Rand's gender hierarchy

[tjohnson]

Rand's definition includes also material values (that is, an object or concept which is useful in some way to humans). In fact, that would be my criticism of her usage of the word "Value": it seems to me she is in danger of conflating moral value and material value.

I agree. We have established that it takes a living thing to value something (material) but to say that it should value something (moral) is completely different.

[merjet]

You ignored what I said next. All you have done so far is assert Rand had this erroneous belief, but you have not provided an iota of evidence that your assertion is true.

There is already evidence in this thread, in the form of the quote I posted from Branden which specifically defines sacrifice as giving up a higher value for a lower one.

It's not that simple. Xray's assertion is that Rand believed that a person P can knowingly and willingly give up a higher value and receive in return a lesser value or nonvalue, according to P's own scale of values. Xray denies P can do this, like it is psychologically impossible.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

I contend that when Rand said this she meant her own scale of values, not P's. In other words, Rand did not say that P can knowingly and willingly give up a higher value and receive in return a lower value or nonvalue according to P's own scale of values.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Brant Gaede]

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice. EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle. Every sacrifice is a deal in hope to get a greater value in return.

I do believe you have solved the problem of induction, Xray, but have failed to tell us just how you did it. I do know you didn't investigate "EVERY sacrificer," past, present and future.

I'm afraid you are riding your subjectivism horse into the ground. I intend to contact the ASPCA who will contact its sister organization in Germany. May I suggest you put him out to pasture for a while and saddle up your objectivism horse--I know you've got one--and give him an honest workout. You might call him, Objecto!

--Brant

When e. g. desribing the principle of making an omelette and the essential ingredients, I needn't have tasted every omelette out there.

I described the principle of sacrifice, which is essentially a deal from which the sacrificer wants to profit. This statement has nothing to with subjectivity.

If you believe I'm in error, feel free to quote examples proving the contrary.

So, the problem of induction is virgin territory for you. You can brief yourself about it on Wikipedia.

When you talk about "value" you are talking about subjectivity since that's all you recognize qua values.

--Brant

really getting bored

Edited July 30, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[ginny]

Dear god, I think X-Ray may have a point. I just picked up my Webster Dictionary. Definition of sacrifice: "To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value." How the hell did these definitions get so mucked up?

[tjohnson]

I contend that when Rand said this she meant her own scale of values, not P's. In other words, Rand did not say that P can knowingly and willingly give up a higher value and receive in return a lower value or nonvalue according to P's own scale of values.

What can one person know about another person's valuing process? If I see someone trading one thing for another and I consider it a bad trade but maybe the other person has other reasons, personal reasons perhaps, that they regard as higher value. This is what Xray means, I believe.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dear god, I think X-Ray may have a point. I just picked up my Webster Dictionary. Definition of sacrifice: "To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value." How the hell did these definitions get so mucked up?

Ginny,

Rand did observe that this is what is preached. It's permeated throughout her writing as she argues against it. She also observed that in reality, those who preach this usually are on the receiving end of what is actually the greater value. So she set a definition to highlight what actually happens, not the smokescreen.

People say that sacrificing their lives for God is a value. Rand's view is that there is no God, so the person in reality is giving up something for nothing. But there are preachers and politicians who do benefit from such sacrifices.

That works with society in the place of God, too. Preaching sacrifice through sanction of the victim is a huge con game and she exposed it.

Some people are uncomfortable with that.

(I wonder who?)

Michael

[merjet]

What can one person know about another person's valuing process?

It has been Xray's claim to know, not mine nor Rand's. To wit: "EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle." (post #355).

If I see someone trading one thing for another and I consider it a bad trade but maybe the other person has other reasons, personal reasons perhaps, that they regard as higher value. This is what Xray means, I believe.

Okay, but do you believe that all Rand wrote about sacrifice was limited to voluntary trades? Nevertheless, that is all Xray has addressed. And when I asked her about a victim of a sacrifice -- whether or not the victim was gaining a higher value -- she chose to dodge it: "The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice" (post #355).

Suppose a politician says to the taxpayer, you must pay higher taxes to support this higher cause, but it is an unworthy cause to the taxpayer. Then the politician succeeds in raising taxes to fund the higher cause. Who is the "sacrificer" in this case -- the politician or the taxpayer? Regardless, the taxpayer is not gaining a higher value. Do you believe Xray will not dodge this?

Edited July 30, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Guyau]

Merlin,

I think you have Rand wrong and the way it is with people wrong in #377. Rand thought, as I think, that one can voluntarily forfeit something of greater value in order to gain something of lesser value. People can do that within their own value rankings. They can make genuine self-sacrifices. Rand enjoins individuals to not sacrifice themselves to other people or to God.

Say you are a young person deciding what to do with your life. There is some career in which you love the core work and through which you would enjoy the luxuries success in that career would bring. One day you hear a voice that says “feed my sheep.” Jesus has called you to another career. You answer the call, give up the secular career plan, live a Spartan style of life, and tend to the needs of God’s children.

Such a person is commonly thought to have made a self-sacrificial choice. His choice entailed a renunciation of self. I think the common view is correct. People are more radical masters of their values than is generally allowed into models of economic man.

The young person answering the call of the Lord and heading for the seminary will identify himself with his new calling. That does not mean that when he took the leap, he did not sacrifice his old self and the values with which it identified itself.

Another way in which people make sacrifices, on their own scale of values, is by allowing their feelings to swamp their ability for rational reflection. Impulse buying would seem of this category.

[tjohnson]

Okay, but do you believe that all Rand wrote about sacrifice was limited to voluntary trades? Nevertheless, that is all Xray has addressed. And when I asked her about a victim of a sacrifice -- whether or not the victim was gaining a higher value -- she chose to dodge it: "The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice" (post #355).

Suppose a politician says to the taxpayer, you must pay higher taxes to support this higher cause, but it is an unworthy cause to the taxpayer. Then the politician succeeds in raising taxes to fund the higher cause. Who is the "sacrificer" in this case -- the politician or the taxpayer? Regardless, the taxpayer is not gaining a higher value. Do you believe Xray will not dodge this?

OK, I don't think our military should be in Afghanistan but I am paying for it anyway through taxation. I have a choice, I could emigrate to some other country, for example. I choose to stay because the positive things about my country outweigh the negative things for me. Is this what you are getting at?

[merjet]

Merlin,

I think you have Rand wrong and the way it is with people wrong in #377. Rand thought, as I think, that one can voluntarily forfeit something of greater value in order to gain something of lesser value. People can do that within their own value rankings. They can make genuine self-sacrifices.

Stephen, maybe you are correct about what Rand thought. I can only guess, and that is all we can do until some better evidence in Rand's own words is found. I asked Xray for such evidence, and she gave none. I gave an example of such evidence in #377 -- if Rand said somewhere that a person P can knowingly and willingly give up a higher value and receive in return a lesser value or nonvalue, according to P's own scale of values. Have you found such evidence?

Surely by what you think, you disagree with Xray, too. To wit, Xray: "EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle" (post #355).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What can one person know about another person's valuing process?

It has been Xray's claim to know, not mine nor Rand's. To wit: "EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle." (post #355).

This was precisely one of the main reasons I mused earlier whether Xray believes in a collective mind.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Thanks to those who responded to my request for Objectivist definitions and examples of "objective" and "subjective." I'm still not clear on the subject, though.

Is it the Objectivist view that this statement is "objective":

"Men cannot survive by initiating force against their fellow men and making them serve as their slaves."

...but that this statement is "subjective":

"Men can survive -- and, if fact, have survived for centuries -- by initiating force against their fellow men and making them serve as their slaves."

If objectivity requires that "in any given context, only one answer is true," how can the first statement above be considered "objective" and the second "subjective"?

As for Rand's notion of "subjective," I don't know of anyone who believes that concepts are "unrelated to the facts of reality," and are mere "notions arbitrarily assigned to arbitrary groupings of concretes on the ground of vague, inexplicable resemblances." In my experience, no one other than Rand, and maybe a few of her followers, thinks that "subjectivity" is "the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional." I think that most people would use the term "insanity" to describe what Rand seems to be talking about there, which makes one wonder which word Objectivists would use to describe what most people mean when they use the word "subjective." Perhaps "particular to a specific person," or "personal"?

J

[Xray]

[jeffrey smith]:

We are using the form of human language known as English, not Objectivish.

Well said.

Words like e. g. "sacrifice", "selfless" and "value" are used in Obectivish (apt term, lol ) in a sense totally different from their actual meaning in the English language.

To promote her beliefs, Rand arbitrarily created her own linguistic universe, detached from reality (for example, plants can't seek values).

It is almost as extreme as if one would arbitrarily decide to call "black" "white" and expect others to go along with it.

In Objectivish for example, a murderer is a "selfless" man. But I suppose not even a prosecutor who is a Rand follower would use the word "selfless" when making his case against a murderer in the cortroom. Can you imagine the confusion this would create if he did?

Edited July 30, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

OK, I don't think our military should be in Afghanistan but I am paying for it anyway through taxation. I have a choice, I could emigrate to some other country, for example. I choose to stay because the positive things about my country outweigh the negative things for me. Is this what you are getting at?

More or less. You choose to stay in the country rather than emigrate, because you believe staying in the country offers the higher value. There is another choice, too, to pay or not pay the extra taxes, which is hardly voluntary since it is with threat of coercion. And paying the extra taxes is not a value to you.

What I am "getting at" is Xray's assertion "EVERY sacrifice is actually a trade in which a believed lesser value is exc[h]anged for a believed higher value" (post #347). It ignores the victims of sacrifices and coercion.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Guyau]

Merlin, regarding #385,

Yes, Angela has that wrong too.

Concerning Rand’s full view, it includes these examples of voluntary sacrifice of a higher value to a lower value:

“If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice [i.e., not a trading of your higher value for lower]; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is” (AS 1028). It is unclear what rival refers to, but presumably it is something of less value to the chooser.

“If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat . . . .” (AS 1029). Rand is clearly implying as well that a mother who valued the child higher than the hat would be making a sacrifice according to her own hierarchy if she bought the hat rather than buying food for the child. That deviance could be done by evasion, by failing to keep her value hierarchy adequately in mind (which, like Plato, is how Rand explains cowardice), etc.

Rand did not accept the view that because one has a motive for every action, the action reflects one’s own true hierarchy of values. This I see in Branden’s essay “Isn’t Everyone Selfish” in VOS.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Xray]

It has been Xray's claim to know, not mine nor Rand's. To wit: "EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle." (post #355).

This was precisely one of the main reasons I mused earlier whether Xray believes in a collective mind.

Michael

Merlin and Michael,

Feel free to disprove my point. Name as many examples of sacrifices as you like, it will come down to the sacrificer trading a believed lesser value for a believed higher value.

I'm looking at the phenomenon called "sacrifice" from an analytical, structural point of view, that is, I'm describing elements of the system called "sacrifice".

Merlin has difficulty realizing this, and therefore keeps misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

I'm looking at the phenomenon called "sacrifice" from an analytical, structural point of view, that is, I'm describing elements of the system called "sacrifice".

Merlin has difficulty realizing this, and therefore keeps misunderstanding what I'm saying.

No difficulty or misunderstanding from me. But I do see how your "describing elements of the system called sacrifice" conveniently ignores victims of sacrifice and coercion.

[merjet]

Is it the Objectivist view that this statement is "objective":

"Men cannot survive by initiating force against their fellow men and making them serve as their slaves."

...but that this statement is "subjective":

"Men can survive -- and, if fact, have survived for centuries -- by initiating force against their fellow men and making them serve as their slaves."

Who are you quoting, and from where? They sound sort of Rand-like, but I did not find these sentences on The Objectivism Research CD-ROM.

[Guyau]

Jonathan, regarding #387:

For my own part, I would say one can be objective and still end up holding a false proposition as true. One will continue to be fallible even if objective, though one’s chance of getting it right improves if one is objective. I don’t know of any Objectivist views to the contrary of this ordinary way of looking at it. Descartes thought that we make errors only because our will outruns our understanding. Wrong. There are other possible sources of error. Where there is intelligence, there is possible error. An infallible mind would not be intelligent, would have no knowledge, and would require no objectivity.

I don’t recall Rand ever saying that in a given context, only one answer is true. She might have said that a question has a uniquely true answer, but that would be presuming that the question was of that character. Not every context of inquiry stimulates questions of only that character. The fruitful questions have to be found. Moreover, some questions get divided into multiple questions upon examination. Others get dropped because too vague.

I have answered the question about concepts here. From the first link there: “What Rand had called nominalism would now be called predicate nominalism. What she had called conceptualism would now be called concept nominalism.” My characterization of those positions and my arguments against them in that link show real live positions today that are closest to what Rand was characterizing and rejecting.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Xray]

Merlin, regarding #385,

Yes, Angela has that wrong too.

Concerning Rand’s full view, it includes these examples of voluntary sacrifice of a higher value to a lower value:

“If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice [i.e., not a trading of your higher value for lower]; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is” (AS 1028). It is unclear what rival refers to, but presumably it is something of less value to the chooser.

“If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat . . . .” (AS 1029). Rand is clearly implying as well that a mother who valued the child higher than the hat would be making a sacrifice according to her own hierarchy if she bought the hat rather than buying food for the child. That deviance could be done by evasion, by failing to keep her value hierarchy adequately in mind (which, like Plato, is how Rand explains cowardice), etc.

Rand did not accept the view that because one has a motive for every action, the action reflects one’s own true hierarchy of values. This I see in Branden’s essay “Isn’t Everyone Selfish” in VOS.

What Rand subjectively accepted is a completely different issue, since it merely reflects her personal value judgements.

Letting her subjective preferences so frequently spill over into her assessments is a main methodical flaw in her alleged "objective", "scientific" approach to subjects.

Let's analyze the examples provided by her:

“If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice [i.e., not a trading of your higher value for lower]; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is” (AS 1028). It is unclear what rival refers to, but presumably it is something of less value to the chooser.

“If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice [i.e., not a trading of your higher value for lower] (Rand)

Every "sacrifice" is ALWAYS trading in a believed lower value for a believed higher value.

Let's say John Doe wants to become a doctor, so he has to 'sacrifice' (trade in, for every sacrifice is bascially a trade) a lot of his free time to study; he has to sacrifice hours of needed sleep in order to deal with his workload, etc.

Free time and sleep are considered as values in John's eyes (if he didn't see them as values, he would not be sacrificing anything), but they are considered as LOWER values by him compared to the HIGHER value (career as a doctor) which requires studying a lot.

Jim, attends med school together with John, and although he too considers being doctor as a personal value, he drops out after few semesters, to care for his child born with disabilities.

The career as a doctor is considered as a LOWER value by Jim compared to the needs of his child which he considers as a HIGHER value.

Anther student Jim may decide to quit med school and go globe trotting instead. In short, the subjectively chosen values vary, but what does not vary is the fundamantal principle underlying each choice: people ALWAYS choose that value which serves their interest. In case of conflicting values, the value chosen will be the one the chooser believes to serve his/her selfinterest best.

It is crucial not to mix personal preferences into this analysis by letting thoughts creep in which go in the direction as to what Jim "ought to" do or not to do.

“If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat . . . .” (AS 1029).

Ah, the famous "hat" example. It is very simple:

The mother who buys food for her child instead of a hat sees satisfying the child's needs as the HIGHER value, no matter how she would have liked to buy the hat too.

At the moment of the decision to buy the food instead of the hat, her value hierarchy is manifested.

The mother who buys the hat instead of the food manifests her value hierarchy too: at the momnent when she decides to buy the hat, the hat is considered as the HIGHER value, no matter how much the mother loves her child too.

There is no exeption to this procedure. For the final decision is ALWAYS in favor of what an individual values more highly at the moment he/she makes the choice.

Whether it is ancient tribes sacrifing animals to the gods, whether it is a volunteer working in humanity projects, or whether it is Amy Winehouse doping herself to oblivion - the "personal higher value" choice principle is at work 100 per cent of the time.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Randian sacrifice as per Yaron Brook:

[Xray]

You have insisted that all values are subjective and there is no such thing

as an objective value. Do you hold the same for rational values? Are some

values more rational (or irrational) than others? Or do you believe that

using "rational" or "irrational" as an adjective for "values" is a category

error, too?

My belief that all values are subjective comes from the entity identity

revealing the fact that each human individual is a volitional, valuing,

goal-seeking existent. The term, values, is a noun form of the verb,

valuing, meaning the mental action of attributing value. There is no value,

no valuation without a valuer. No exceptions.

For instance, if I say I hold honesty as a value, this is saying I attribute

value to the characteristics of honesty in myself and others. I prefer that

this characteristics were universally valued. However, I am acutely aware it

is my personal value, hence, subjective. The same applies to all values.

This is derived from individual entity identity as creator and source of

all valuations.

As for "rational value", or "irrational", these are merely terms of

connotative value judgments of a belief or choice. To call a valuation

rational or irrational is no different that calling it excellent or absurd

respectively. It's a subjective value judgment of a subjective value judgment.

The subjective attributing of value is a natural characteristic of a

conscious and volitional human being. By nature, it is an inherent

characteristic that may be identified, but never modified. To attach the

terms rational and irrational to the term, value, is a presumption to change

objective reality by the interjecting of subjective personal preference.

The issue is not even really about values. When we look at the situation

close up from an entity identity view, we find that values in conflict is a

logically derivative of beliefs in conflict. Hence, the core issue is beliefs.

Each conscious and volitional individual attributes value to this or that.

The two major elements in this mental action are the particular individual

personality and what the particular individual believes to be true.

A valuation may prompt a particular action. If the action results in

undesired and unintended consequences, the fault lies not in the valuation

itself, but in the false belief(s) that gave rise to the valuation. In the

end, it comes down to recognizing and utilizing a valid epistemology within

one's mental/physical capabilities.

That epistemology is entity identity via a set of differentiating set of

characteristics. By this criteria, it is found that all ideas of objective

value contradict entity identity and correlating subjective value,

therefore, all those ideas are based on fallacy.

To be sure, many words may be woven together in non definitive distortion to

give an emotional appearance otherwise, but a close look reveals these word

arrangements have no objective correspondent, no objective referent. There

can be no "life proper to man" because "man" is nothing but a word, a

category existing only in mind. There can be no "life as an objective

standard" because to live, not to live, or lifestyle, is (within capacity)

by nature a subjective choice whether you or I like the choices or not.

For centuries, legions of "purveyors of morality" have come down the pike

hawking their wares of "universal values" as the "savior of mankind".

Look around at the many wars waged in the name of alleged objective values,

with the advocates of such values trying to forcibly impose their will

upon others.

As a means to peace and harmony, it hasn't worked very well, has it?

Of course, each and every

proselytizer is absolutely certain that this time he or she has the "true

religion" or "the correct moral recipe of life proper to man." There is

always trouble in river city when the illusion of objective value clashes

with the reality of subjective personal preference."

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, the peace of Islam.

--Brant

[Selene]

So the problems wars, death and destruction in the world are because of pool! Wow! Brilliant solve.

"There is always trouble in river city when the illusion of objective value clashes

with the reality of subjective personal preference."

As Brant quipped the Peace of Islam!

xray:

Do you wish to address a central tenet of Objectivism which is the refusal to initiate physical force?

I noticed since I greeted you at OL that you have not addressed this tenet, or, I have missed it.

Adam

[Guyau]

[skip it]

Edited July 31, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun