Can anyone think of many situations in which something could be seen as objectively better and yet still chose the alternative? — TiredThinker

Yes, but those choices are not made objectively or rationally.

How do you mean? If I could have an apple and an orange or just an apple it couldn't make sense to chose the latter?

If I could have an apple and an orange or just an apple it couldn't make sense to chose the latter? — TiredThinker

I didn't know multiple fruits were an option; I thought it had to be an equivalent quantity of a better a better thing and a worse thing. But even the case of less or more, the choice would not be made on the basis of which is objectively better, but which you prefer or what you're in the mood for.

In the case of better and worse options, it would be a choice of an apple or a chocolate bar, when you know full well that the apple is better. Or a third glass of wine or a coffee.

Can anyone think of many situations in which something could be seen as objectively better and yet still chose the alternative? — TiredThinker

I can only think of one, not many. How about when you cannot afford the really good one so by buy a cheaper but similar devise.

objectively better — TiredThinker

I think the term objectively better is problematic.

I don't think values can objectified. And I don't think you can get an "ought" from an "is".

I think the problem with values is that they may require telelology (or inherent purpose).

For example there is an objective way in which a heart functions maximally or a car engine. These things have a clear purpose that can be maximised and can objectively fail.

But personal goals are subjective and self generated so they can only be judged by the individual in my opinion.

People do things that harm themselves for other goals that may benefit others. or they might just be depressed and have no preferences.