if his best friend were in the squad.”
      2. Did the soldier who threw himself on the grenade do the right thing? If he did not cover the grenade, several soldiers might be injured or be killed. His action probably saved lives; certainly an action which saves lives is a morally correct action. One might even be inclined to conclude that saving lives is a duty. But if this were so, wouldn’t each of the soldiers have the moral obligation or duty to save his comrades? Would we thereby expect each of the soldiers to vie for the opportunity to cover the grenade?
    2. Æsthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with judgments of sense, taste, and emotion.
      1. E.g., Is art an intellectual or representational activity? What would the realistic representations in pop art represent? Does art represent sensible objects or ideal objects?
      2. Is artistic value objective? Is it merely coincidental that many forms in architecture and painting seem to illustrate mathematical principles? Are there standards of taste?
      3. Is there a clear distinction between art and reality? Ref

What are values?

The question ‘what are values?’ is deceptively simple.

What are ‘values’ compared to concepts like ‘morals’, ‘ethics’, ‘principles’ or ‘beliefs’? These are abstract and philosophical concepts open to much debate. However, there are several generally acceptable definitions that have enough precision to provide schools with a common ground for exploring their approaches to values education. Values are the priorities individuals and society attach to certain beliefs, experiences, and objects in deciding how they shall live and what they shall treasure. (Hill, 2004) principles and fundamental convictions which act as general guides to behaviour, the standards by which particular actions are judged as good or desirable. (Halstead, Taylor and Taylor, 2000) Types of values Values as ‘principles and fundamental convictions’ are abstractions until they are applied in the contexts of daily life. Values are made real or ‘realised’ when their meaning is expressed through choices made and behaviours acted out. Emeritus Professor Brian Hill suggests that there are a number of values domains that derive from the contexts in which we live our lives and conduct our relationships. Most commonly, talk about values turns out to be talk about matters of morality. But the beliefs we live by, and the objects and activities we treasure, involve not only our moral approach to life but other interests and purposes which make for a rounded life, as illustrated in the diagram. For convenience, it is useful to speak of these various aspects as types or domains of value, ie areas of life in which we operate according to certain values that are appropriate to the activity in question. Our values are the selves we are becoming. There are many different ways of cutting the values cake, of course, so there is bound to be overlap in any categorisation. So talk about ‘domains of value’ is a convenience; not a fixed set of exclusive categories. Ref

These values domains are shown in the diagram: 

Axiology is the theory of value or worth. It asks the question: what is good and bad? Axiology is made up of two sub-parts: ethics, which is the theory of the goodness or badness of human behavior, and aesthetics, which is the theory of the goodness or badness of visual appearance or audible sound (expressed in terms of beauty or ugliness). Ref

On the Value of Being a Real Person

Naturalistic Axiology?

Naturalistic Ethics: For the Naturalist, the baseline of value is that which is natural – that is, that which is in conformity with nature. One need not look beyond nature (The biopsychosocial model ) to some immaterial ideal for a standard of right and wrong. Rather, goodness will be found by living in harmony with nature. Evil, for the Naturalist, is a departure from this natural norm either in the direction of excess or defect (i.e., having, or doing, too much or too little of something which is naturally good). Naturalistic Aesthetics: In seeking good appearance, or sound, the Naturalist will look to nature as the standard. Thus, for the Naturalist, art should imitate nature. If a Naturalist is painting a portrait of a person who has a facial scar, the Naturalist will paint the scar because reality includes imperfection. Ref

Pragmatic Axiology?

Pragmatic Ethics: Much that was said in the discussion above about pragmatic epistemology could also be said here about pragmatic ethics. The Pragmatist believes that value claims must be tested and proven in practice. In the Pragmatist’s view, things are value-neutral in themselves. There is nothing that is always good, nor is there anything that is always bad. The value of anything is determined solely in terms of its usefulness in achieving some end. In answer to the question, “Is that good?”, a Pragmatist would probably reply, “Good for what?” Thus, the Pragmatist believes that the end justifies the means. That is, if something is useful for achieving some end or goal, then it becomes good. To state this another way, a means gets its positive value from being an efficient route to the achievement of an end. Thus, a means is not valued for its own sake, but only in relation to its usefulness for achieving some end. Results or consequences are the ultimate measure of goodness for a Pragmatist, since the usefulness of a means to an end can only be judged after the fact by its effect on the end. Thus, for the Pragmatist, there can be no assurance that something is good…until it is tried. Even then, it is only held tentatively as good since a thing is good only as long as it continues to work. Evil, for the Pragmatist, is that which is counterproductive. It is (usually) a breaking of civil or criminal law. There can be a dispute about which means are more effective for achieving an end. Indeed, there can be a dispute about which ends should, in fact, be pursued. Thus, the Pragmatist looks for guidance from the group. The reasons for this are metaphysical: reality is experience, but it is the experience of the whole. For the Pragmatist, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This means that the whole is more valuable than any of its parts. In the field of value judgments, the group’s wisdom is more highly esteemed than the wisdom of any individual within the group. Pragmatic Aesthetics: In keeping with the Pragmatist value theory, there is no appearance or sound which is, in itself, good or bad. Appearances or sounds take their value from their relationships to group goals. Thus, in the realm of art, values will be determined by the majority view and in relation to the social benefit of the art in question. Ref

Existentialistic Axiology?

Existentialistic Ethics: As with knowledge, the individual must create his/her own value. There is no escape from the necessity of creating values. Just as the world is defined by the choices regarding knowledge that an individual makes, so the individual must express her/his own preferences. In making choices, or defining values, the individual becomes responsible for those choices. The individual cannot deflect praise or blame for those choices onto others. If the choices were freely made, then responsibility for them must be accepted. While heredity, environment, and society might influence what choices an individual makes, there is a zone of freedom within each individual that cannot be conditioned or predetermined. An Existentialist is not necessarily a non-conformist, but if an Existentialist conforms to the values of a group it will be because that person has freely chosen to do so – not because they have been pressured to do so by the group. Evil, for the Existentialist, is being false to self. It is a breaking of one’s personal law. Existentialistic Aesthetics: The question of what is good in appearance or sound will be determined, in Existentialist terms, solely by each individual. Value, like reality and truth, must be created by the person. It is not *found* preexisting, or determined by group concensus. Thus, how value is portrayed will be a matter of individual preference. What is good art for you may be bad art for me, and vice versa. Ref

Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

“The Axiology of Knowing Others, the World and Oneself”
Axiology (theory of value) Knowing Others and the World
1. INTRINSICALLY = empathy thinking: value who others and the world are
2. EXTRINSICALLY = practical thinking: what value others and the world have
3. SYSTEMICALLY = structured thinking: other-definition / world-definition and expectations
Axiology (theory of value) Knowing Oneself
4. INTRINSICALLY = empathy thinking: inner self value who I am
5. EXTRINSICALLY = practical thinking: outer value what I am to others and the world
6. SYSTEMICALLY = structured thinking: self-definition and expectations
Smith, B. (2011). Axiology for human behavior professionals. Dallas, TX: Clear Direction.

*Axiology (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)

-Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?

-Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?

-Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?

“what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you insure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)

Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one, who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice. Your god concept is vile… (axiology value judgment).

Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation

Scientific Values: fallibilism, realism, & rationalism

I am a “Scientific Axiology” minded “Philosophic Axiologist.”
*Philosophic Axiology (Value Theory)
“Scientific Axiology (Formal Axiology).

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol

“The Hammer if Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action.



Humans are Prone to Thinking Errors, and Yes This Includes Theism.

Coherent Definition of god?

I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more that me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus regards it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really know or knowable or coherently define able as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.

One may say no the god definition is real one cannot say it is not, as most people generally known what the term god means thus that cannot be rejected. Really?? I could be misunderstanding this reasoning put against Ignostic Atheist thinking but to me it seems to hold the opinion, saying I must accept the god concept as something definable in reality because ad populum? In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

Bigfoot’s, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using Axiology

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability. It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warrant and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

Next The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

Now the axiological validity of Gods

There is no evidence for God(s).

But is their proposition God(s) outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief.

The following are some evidence against a caring god working in the world. A recent study of the current living conditions throughout Africa shows that more than one billion people do not have enough clean water to provide for their basic human needs. As a result, more than 2,500 children are dying each day. I guess it is that god gives us free will by keeping children from clean water in an unproportioned amount to the civilized science filled world. I ask you, does your god not hear their prayers? According to Missionaries of Africa (2008), there is a water crisis and diseases that are living in dirty water are wiping out entire villages and communities. Does god exist? Does the magic chanting of prayer seem to work? Suppose for a minute with the understanding of religious believe, if there was a loving god and it answered even some prayers, would not the most deserving be the non-sinning? Moreover, what living human could be said to be less sinning than a baby and thus the most deserving. In addition, babies or children are likely the ones religionists/fideists pray most often, for when they are in trouble. Belief changes nothing. Whatever circumstances you are in or not, has nothing to do with belief. If you are poor, belief does not make you not poor. If you are rich, you do not stay rich because of belief. You would think that poor people would have the benefit of the heavenly means and have god on their side, if anyone would, right? Overall, in 186 countries, first-day child death rates for babies are 6.9%. Where was god? In Angola, 8% of the babies die and 95% of the population is christian. In Congo, 7.5% of the babies die and 95.8 % of the population is christian. Whereas in Guinea-Bissau, 9% of the babies die and 10 % of the population is christian and in Niger 8.7% of the babies die and 5% of the population is christian. Therefore, being a christian and begging for an all-powerful all loving god myth to do something that any half-decent human being would hardly even need to be asked to help an innocent child, shows that belief seems to make no difference in the world because the world is godless and sadly babies die. Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I god do all these things.” Ref

Just think, the bible god “could” have banned slavery or shellfish and he chose to ban shellfish (Leviticus 11:12) and actually support slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) even in the new testament (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2) and Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong (Luke 12:47-48) how crazy and immoral is that for a man-made fairy tales. I will openly say faith is foolish lacking credibility and it is stupid to hold on to beliefs that are disproved by science fact. However, I don’t usually call people names even ones saying things I believe are ridiculous nor do I belittle them instead I strive to and support attacking the thinking and not the person.

What is a god? Just a Empty Label.

Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales.