Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[BaalChatzaf]

Every word used in your post was created by the human mind; including the words life and living. Until you acknowledge that life and what it means are not one and the same (and I am confidant that you do know the difference) this conversation is not going to resolve.

You are confusing the names/description of things with the things themselves. Your thinking is muddled.

The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory. The portrait is not the subject. The description is not the thing described.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

Every word used in your post was created by the human mind; including the words life and living. Until you acknowledge that life and what it means are not one and the same (and I am confidant that you do know the difference) this conversation is not going to resolve.

You are confusing the names/description of things with the things themselves. Your thinking is muddled.

The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory. The portrait is not the subject. The description is not the thing described.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You need to actually read my posts more closely.

[Selene]

Reading is not the retention.

"Do" I "win" "a" "signed" "copy" "of" Korzybski's "territory"? Geez now this is perfect, I don't even know what I am saying?

If a saying is said on the shore, does a whale weep in the deep?

Calling Dr. Seuss

Edited April 29, 2009 by Selene

[tjohnson]

You know, Korzybski coined the phrase "the word is not the thing it represents" in order to counteract the objectification that can result from the use of the 'is of identity'. Most people hear the phrase and say "well duh! of course the word is not the thing it represents" yet they continue to act as if it is.

[UncleJim]

You know, Korzybski coined the phrase "the word is not the thing it represents" in order to counteract the objectification that can result from the use of the 'is of identity'. Most people hear the phrase and say "well duh! of course the word is not the thing it represents" yet they continue to act as if it is.

And that is a big problem. It allows people to claim that god is an actual something which is responsible for the creation of everything when it was the human mind that actually created everything. Including the creation of god.

[Brant Gaede]

The creation of creation?

--Brant

[UncleJim]

The creation of creation?

--Brant

Of course! The issue is not "does creation exist" the issue is "why does creation exist?"; "what is the purpose for why the human mind created creation?"

Creation address the ability of humans to 'create' medicine, light-bulbs, cyclotrons, hot bread, roller-coasters, god, time, space, distance, universe, heaven, hell, etc. In other words: Creation was created to explain what the ability of the human mind to create is and how it operates.

[Xray]

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?

Unble Jim, you think the "human mind" mind creates life?? How does that work?

How did 'life' come into existence? The human mind created it. What is life? It is a word! Every word ever created was created by a human mind. Consider the enormous impact on your thinking when you begin to realize what the human mind has created. Some examples: water, salt, space, time, distance, god, heaven, hell, universe, everything, "child kidnapping, raping, murdering bastards" etc., etc.

Creating a word for a phenomenon is not the same as creating the phenomenon itself. For example, when at some time in English language history, the word "snow" was created to signify the white cold stuff falling fom the sky in some countries, it was of course not the white cold stuff itself which was created.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

You know, Korzybski coined the phrase "the word is not the thing it represents" in order to counteract the objectification that can result from the use of the 'is of identity'. Most people hear the phrase and say "well duh! of course the word is not the thing it represents" yet they continue to act as if it is.

Indeed they often do.

[UncleJim]

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?

Unble Jim, you think the "human mind" mind creates life?? How does that work?

How did 'life' come into existence? The human mind created it. What is life? It is a word! Every word ever created was created by a human mind. Consider the enormous impact on your thinking when you begin to realize what the human mind has created. Some examples: water, salt, space, time, distance, god, heaven, hell, universe, everything, "child kidnapping, raping, murdering bastards" etc., etc.

Creating a word for a phenomenon is not the same as creating the phenomenon itself. For example, when at some time in English language history, the word "snow" was created to signify the white cold stuff falling fom the sky in some countries, it was of course not the white cold stuff itself which was created.

Now we can begin to discuss rationality. When the word created denotes some aspect of reality, that is proof the word was rationally created. That it was created to designate something which is, or was, known to exist.

[Dragonfly]

And? How many angels can really dance on the head of a pin?

[UncleJim]

And? How many angels can really dance on the head of a pin?

Angels are imaginary. They are a made-up thing. They have never been shown to actually exist.

So..... the answer is, however many you care to imagine.

[Xray]

A person can say anything he wishes. He can say death is a value - to him. But that does not make it so. Value is not a human determinate. Value lies outside of human whim. Failing to identify what value is, is why we some people are able to justify convincing their children and grandchildren to commit murder by suicide bombing.

But you will have to agree to the fact that a suicide bomber obviously values different things than you do - right? There is no getting around the fact that whatever is claimed to be a "value" is a subjective choice.

The suicide bomber has merely chosen a different value for himself than you have.

The term 'value' has no definitive meaning except attributing value to an end desired and to the means to achieve that end. The importance attributed to the end desired is a value judgement, i.e. subjective personal preference. The importance of the means is whether the means are suited to bring about the end desired.

The religious suicide bomber and his parents value the promised afterlife as a reward for the deed. The means to achieve that end is a functioning bomb. Anlayzing these things requires a scientific "sine ira et studio" attitude; so when I put it like that, I leave out here my personal value judgements about suicide bombings and promised afterlives. I'm merely describing and explaining.

And if you have ever discussed with fanatic believers (whether they are religious or not, radical Marxists for example fit that category too), they will present to you their values as objective too. Try it out (I have).

So whenever two opposing parties battle each other over alleged "objective" values each claims to have "identified", we have the case of one fallacy fighting another.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Judging by this use of 'objective' it seems that the underlying premise of objectivism is that an individual wants to continue to live. Given that, then these values apply to everyone hence they are objective?

Being alive is both causally and logically prior to anything else (for a human). That is why life occupies the Number One Spot on the scale of values. Nothing matters or is possible for a dead person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Didn't you leave out something like whose scale of values? Where does individual volition factor in?

As for Rand, is she not simply setting out her personal choice and pretending it has universal application? Is omitting the natural law fact of individual volition really dealing with "the facts of reality"?

I concede that "Nothing matters or is possible for a dead person." It is true regardless of whether the deceased valued living or not. This an

objective fact. This is biology, not philosophy. The issue imo is not the objective condition, but whether an individual subjectively values or disvalues the objective condition.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

A person can say anything he wishes. He can say death is a value - to him. But that does not make it so. Value is not a human determinate. Value lies outside of human whim. Failing to identify what value is, is why we some people are able to justify convincing their children and grandchildren to commit murder by suicide bombing.

But you will have to agree to the fact that a suicide bomber obviously values different things than you do - right? There is no getting around the fact that whatever is claimed to be a "value" is a subjective choice.

The suicide bomber has merely chosen a different value for himself than you have.

But that only points our the obvious error in stating that value is determined by human whim. Value is not determined in that way. Since both I and the suicide bomber are a living being; then, value is the same for each of us. The suicide bombers is not operating in accordance with the standard by which value is known and ranked. That standard being the existence of life.

The term 'value' has no definitive meaning except attributing value to an end desired and to the means to achieve that end. The importance attributed to the end desired is a value judgement, i.e. subjective personal preference. The importance of the means is whether the means are suited to bring about the end desired.

The religious suicide bomber and his parents value the promised afterlife as a reward for the deed. The means to achieve that end is a functioning bomb. Anlayzing these things requires a scientific "sine ira et studio" attitude; so when I put it like that, I leave out here my personal value judgements about suicide bombings and promised afterlives. I'm merely describing and explaining.

And if you have ever discussed with fanatic believers (whether they are religious or not, radical Marxists for example fit that category too), they will present to you their values as objective too. Try it out (I have).

So whenever two opposing parties battle each other over alleged "objective" values each claims to have "identified", we have the case of one fallacy fighting another.

Notice the contradiction. One cannot destroy the standard of value and then claim it is the means by which he decides his actions. That is called an absurdity.

Yes I have spoken to Marxists socialists. They are nuts! Almost as nuts as Muslim suicide bombers. They can say their values are objectively based but a simple analysis of them defeats their claim.

Again. Value is not determined by human whim. That is where your argument fails to address the issue. You keep repeating that humans determine the values they wish to follow. That is not the case. Humans; of course, determine the actions they are going to take. But that does not guarantee that that action was a value based action.

The determinate as to whether or not an action was a value based action is the consequence of it on the continued existence of their life. If their life is benefited by the consequence resulting from the action then, and only then, can it be said the action was a values based action.

Absent life value has no meaning or application.

Edited April 30, 2009 by UncleJim

[Selene]

And? How many angels can really dance on the head of a pin?

Angels are imaginary. They are a made-up thing. They have never been shown to actually exist.

So..... the answer is, however many you care to imagine.

Come on - when you come to America I will take you to a California Angels game - they do exist and they have halo's on their hats!

Adam

[Xray]

So whenever two opposing parties battle each other over alleged "objective" values each claims to have "identified", we have the case of one fallacy fighting another.

Notice the contradiction. One cannot destroy the standard of value and then claim it is the means by which he decides his actions. That is called an absurdity.

I don't think you have understood my point here. The issue was two opposing belief systems (each based on a fallacy) battling each other.

Value is not determined by human whim.

And who and on what grounds, decides what is a "whim", Uncle Jim?

Any declared "standard of value" in philosophical systems is arbitrary and subjectively chosen. Philosophers (or any John or Jane Doe (for everyone has a philosophy), can think out for themselves a most elaborate system of standards of values - they remain subjective, how ever much they will try to sell them as objective merely because they themselves believe in them.

The fact that there are no objective values may come as a shock to anyone who has held the belief that they exist. But those shocks can have a healing effect in that they tear off the mask off and give an unveiled look at just the facts.

A simple look at history shows us how whole value systems held as objective by societies have completely vanished.

Laws are not based on objective values either. For example, a government's decison to declare certain drugs as illegal (e. g. cannabis) while at the same time profiting via taxes from another drug (alcohol) declared as legal is not based on any objective values allegedly based on medical facts, but a completely arbitrary choice.

Want some more examples? Today, Plato would probably get in conflict with the law with his value system involving the praise of homosexual love to adolescents.

That is where your argument fails to address the issue. You keep repeating that humans determine the values they wish to follow. That is not the case. Humans; of course, determine the actions they are going to take.

The actions people take are the means to achieve an individually chosen goal.

"Value" implies a conscious mind attributing value, worth, to an issue. A plant for example can have no values, however much Rand seems to be convinced of the contrary.

Given the existence of the great number of human conscious minds in the world, it follows that you get an infinite variety of chosen values. Surely you won't deny this?

Value lies in the eyes of the valuer, Uncle Jim. I'll give you a very radical example in my next post but will wait for your reply to my questions first.

Let's take a look at Rand's catalog of "cardinal values": "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

and her "cardinal virtues: "rationality, productivenness, pride".

So just curious: so they are yours (and every objectivst's) cardinal values and virtues too?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

So whenever two opposing parties battle each other over alleged "objective" values each claims to have "identified", we have the case of one fallacy fighting another.

Notice the contradiction. One cannot destroy the standard of value and then claim it is the means by which he decides his actions. That is called an absurdity.

I don't think you have understood my point here. The issue was two opposing belief systems (each based on a fallacy) battling each other.

Why are you concerned with discussing fallacy?

Value is not determined by human whim.

And who and on what grounds, decides what is a "whim", Uncle Jim?

Any time a proposition is preceded by "I believe" the following proposition is a whim. Its validity is subject to the degree of rationality of the believer. Therefore whim is a subjective approach to reaching a conclusion.

Any declared "standard of value" in philosophical systems is arbitrary and subjectively chosen. Philosophers (or any John or Jane Doe (for everyone has a philosophy), can think out for themselves a most elaborate system of standards of values - they remain subjective, how ever much they will try to sell them as objective merely because they themselves believe in them.

The fact that there are no objective values may come as a shock to anyone who has held held the belief that they exist. But those shocks can have a healing effect in that they tear off the mask off and give an unveiled look at just the facts.

A simple look at history shows us how whole value systems held as objective by societies have completely vanished.

Laws are not based on objective values either. For example, a government's decison to declare certain drugs as illegal (e. g. cannabis) while at the same time profiting via taxes from another drug (alcohol) declared as legal is not based on any objective values allegedly based on medical facts, but a completely arbitrary choice.

Want some more examples? Today, Plato would probably get in conflict with the law with his value system involving the praise of homosexual love to adolescents.

That is where your argument fails to address the issue. You keep repeating that humans determine the values they wish to follow. That is not the case. Humans; of course, determine the actions they are going to take.

The actions people take are the means to achieve an individually chosen goal.

"Value" implies a conscious mind attributing value, worth, to an issue. A plant for example can have no values, however much Rand seems to be convinced of the contrary.

Given the existence of the great number of human conscious minds in the world, it follows that you get an infinite variety of chosen values. Surely you won't deny this?

Of course I deny it. It violates everytrhing I have said in this entire thread. Why don't you know that?

Value lies in the eyes of the valuer, Uncle Jim. I'll give you a very radical example in my next post but will wait for your reply to my questions first.

Let's take a look at Rand's catalog of "cardinal values": "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

and her "cardinal virtues: "rationality, productivenness, pride".

So just curious: so they are yours (and every objectivst's) cardinal values and virtues too?

Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

Again: I deny that value is determined by human whim. Value is an absolute. It is the same for every person who has ever live, to is the same for all people now living and it will be the same for any human who will ever live.

Value is that which each individuals life requires to remain what it is. Life is the standard of value. When the needs of life are translated into human intelligence it becomes the values properly functioning humans seek to gain, retain and maintain.

[Xray]

Come on, folks.

Look up "objective," then use that meaning to modify "value."

An objective value is one that is chosen with respect to facts (as opposed to insisting on tradition, whim, etc., when they contradict the facts).

A dish of ice cream is a fact. I value the dish of ice cream. Ergo, it's an "objective value?" If a person robs a bank, how does he accomplish this if

not by recognition of facts? By his criteria that acting upon facts constitutes objective values, then, doesn't it logically follow that every

end sought and reached is a matter of objective values regardless of personal preference?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Let's turn this around. What do you mean by "objective"? And what do you mean by "value"? I have given my meanings.

You keep bumping up against my meanings with switched ones. If we define our terms, and notice where they are different, it might get easier to arrive at conclusions and not keep spinning the same wheels without getting anywhere.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Come on, folks.

Look up "objective," then use that meaning to modify "value."

An objective value is one that is chosen with respect to facts (as opposed to insisting on tradition, whim, etc., when they contradict the facts).

A dish of ice cream is a fact. I value the dish of ice cream. Ergo, it's an "objective value?" If a person robs a bank, how does he accomplish this if

not by recognition of facts? By his criteria that acting upon facts constitutes objective values, then, doesn't it logically follow that every

end sought and reached is a matter of objective values regardless of personal preference.

Xray -

If you want to come onto a board such as Objectivist Living and have meaningful discussions with people, it would be worth your time to do a little reading of Rand. You may disagree with what she has written - fine. Tell us why. But try to demonstrate a little knowledge in doing so - - - you shouldn't be just grabbing terms used by Rand and imputing your own meanings to them (while disregarding the definitions given by Rand) and then noting some contradiction or question which you think you espy, based on imputing your meanings to Rand's terms.

Bill P

[Xray]

[Uncle Jim]:

Any time a proposition is preceded by "I believe" the following proposition is a whim.

So when I say eh i say "I believe John has embezzled the money", it is a "whim" but when I say "John has embezzled the money", it is no whim? What is it then? What is the opposite of "whim" in your system here?

Why are you concerned with discussing fallacy?

I'm concerned with identifying fallacy to avoid ending up in an epistemological blind alley.

Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

How am I to know the answer? Having just started reading your posts, I don' know yet to what extent you identify with Rand's claims and beliefs.

Xray -

If you want to come onto a board such as Objectivist Living and have meaningful discussions with people, it would be worth your time to do a little reading of Rand. You may disagree with what she has written - fine. Tell us why. But try to demonstrate a little knowledge in doing so - - - you shouldn't be just grabbing terms used by Rand and imputing your own meanings to them (while disregarding the definitions given by Rand) and then noting some contradiction or question which you think you espy, based on imputing your meanings to Rand's terms.

Bill P

I am reading Rand and have put up for discussion her objectivist "cardinal values" and "cardinal virtues".

Here they are:

Her cardinal values "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

Her "cardinal virtues: "rationality, productivenness, pride".

Are they yours also?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

[Uncle Jim]:

Any time a proposition is preceded by "I believe" the following proposition is a whim.

So when I say eh i say "I believe John has embezzled the money", it is a "whim" but when I say "John has embezzled the money", it is no whim? What is it then? What is the opposite of "whim" in your system here?

Why are you concerned with discussing fallacy?

I'm concerned with identifying fallacy to avoid ending up in an epistemological blind alley.

Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

How am I to know the answer? Having just started reading your posts, I don' know yet to what extent you identify with Rand's claims and beliefs.

Xray -

If you want to come onto a board such as Objectivist Living and have meaningful discussions with people, it would be worth your time to do a little reading of Rand. You may disagree with what she has written - fine. Tell us why. But try to demonstrate a little knowledge in doing so - - - you shouldn't be just grabbing terms used by Rand and imputing your own meanings to them (while disregarding the definitions given by Rand) and then noting some contradiction or question which you think you espy, based on imputing your meanings to Rand's terms.

Bill P

I am reading Rand and have put up for discussion her objectivist "cardinal values" and "cardinal virtues".

Here they are:

Her cardinal values "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

Her "cardinal virtues: "rationality, productivenness, pride".

Are they yours also?

You just don't get it. Individuals do not decide what their values (or the values of others) are. Value is determined by the needs of their life. And the value defines the virtue necessary to gain it.

If reason, purpose and self-esteem are a requirement for the achievement of a proper human existence (and they are) then YES; they are values.

If rationality, productiveness and pride are the virtues of value achievement (and they are) then YES; they are virtues.

These are not subject to human whim - they are the absolutes of human intelligence. Meaning they are naturally occurring 'human' attributes. One either gains these values, by enacting their associated virtues, or one fails to be a properly functioning human-being and will eventually die - forever.

Edited May 1, 2009 by UncleJim

[Dragonfly]

"Value" is not an absolute and is not objective. That follows immediately from Rand's own official definition: “Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep. Note that she does not say "value is that which one ought to act to gain and keep" nor "value is that which a rational person acts to gain and keep". Her definition implies that value is subjective, as different persons will act to gain and keep different things, and even the values of a single person will be different at different times and circumstances, people make decisions not on the basis of an absolute value but on the basis of the ranking of values, which may change at any instant. Neither is life the ultimate value. From the fact that life is a necessary condition for having values does not follow that life is therefore the ultimate value - a living being can in certain circumstances value death higher than life (in a painful terminal illness, the mother who offers her life to save that of her child, the soldier who throws himself on a live grenade to save his comrades etc.). Moreover, in most decisions that people have to take in life the question of life vs. death is simply not relevant.

But now comes the great switcheroo: instead of using this official definition, a new definition is implicitly used, in which suddenly the notion of "proper" values is introduced. It's the same trick that is used to switch from "mere survival" to "survival of man qua man", in other words the surreptitious introduction of Objectivist values in the argument. Now there is nothing wrong in presenting a set of values of which she thinks that it would be a good thing to follow them, but she shouldn't claim that she has proved them correct, because she has done no such thing. What are "proper" values is a subjective notion, which cannot be proved. This leaves a big hole in Rand's argument, that is carefully avoided by Objectivists. I think the situation is aptly described by Harris' great cartoon:

If reason, purpose and self-esteem are a requirement for the achievement of a proper human existence (and they are) then YES; they are values.

This is a perfect illustration of my point: what is the definition of a proper human existence? This is a subjective notion par excellence.

[UncleJim]

"Value" is not an absolute and is not objective. That follows immediately from Rand's own official definition: “Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep.

Who is the 'one' she is talking about? Ayn Rand always talks about rational persons when she established her Objectivist Principles. Rational persons are the 'ones' who act in accordance with their identity as human-beings. In other words: They act properly [meaning in accordance with] what being the rational being is and requires.

What is it that rational beings "act to gain and keep"? Value! And again; value is that which is a requirement of life, not just any life, their own life.