“Even if the four basic modes and the two major synthetic modes through which we form our values are accepted as correct and complete, should we not be concerned that this framework puts too much emphasis on how we arrive at our values? Surely what matter most are the values themselves not the way we arrive at them.” (p. 13)

The author initially goes on to claim that this is a valid argument, however I would disagree. Before I go on I would like to state that I understand that my argument is predicated on my own personal bias in which I value two of the four basic modes more than the other two. Basing a value judgment on on sense experience and/or deductive logic is, in my mind, far superior to one based off emotion or intuition. Suppose I were driving in a car with two friends and we were trying to get to Spencer’s Butte from downtown. One friend states that we should turn right because they feel that it is the correct way to go. The other friend informs me that Spencer’s Butte is South of town, it’s late in the day, and the sun is in our eyes, therefore left is the only right conclusion.

Now I realize that in this simplistic example I made the person supporting my position right and the other incorrect. Consider a more moral issue: consider an argument over murder/assault/theft being legalized. One of an emotional or intuitive mindset might argue that they feel that murder is wrong, or that god says it’s wrong. This doesn’t much sway me either way because perhaps I simply feel the same way or believe in the same god. However, if someone were to present me with the argument that if I steal from you and you beat me half to death and I come back and kill you, well that doesn’t sound like a world I’d like to live in. So how about instead we come to an agreed upon set of social standards, by which to act that we can all agree will increase everyone’s happiness as a whole. Therefore the way in which we come to the conclusion, at least in my mind, can be far more important than the value itself.