Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Dragonfly,

I am curious about this term "subjective," since I see it used so often with two different meanings. The first meaning is that value is open to a person's choice. I fully agree with that. The whole purpose of ethics is to grapple with what are the best choices of broad and abstract values.

The second meaning of subjective is that it is impossible to measure reality in universal terms, only in personal terms. This usually ends up as some kind of statement like "what is good for you might be evil for another," therefore values are subjective.

A value, by its definition, implies a valuer and a relationship with some part of reality. It is in the relationship that the objection to subjectivity problem lies (at least for those who think in Objectivist terms), not in the fact that the valuer can make a choice. There is a reality-level of cause and effect that can be measured in terms of universals, meaning that it will operate the same irrespective of the person. This part is not subjective. It is a universal experience. (If you don't eat for a long time, you die, etc.)

Another value that cannot be open to subjectivity is whether we will use the scientific method for validly gaining knowledge of the physical world or whether we will use readings of chicken entrails followed by deep prayer. Those who value the scientific method do not value it because it works for them while they acknowledge that chicken entrails works for others. They value it because it works for everybody who uses it. You simply can't build technology out of chicken entrails. That is not subjective at all.

These two meanings of subjective should be kept very clear when making statements about value.

Interestingly enough, I have been reading some cognitive science recently and there is a further monkey wrench in the works. It seems that the brain makes interpretations and evaluations of sensory data way before such values reach the conscious mind. On a very literal level, every "is" actually does imply an "ought" for what it does.

In fact, what I learned is that the brain makes many adjustments to reconstruct the reality it perceives, but ultimately tells the conscious mind a structured story instead of presenting it with raw data. One example is that sound travels much slower than light, so we should see a person's lips move before we hear him. Our eyes may see it that way and our ears may hear it that way, but our mind perceives the two as simultaneous.

The distance between the sensory input level and the frontal cortex is huge. On a very low level, our brain has already decided, without us agreeing or disagreeing, that synchronizing sound and light is good, at least for existents close to us. So it acts and does it.

This operation is also not subjective. It is universal in healthy human beings. Even those who see light and sound out of sync are not subjective. They are usually stoned or drunk.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

"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.

Sorry, Uncle Jim, that is NOT what Rand means. You are "special pleading" for RATIONAL, life-serving values. Rand is defining "value" GENERICALLY, in such a way that it also applies to plants, animals, and irrational people. It is that which one--i.e., a living organism--acts to gain and/or keep. A person, animal, or plant may be MISTAKEN in what it acts to gain and/or keep, but that is what it ~values~ nonetheless. Perhaps it SHOULDN'T value a particular thing, but that is what it DOES IN FACT value.

This whole issue keeps popping up over and over in Objectivist discussions, and Peikoff in his "Two Definitions" did nothing to clarify it.

Again: there are rational values and irrational values. Just because a value is irrational does not mean it IS NOT a value, just that it SHOULD NOT BE a value. To argue otherwise, is to adopt the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction, which results in such claims as that altruism is not a morality, statism is not a political philosophy, Kant was not a philosopher, Objectivism's political philosophy is not a species of individualism, etc.

REB

[Selene]

Correct Roger:

Now folks, I am not smart and I always understood her to say clearly that "...just that it SHOULD NOT BE a value."

And let us say she did not believe it and she believed the obverse, ok - she was wrong, philosophically fix it, have a vintage scotch, smoke from a "peace pipe" ;) B) and move on.

Adam

[Xray]

"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:

Ahaahaaa! Too, too funny, wonderful cartoon, Dragonfly, and what a brilliantly astute post!!

You have directed the attention to the core of the issue. Values are subjective, and calling one's own values "proper to man" does not change one iota from this fact.

[Uncle Jim] 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.

"Proper human existence" brings back memories. I almost feel like back at school where the catholic nuns told us about "proper human existence" from their perspective.

Bottom line: all these value judgements are subjective notions, and presenting them as "objective" does no change this fact one iota.

Wars have been fought, people burnt at the stake because they did not fit into a value system (usually declared as "objective") of another group.

Rand's praising of individualism while at the same time handing to followers a laundry list of "objective values" they "ought" to accept is a contradiction imo.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bottom line: all these value judgement are subjective notions, and presenting them as "objective" does no change this fact one iota.

Wars have been fought, people burnt at the stake because they did not fit into a value system (usually declared as "objective") of another group.

Xray,

To understand Objectivism, you need to broaden your perspective and deal with reality before you get to society. Just because a lot of people decide to worship a stone statue, this does not empower that statue with the capabilities the worshipers attribute to it. Reality trumps what those people believe.

As I mentioned above, values are "subjective" in the sense that you and you alone choose your values (at least, the ones you can choose). Values are not "subjective" in the sense that if you choose metaphysically detrimental values, they will destroy you.

The only way to learn which values will not destroy you is with objectivity. Doing it subjectively is very, very risky since reality does not forgive mistakes or foolishness.

btw - I do not know of anyone burned to the stake over values declared as "objective." I have always read of this within the context of faith-based values. Faith is subjective, not objective.

Michael

[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.

Sorry, Uncle Jim, that is NOT what Rand means. You are "special pleading" for RATIONAL, life-serving values. Rand is defining "value" GENERICALLY, in such a way that it also applies to plants, animals, and irrational people. It is that which one--i.e., a living organism--acts to gain and/or keep. A person, animal, or plant may be MISTAKEN in what it acts to gain and/or keep, but that is what it ~values~ nonetheless. Perhaps it SHOULDN'T value a particular thing, but that is what it DOES IN FACT value.

This whole issue keeps popping up over and over in Objectivist discussions, and Peikoff in his "Two Definitions" did nothing to clarify it.

Again: there are rational values and irrational values. Just because a value is irrational does not mean it IS NOT a value, just that it SHOULD NOT BE a value. To argue otherwise, is to adopt the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction, which results in such claims as that altruism is not a morality, statism is not a political philosophy, Kant was not a philosopher, Objectivism's political philosophy is not a species of individualism, etc.

REB

Roger, value is value. It is not not-value. It is what it is. Value is not irrational nor is it rational; it is value. Value is term, word, concept, etc. and as such it was created by a rational functioning human mind. The issue is not "what is value -or- does value exist?" The issue is "WHY does value exist -or- what is the purpose for which the human mind created value?"

Value was created by the human mind to denote the existence of specific aspects of reality. It denotes those aspects of reality [and/or their relationships] which life needs to remain in existence.

I agree that the human designation of value denotes the existence of that which also apples to all other living organisms. But that does not deny that it is a creation of a properly functioning (rational) human mind. No other living organism has ever demonstrated the ability to create value, time, space, hate, love, god, universe, medicine, cyclotron, etc. etc.

To fully appreciate what Ayn Rand has done one must acknowledge who she was talking about - and why - when she was formulating her Objectivist principles.

[UncleJim]

Bottom line: all these value judgement are subjective notions, and presenting them as "objective" does no change this fact one iota.

Wars have been fought, people burnt at the stake because they did not fit into a value system (usually declared as "objective") of another group.

Xray,

To understand Objectivism, you need to broaden your perspective and deal with reality before you get to society. Just because a lot of people decide to worship a stone statue, this does not empower that statue with the capabilities the worshipers attribute to it. Reality trumps what those people believe.

As I mentioned above, values are "subjective" in the sense that you and you alone choose your values (at least, the ones you can choose). Values are not "subjective" in the sense that if you choose metaphysically detrimental values, they will destroy you.

The only way to learn which values will not destroy you is with objectivity. Doing it subjectively is very, very risky since reality does not forgive mistakes or foolishness.

btw - I do not know of anyone burned to the stake over values declared as "objective." I have always read of this within the context of faith-based values. Faith is subjective, not objective.

Michael

For clarity.

I have never denied that some people do act against their own well being. And that these purposefully self-destructive actions are a direct reflection on what they believe is of value to them. Belief does not a value make.

When a person chooses to blow themselves into millions of tiny bloody bits of meat and bone, they did not do that based on a value judgment. It is simply absurd to claim and/or insist that they have demonstrated they have a rather special but completely different value system from our own. They do not!! Value is not a derivation of a subjective idea - it is derivation of a real, rational, objective idea.

There is no such entity called a "value system." It does not exist in a real, observable, knowable way. Value designates the existence of that which life requires to continue to be whatever it is.

People who I consider to be thinkers rather than believers are trying to guide me' on this issue. Since this is not my view; then, I do not need guidance to resolve it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

Roger is correct. You are using the term "value" differently than Rand did.

He already provide the quote so I will not need to. You are free to accept Rand's meaning or not. Ignoring it is a critical mistake.

Michael

[Xray]

Bottom line: all these value judgement are subjective notions, and presenting them as "objective" does no change this fact one iota.

Wars have been fought, people burnt at the stake because they did not fit into a value system (usually declared as "objective") of another group.

Xray,

To understand Objectivism, you need to broaden your perspective and deal with reality before you get to society. Just because a lot of people decide to worship a stone statue, this does not empower that statue with the capabilities the worshipers attribute to it. Reality trumps what those people believe.

I take it you're telling me that I don't understand Objectivism with the inference that if I did, it would settle the matter. To do this you say,

"you need to broaden your perspective and deal with reality before you get to society." I find this totally abstract and not at all instructive. To get

down to the nitty gritty of a reality of entities and relationships, would you please advise me where I have made a specific error in entity identity and/or a relationship?

As for stone worshipers, or worshipers of any sort, what is there to worship in the absence of the concept, objective value?

"As I mentioned above, values are "subjective" in the sense that you and you alone choose your values (at least, the ones you can choose). Values are not "subjective" in the sense that if you choose metaphysically detrimental

values, they will destroy you."

The entity in focus is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking human individual. These characteristics make of the objective identity of said entity. This entity attributes value to this or that. Given the immutable identity of this entity, how can attributing value in one instance be subjective and in the next be objective? Does this not logically imply two separate identities and/or a dual reality?

As I mentioned above, values are "subjective" in the sense that you and you alone choose your values (at least, the ones you can choose). Values are not "subjective" in the sense that if you choose metaphysically detrimental values, they will destroy you.

The only way to learn which values will not destroy you is with objectivity. Doing it subjectively is very, very risky since reality does not forgive mistakes or foolishness

There appears to be some confusion as to ends and means. The end is value chosen, i.e., value attributed. Self destruction goes to objective means.

The choice of self destruction is no less attributing value subjectively.The implicit interjection as "life as a standard" is no less a subjective choice. Such interjection of your personal choice attests to the fact of subjective value even in denial.

btw - I do not know of anyone burned to the stake over values declared as "objective." I have always read of this within the context of faith-based values. Faith is subjective, not objective.

"God's will" is a concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value. Since such values are said to exist in

objective reality independent of individual mind, this sets these values as objective whether declared or logically implied. Yes, faith is subjective.

It is a subjective choice to believe the fallacy "objective value".

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I take it you're telling me that I don't understand Objectivism with the inference that if I did, it would settle the matter.

Xray,

You take it wrong and the insinuation borders on insult.

So let's be clear so you can crawl out of my skull and no longer need to tell me what I think and intend.

I am telling you that once you understand Objectivism correctly, you will be able to critique Objectivism instead of your own misunderstandings and calling those Objectivism.

I have no idea what value you get out of doing that, but you keep insisting on it.

Anyway, once you get a grasp of what the actual Objectivist ideas are, you can "settle the matter" in any manner you wish (agree or disagree or whatever) without being in primary error.

As to the rest of your post, please read this before we continue and let us agree on a meaning of "subjective." I want to discuss ideas, not quibble over semantics. The meaning of "subjective" is flip-flopping all over the place, with misattribution running wild.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

"Subjective" simply means that a value will in general be different for different persons (and also different for the same person at different times), it is a dynamic, person-dependent variable. It's just like taste: A loves carrots and detests beans, B vice versa, there is no objective criterion to determine which food tastes better (at most you can give the statistical distribution of the preferences over the general population), taste is a subjective concept (which in fact determines the relative values of different kinds of food for a person). That doesn't mean that a particular preference of a person couldn't in principle be explained by science (in some cases a particular like or dislike has been found to be coupled to a specific gene, for example). That is the difference between subjective notions like taste or value and objective notions like the mass of a brick or the charge of the electron, which are not person-dependent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

In your conception, which part of poison is subjective and which part is objective if used as a value?

You see, I am already using a different, but equally valid, meaning for "subjective."

Michael

[Dragonfly]

In your conception, which part of poison is subjective and which part is objective if used as a value?

The value of a poison is always subjective. To most people it will have a very low value, but probably not to Lucrezia Borgia or to some terminally ill people. Something that is subjective doesn't become objective by majority rule.

[Xray]

As to the rest of your post, please read this before we continue and let us agree on a meaning of "subjective."

I did as you suggested:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry68606 (post# 126)

You state there:

A value, by its definition, implies a valuer and a relationship with some part of reality.

Would you agree that "valuer" implies a volitional being attributing value to this or that?

As for the second part of your sentence, "relationship with some part of reality" - what about a person attributing value to an illusion? All religions for example value elements which clearly are not part of reality.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Dragonfly,

In your conception, which part of poison is subjective and which part is objective if used as a value?

You see, I am already using a different, but equally valid, meaning for "subjective."

Michael

Categorizing a substance as "poison" in general is an arbitrary decision too. For a substance which may be toxic for the human body may not affect certain animals at all. Or vice versa.

What is "objective" is the chemical composition of the substance which can be scientifically examined and described.

As for the individually attributed value of a "poison", Dragonfly posted an illustrative example in # 138.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

A picture of an aura falls where in your panoply of "objects" which "clearly are not part of reality."?

[Xray]

A picture of an aura falls where in your panoply of "objects" which "clearly are not part of reality."?

I don't know enough about those aura photographs from the technical point of view. I'm generally skeptical about these things in view of the many charlatans which exist in that field.

But a picture is an object which can be examined. Just like the paper containing the readings of an electocardiogram, or polygraph readings of physiological reactions.

I assume the aura is connected to a physical object (a human) who is being photographed? So the object is clearly part of reality.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

btw - I do not know of anyone burned to the stake over values declared as "objective." I have always read of this within the context of faith-based values. Faith is subjective, not objective.

But the contents of the faith were declared as objective, i. e. true. People were not even allowed to doubt the doctrine.

This has not changed today in most church leaders' eyes. Ask the Pope if he thinks what he says about paradise or whatever else in the catholic ideology is TRUE and you will get a "Yes".

"God's will" is an ideological concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value. Since such values are said to exist in reality independent of individual mind, this sets these value as objective whether declared or logically implied. Yes, faith is subjective.

To believe the fallacy "objective value", is a subjective choice.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

If I understand your meaning of objective correctly, all you need to have for something to be objective is a number of people saying so. If they can use force to insist on it, so much the better.

Is that what you really think?

My meaning of objective is very different.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Xray,

If I understand your meaning of objective correctly, all you need to have for something to be objective is a number of people saying so. If they can use force to insist on it, so much the better.

Is that what you really think?

My meaning of objective is very different.

Michael

Exactly, Michael.

What was the saying on this subject when I was a child? "Saying don't make it so!"

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

btw - I do not know of anyone burned to the stake over values declared as "objective." I have always read of this within the context of faith-based values. Faith is subjective, not objective.

But the contents of the faith were declared as objective, i. e. true. People were not even allowed to doubt the doctrine.

This has not changed today in most church leaders' eyes. Ask the Pope if he thinks what he says about paradise or whatever else in the catholic ideology is TRUE and you will get a "Yes".

"God's will" is an ideological concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value. Since such values are said to exist in reality independent of individual mind, this sets these value as objective whether declared or logically implied. Yes, faith is subjective.

To believe the fallacy "objective value", is a subjective choice.

Which in turn is an objectively true statement?

--Brant

[tjohnson]

My meaning of objective is very different.

Michael

And what is your meaning?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I could put the following in my own words (which I often like to do to make sure I fully agree or disagree with someone), but Rand did a really good job of it.

See here (from The Ayn Rand Lexicon): Objectivity.

(The last entry on that page is not Rand at her finest, but the other entries, especially the first and the one on axiomatic concepts are top notch.)

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

GS,

I could put the following in my own words (which I often like to do to make sure I fully agree or disagree with someone), but Rand did a really good job of it.

See here (from The Ayn Rand Lexicon): Objectivity.

(The last entry on that page is not Rand at her finest, but the other entries, especially the first and the one on axiomatic concepts are top notch.)

Michael

Nothing quite like going back to the basics before taking your first step onto the "mountain of discussion."

~ Shane

[Xray]

Xray,

If I understand your meaning of objective correctly, all you need to have for something to be objective is a number of people saying so. If they can use force to insist on it, so much the better.

Is that what you really think?

No, it isn't. My post was about people claiming their subjective values/beliefs be objective values. The modifier is "claiming".

Just because many claim something to be objective does not make it so.

As for the definition of objective:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Xray