### How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Posted:

**Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:39 am**In the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics this forrmula shows up time and again:

I > E > S.

It is a sound formula for the reasons we will explain in this thread.

This thread also is in keeping with Kant's book, Logik, written earlier, but translated into English in 1800, a book in which he introduces three basic kinds of concepts: the construct, the abstraction (or classification or categorization), and the unicept (or singularity.)

He also explains three kinds of method: the Synthetic - the method of science, where one begins with primary properties and then adds secondary refinements later;

the Analytic method, which is the procedure in philosophy [of clarifying and analyzing vague concepts in an effort to make them more clear and sharp. It proceeds by comparing and contrasting, by categorizing, rarely defining terms, 'having words chasing words,,' etc.;

and then Kant tells us about (what today we would speak of as) the axiomatic method where the "synthetic a priori" is central. That latter - the axiom - takes a fertile assumption, spins out its implications employing both deduction and induction.

Robert S. Hartman (1910 – 1973) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman created the ‘Axiom of Value.’ With the Axiom of Value – which is the formal definition of the term “value” (which we will soon elucidate) - and with standard set theory, we will below demonstrate that once the axiom is applied to the concept value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. This, as you will note, is a logical procedure.

{It yields potentially hundreds of definitions of other terms that are related to one another, bother both as to degree of “betterness”, and as to how they correlate with other terms having the same dimension of value.} Here is a link to a chart containing some of these new terms; there will, of course, be some primitive terms that are undefined, as in any system. See the table in End Note 4 (see pp. 64-66) here: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf

, we will explain later that when the axiom is applied to the concept “value” we derive three dimensions of value, as follows:

[There are three kinds of number which mathematicians acknowledge: finite; denumerable; and nondenumerable. Or, to say it another way, finite, countable, and uncountable.

[To illustrate, think of “7” (or the letter n in algebra which refers to) numbers which are finite. Then think of the integers: these numbers are countable but nonfinite since they go on indefinitely. And then think of the number of points in a continuous line segment: which is an uncountable number.]

...continued in next post.....

I > E > S.

It is a sound formula for the reasons we will explain in this thread.

This thread also is in keeping with Kant's book, Logik, written earlier, but translated into English in 1800, a book in which he introduces three basic kinds of concepts: the construct, the abstraction (or classification or categorization), and the unicept (or singularity.)

He also explains three kinds of method: the Synthetic - the method of science, where one begins with primary properties and then adds secondary refinements later;

the Analytic method, which is the procedure in philosophy [of clarifying and analyzing vague concepts in an effort to make them more clear and sharp. It proceeds by comparing and contrasting, by categorizing, rarely defining terms, 'having words chasing words,,' etc.;

and then Kant tells us about (what today we would speak of as) the axiomatic method where the "synthetic a priori" is central. That latter - the axiom - takes a fertile assumption, spins out its implications employing both deduction and induction.

Robert S. Hartman (1910 – 1973) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman created the ‘Axiom of Value.’ With the Axiom of Value – which is the formal definition of the term “value” (which we will soon elucidate) - and with standard set theory, we will below demonstrate that once the axiom is applied to the concept value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. This, as you will note, is a logical procedure.

{It yields potentially hundreds of definitions of other terms that are related to one another, bother both as to degree of “betterness”, and as to how they correlate with other terms having the same dimension of value.} Here is a link to a chart containing some of these new terms; there will, of course, be some primitive terms that are undefined, as in any system. See the table in End Note 4 (see pp. 64-66) here: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf

, we will explain later that when the axiom is applied to the concept “value” we derive three dimensions of value, as follows:

[There are three kinds of number which mathematicians acknowledge: finite; denumerable; and nondenumerable. Or, to say it another way, finite, countable, and uncountable.

[To illustrate, think of “7” (or the letter n in algebra which refers to) numbers which are finite. Then think of the integers: these numbers are countable but nonfinite since they go on indefinitely. And then think of the number of points in a continuous line segment: which is an uncountable number.]

...continued in next post.....