Philosophical discourse about value often begins with an exploration of our experience of value in its various manifestations. Attention to the phenomenology of value experience may certainly enrich our understanding of the values inhabiting our Lebenswelt. However, an exclusive concern with the phenomenology of values might also mislead one into precipitate conclusions about the nature of value itself. One important point here is that the way one articulates one's argumentation about the ontology of values should be different from-and its outcomes should not be determined by-the way one narrates the pre-reflective experience of values. The appreciation of this point may help us resolve what appears problematic in Professor Kupperman's discussion of Axiological Realism.' A first problem arises with Kupperman's conception of axiological realism. The best we are offered as a definition of his position is that 'if one accepts axiological realism, a judgment that X has high value counts as correct if and only if X really (in an opinion-independent way) has high value'.2 Kupperman's phrasing of this 'adverbial definition' indicates what axiological realism entails about judgments of high value; it does not reveal, though, in virtue of what this entailment holds.
Read full abstract