Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Brant Gaede]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

--Brant

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.

Not at all, because some values are objective needs of the organism and others are subjective and experienced as needs and wants.

--Brant

[anonrobt]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

--Brant

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.

Not at all, because some values are objective needs of the organism and others are subjective and experienced as needs and wants.

--Brant

Anything can be a value, but the ones Objectivists are concerned with are VIABLE values...

[Selene]

Values that expand his/her ability to achieve his/her best nature as a man.

[Xray]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

Values are always subjective, from which it follows that the value in "devaluing a valuing" is an individual, subjective issue too.

It's like those Russian nested Matryoshska dolls where you get another exemplar when picking them apart. The dolls are always of the same material.

When it comes to values, it starts with subjective and that's where it ends. Expecting to arrive at "objective" is as irratianal and futile as getting on a train and expecting it to fly.

I always try to use examples for illustration - they are the flesh filling the skeleton of theoretic explanation with life.

Here is one: about fifteen years ago, I decided to become a vegetarian.

My decision was based on subjective personal preference, and not on an objective value, no matter how highly I personally may hold it as a value. It remains subjective.

When I wrote here on the forum that I'm a member of PETA, a poster made fun of me, trying to "devalue my value" by jokingly giving another meaning to the acronym PETA (he called it "People Eating Tasty Animals"), (this poster was quite obviously a meat eater not sharing my personal values here. )

The value for him "in devaluing my value" was to bolster his own subjective value. The reverse happens quite often too: vegetarians can act almost like religious fanatics, lecturing non-vegetarians on the "ethical" way to eat, while what they are actually doing is to superimpose their own personal preferences upon others, telling them they "ought to" value what they prefer.

I have never tried to (figuratively speaking) shove my soybean hamburgers down others' throats.

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.

But the qualifier is always value to whom? Values are attributed by someone to something.

From which it follows that values can contradict each other.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Anything can be a value, but the ones Objectivists are concerned with are VIABLE values...

But isn't perceiving them as "viable" a subjective value judgement too?

Could you please give an example of an objectivist "viable value" so we can discuss it? TIA.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

It is true that "Values are always subjective..." except when they are objective.

Adam

[UncleJim]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

--Brant

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.

Not at all, because some values are objective needs of the organism and others are subjective and experienced as needs and wants.

--Brant

Anything can be a value, but the ones Objectivists are concerned with are VIABLE values...

By your claim that anything can be a value allows a non-value to be a value. That is called an absurdity.

[UncleJim]

But the qualifier is always value to whom? Values are attributed by someone to something. From which it follows that values can contradict each other.

This allows your value to contradict my value. But that is the denial of the idea of value rather than a confirmation of it. A value cannot contradict itself and yet that is what your claim requires. Your claim allows the same exact value to OK by your standard and at the same time be not OK by my standard. That is called an absurdity - it cannot be true.

A value is always a value. Value is independent of the mental state of the valuer. A person can claim that death is a value to them but that does not make it so.

Value is that which life needs to remain life. In other words: Value is to the existence of humans that need is to the existence of life.

[BaalChatzaf]

A value is always a value. Value is independent of the mental state of the valuer. A person can claim that death is a value to them but that does not make it so.

Of what value is a subway token on a desert island?

What is or is not of value is often determined by context.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

Values are always subjective, from which it follows that the value in "devaluing a valuing" is an individual, subjective issue too.

It's like those Russian nested Matryoshska dolls where you get another exemplar when picking them apart. The dolls are always of the same material.

When it comes to values, it starts with subjective and that's where it ends. Expecting to arrive at "objective" is as irratianal and futile as getting on a train and expecting it to fly.

I always try to use examples for illustration - they are the flesh filling the skeleton of theoretic explanation with life.

Here is one: about fifteen years ago, I decided to become a vegetarian.

My decision was based on subjective personal preference, and not on an objective value, no matter how highly I personally may hold it as a value. It remains subjective.

When I wrote here on the forum that I'm a member of PETA, a poster made fun of me, trying to "devalue my value" by jokingly giving another meaning to the acronym PETA (he called it "People Eating Tasty Animals"), (this poster was quite obviously a meat eater not sharing my personal values here. )

The value for him "in devaluing my value" was to bolster his own subjective value.

The reverse happens quite often too: vegetarians can act almost like religious fanatics, telling non-vegetarians they are "morally wrong", while what they are actually doing is to superimpose their own personal preferences upon others, telling them they "ought to" value what they prefer.

I have never tried to (figuratively speaking) shove my soybean hamburgers down others' throats.

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.

But the qualifier is always value to whom? Values are attributed by someone to something.

From which it follows that values can contradict each other.

Another way to examine my positing of subjective and objective values is to consider the limits of general human plasticity: People are not dogs, cats or dinosaurs. Considering what a person is reveals what he is not. What a person thinks is a value to him is a value to him even if he's insane--but the value is in his head. So he steps off the roof of a tall buiding thinking he can fly and goes splat and that's that for Jack. He experienced what he did as a value (selfish value) but it was not a value to the flourishing and life of that organism which is now dead.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What a person thinks is a value to him is a value to him even if he's insane--but the value is in his head. So he steps off the roof of a tall buiding thinking he can fly and goes splat and that's that for Jack. He experienced what he did as a value (selfish value) but it was not a value to the flourishing and life of that organism which is now dead.

Brant,

That is a very good example of a value that is not objective. It contradicts the intentions of the valuer with facts, to the point of destroying the valuer.

Rand enemies might love the following statement, but facts are facts. Smoking was not an objective value to her. It was an irrational value that she stubbornly rationalized in a variety of ways. It ended up killing her before her time (lung cancer and the ensuing weakened heart).

Michael

[tjohnson]

So an objective value is one that has a basis in "reality"? So if I value fast food as my main diet I will probably get cardiovascular disease and so my "food" is killing me? That type of thing?

[UncleJim]

Another way to examine my positing of subjective and objective values is to consider the limits of general human plasticity: People are not dogs, cats or dinosaurs. Considering what a person is reveals what he is not. What a person thinks is a value to him is a value to him even if he's insane--but the value is in his head. So he steps off the roof of a tall buiding thinking he can fly and goes splat and that's that for Jack. He experienced what he did as a value (selfish value) but it was not a value to the flourishing and life of that organism which is now dead.

--Brant

This is exactly why value is not determined by human whim. It is determined by life. Just because "Jack" believed he could fly does not magically make that a value - to him. The effect of that belief on his life is the indicator of whether his belief is of value - to his life.

Belief is not a value maker. That is the error of religion.

Edited April 28, 2009 by UncleJim

[BaalChatzaf]

This is exactly why value is not determined by human whim. It is determined by life. Just because "Jack" believed he could fly does not magically make that a value - to him. The effect of that belief on his life is the indicator of whether his belief is of value - to his life.

Value is determined by (human) judgement. A is of value to B if A is a means to an end E that B had. There is no inherent value in the natural order. Nothing in the laws of physics says "This X is valuable".

A value is something that a person chooses to pursue or keep. So choice precedes value.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

So an objective value is one that has a basis in "reality"? So if I value fast food as my main diet I will probably get cardiovascular disease and so my "food" is killing me? That type of thing?

You have identified the known nature of "fast food" yet you maintain that it is an example of how you describe value - to you. Why do you describe it that way?

[UncleJim]

This is exactly why value is not determined by human whim. It is determined by life. Just because "Jack" believed he could fly does not magically make that a value - to him. The effect of that belief on his life is the indicator of whether his belief is of value - to his life.

Value is determined by (human) judgement. A is of value to B if A is a means to an end E that B had. There is no inherent value in the natural order. Nothing in the laws of physics says "This X is valuable".

A value is something that a person chooses to pursue or keep. So choice precedes value.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Re-read by post that you quoted. Notice it says nothing about physics. If something supports the existence of life then, and only then, is it a value.

[tjohnson]

What I mean is that a person who values fast food thinking it is nutritional has made an irrational choice - a subjective value? But if they have a healthy diet that leads to longevity then it's objective and rational?

[BaalChatzaf]

Re-read by post that you quoted. Notice it says nothing about physics. If something supports the existence of life then, and only then, is it a value.

That was my point precisely. There is no value in the non-sentient physical domain. It exists purely within the contexts of judgments made by sentient beings. In non-sentient nature there is nothing intrinsically valuable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

What I mean is that a person who values fast food thinking it is nutritional has made an irrational choice - a subjective value? But if they have a healthy diet that leads to longevity then it's objective and rational?

Choice can be shown to be either irrational or rational based on the consequence resulting naturally from it.

Choice is either subjective or objective based on how it came into existence.

If the choice came into existence based on the emotion of human whim then it is subjective. Its existence is subject to the emotional influence of human whim.

If; on the other hand, the choice came into existence based on the needs of ones life then, and only then, is it an objective choice. The needs of life are the energy resources it requires to continue to function. The idea of life describes a naturally occurring energy activity. Life is merely the word that was created to allow for discussing and learning about this naturally occurring energy activity. The energy resources which ones 'life' needs to continue to function is found as and within the objects of reality possessing nutritional value. Here then is the derivation of "objective values." They are the needs of life. Value simply translates the needs of life into an intellectual format.

Fast food does contain some of the 'nutritional value' which ones life requires to continue functioning. The issue is with whether ones physical body can function long enough for one to experience a full and happy lifespan.

Edited April 28, 2009 by UncleJim

[UncleJim]

Re-read by post that you quoted. Notice it says nothing about physics. If something supports the existence of life then, and only then, is it a value.

That was my point precisely. There is no value in the non-sentient physical domain. It exists purely within the contexts of judgments made by sentient beings. In non-sentient nature there is nothing intrinsically valuable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But that is not what I said - either. I said that the needs of life determine what 'value' is. In other words: Life is the standard of value. Value has nothing at all to do with whether there are sentient beings or not. It only has to do with whether life exists or not. Life is; however, a human creation. Meaning that life is a specific word created by the human mind.

The issue in not "what is life or does life exist." The issue is why does life exist? Why did the human mind create life? What is the purpose behind why the human mind created life?

The same issue exists with the existence of value. Value was created in recognition of the "needs" of life. Life was created in recognition of the difference between the animate and the inanimate. The "needs" of life do not have meaning or application in the absence of the animate.

I am an animate being. As such my life has needs. When translated into human language these "needs of life" are called human values.

[Brant Gaede]

What a person thinks is a value to him is a value to him even if he's insane--but the value is in his head. So he steps off the roof of a tall buiding thinking he can fly and goes splat and that's that for Jack. He experienced what he did as a value (selfish value) but it was not a value to the flourishing and life of that organism which is now dead.

Brant,

That is a very good example of a value that is not objective. It contradicts the intentions of the valuer with facts, to the point of destroying the valuer.

Rand enemies might love the following statement, but facts are facts. Smoking was not an objective value to her. It was an irrational value that she stubbornly rationalized in a variety of ways. It ended up killing her before her time (lung cancer and the ensuing weakened heart).

Michael

"Her time" peaked with the publication of AS. Smoking enables a writer to focus his mind to the exclusion of outside influences. Some but not much of the "irrational" in smoking today is PC BS which has replaced the too easy acceptance of smoking in the 1950s and 1960s. Considering the tremendous effort of her professional career through the publication of AS and the hard life she chose for herself, it's really difficult for me to label her smoking "irrational." It was both a writing crutch and a personal pleasure.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Another way to examine my positing of subjective and objective values is to consider the limits of general human plasticity: People are not dogs, cats or dinosaurs. Considering what a person is reveals what he is not. What a person thinks is a value to him is a value to him even if he's insane--but the value is in his head. So he steps off the roof of a tall buiding thinking he can fly and goes splat and that's that for Jack. He experienced what he did as a value (selfish value) but it was not a value to the flourishing and life of that organism which is now dead.

--Brant

This is exactly why value is not determined by human whim. It is determined by life. Just because "Jack" believed he could fly does not magically make that a value - to him. The effect of that belief on his life is the indicator of whether his belief is of value - to his life.

Belief is not a value maker. That is the error of religion.

It is really hard to have a discussion with someone who ignores half of what you say. I agree with you about objective value. I disagree with you about subjective value--i.e., that there is no such thing.

Belief is a value maker, but not an objective value maker. Objective values are passive and have to be sought out by a valuer who is truly blessed when his value ideas are validated by facts. To deny subjective experience of value is to rend the organism of free will and choice and leaves the door totally wide open to the dictatorship(s) of those who claim to know what is good for you.

This is also why I despise ignoramuses like Perigo who thinks(?!) he can objectify the superiority of his musical esthetics. He just wants to be the leader of a band of idiots.

--Brant

Edited April 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Hmm

Kinda like Nancy Pelosi in drag.

However, Jim, he seems he has a good point.

Adam

Edited April 28, 2009 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

But that is not what I said - either. I said that the needs of life determine what 'value' is. In other words: Life is the standard of value. Value has nothing at all to do with whether there are sentient beings or not. It only has to do with whether life exists or not. Life is; however, a human creation. Meaning that life is a specific word created by the human mind.

There were living things long before there were human beings. Life, in general, is not a creation of humans. Perhaps humans had to define the word "living" but by any definition there was life and living things billions of years before our species emerged.

The only sentient beings we have experienced are living beings. There may be living non-sentient beings but there are no (at least to the best of our knowledge) sentient non-living beings.

A question now arises: does the notion of value have any meaning in a non-teleological context. That is can something be a value which is not a means to some end or an end of some means.

For beings that are conscious and sentient (we are such beings) value is bound up with teleological actions.

What about non-conscious beings such as hypothetical nano-robots which will take actions to be energized to continue their activities. Are such actions value seeking in the absence of consciousness? Or weather systems. Clouds dump their excess electric charge to the ground (lightning). Is electrical neutrality (where postive charges balance negative charges) a "value" to clouds. Hmmm.... that is a question to which I do not have a ready answer. Perhaps you do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I'll check and pass to my right, but that is a hell of a good question:

"A question now arises: does the notion of value have any meaning in a non-teleological context. That is can something be a value which is not a means to some end or an end of some means."

hmmm

Adam