It seems that you are the one who has the burden to prove your claim that all value is subjective rather than my negation of your claim, and my proclamation that there are other ways in which value can also be assessed.  I am not going to deny that subjective value plays a fairly large role in relating back various utility to humans that anything, such as bitcoin, seems to have, and so surely we likely realize that bitcoin has to have some back and forth realization of value to humans including that bitcoin was attempted to be designed in ways that attempt to align incentives, including greedy incentives of miners to gain and secure coins, which ultimately spread out to users wanting the coins based on scarcity and utility that develops including increases in value due to network effects and anticipated future network effects that will continue to contribute to increases in value based on a bunch of folks subjectively valuing bitcoin in  the present and/or their anticipation of future value.


You may be correct that many great truths descend from realizations of subjective value, but I doubt that great truths continue when they devolve into attempting to remove anything from having  any value  except for being connected to human subjectivity.  That seems to be taking the idea of value a bit far, even if you feel that you are gaining so much insight based on your viewing the world with those kinds of seemingly egotistical human centered kinds of calculations...and yeah, of course, you are not going to be completely wrong by going down that route, yet I surely have my doubts about your abilities to capture all value from such a framework.


Yes I understand that concept of the surplus value that each person ends up gaining from voluntarily choosing to trade bananas for Iphones or whatever might happen to be the various trades of goods and services that end up increasing value and happiness for all parties from having had done the trade that ends up putting at least both parties from the trade into a better position from having had done the trade in comparison to if they had not done the trade.. so surely a lot of subjective value ideas within the consideration of both motives to do the trade and considering outcomes from having had done the trade.


You believe that you have no  errors if you completely evaluate every thing ONLY from the perspective of subjective value?  I am not even denying the existence of subjective value, and I may even be willing to concede that a large portion of value (perhaps even an overwhelming majority) comes from various ways of considering subjective value, yet I am not willing to concede that 100% of value comes from subjective value... ..

That hay has value because the horse eats the hay and gives pleasures to humans.  That bug has value, even though it kills horses, because it keeps the ecosystem in balance to the satisfaction of humans.  Those birds flying in formation have value because humans love to look at them and to appreciate how they coordinate themselves so well.. Since some groups of humans like to torture people and other groups of people prefer a world without torture (except under specific circumstances), therefore ideas of torture are subjective and we can do whatever we feel, since there is no objective value or objective truth to guide us towards right and wrong, and in fact there is no right and wrong, only what people want at any given time. 

I think that your focus on all values being subjective is going to lead to more errors than someone who attempts to be more balanced. Probably your buddy Sam Bankman Fried was someone who believed that all value is subjective, and look where those kinds of nonsense thoughts took him.


Why not?  Am I the one proclaiming all value is objective?  I think not.  You are the one arguing objective value doesn't exist. You seem to be the nutjob needing to justify your extreme characterization of the world, whether we are referring to human behavior or otherwise.. but then you are saying the world does not matter, except to the extent that humans value it?

I am not proclaiming to be any kind of philosopher or to know the answers, but I am still not buying your claim that all value is subjective.


Sure, we changed from valuing cars more than horses, so cars became more common and horses became less common, and yes there are various ways that the world changes including customs, norms  and even disagreements about customs and norms, including that sometimes the customs and norms of one group is imposed on another group that might cause the other group to either concede to the customs/norms of the dominant group or perhaps sometimes to fight back  or to engage in passive/aggressive resistance.  So sure many of those preferences and interactions may well be described as competition of subjective values, yet I doubt that the examples negate the existence of objective values whether we are talking about valuing person, places and/or things or maybe valuing ideas and values themselves... and perhaps even questions of whether moral right and wrong exists outside of what people come to agree upon.  I will even concede that some rules likely have more discretion in regards to how they might be changed, and surely we could create wicked and weird societies that would support ideas of subjectivism in regards to morality and rules, yet I am still not going to agree to your proclamation that there is no objective reality or objective truth outside of how human's might choose to value such reality and/or truth.