Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

Xray, Barbara never does something like that--ever--except by mistake. I immediately took it for a typo; it couldn't have been anything else. I've been reading her for 45 years. It was so funny, really, simply because it was so out of character and I knew the thought had never entered her mind to deliberately write your screen-name like that. I just had to tweak her about it.

--Brant

And that's exactly how I understood it too.

[Brant Gaede]

You confirmed what I said above. "Objective value" is all

about "moral superiority." The problem is there are billions who also

directly and/indirectly claim "objective values" and moral superiority.

No, the problem is knowing if you are right. That's what reason is for. Make sure you are right and then go ahead (cliche).

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As for Barbara Branden's post, it actually confirms that values are subjective.

Xray,

Barbara's post confirms nothing of the sort. It does confirm that you are making primary mistakes in your understanding of Objectivism. From your post, it seems like you are intent on maintaining your errors.

But if you want to make the argument and claim no values can be objective, it would be great if you could tell us what objective means in Xray-speak.

Do you have a meaning for objective other than what it is not or consensus of experts? That's all the meanings for it I have been able to glean from your posts. Those meanings do not allow you to make a logically valid case.

Michael

[Xray]

As for Barbara Branden's post, it actually confirms that values are subjective.

Xray,

Barbara's post confirms nothing of the sort. It does confirm that you are making primary mistakes in your understanding of Objectivism. From your post, it seems like you are intent on maintaining your errors.

But if you want to make the argument and claim no values can be objective, it would be great if you could tell us what objective means in Xray-speak.

Do you have a meaning for objective other than what it is not or consensus of experts? That's all the meanings for it I have been able to glean from your posts. Those meanings do not allow you to make a logically valid case.

Michael

I have posted this so often here:

Going to the fundamental as stipulated in Webster's, the term, objective

means: "having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>"

Are you OK with this?

In definitive contrast, the term, subjective means:

"4 a (1): peculiar to a

particular individual :personal <subjective judgments>"

I see this as a clear demarcation line between objective and subjective.

I accept the definitions because they conform to what I observe. If you have

some objections to these definitions, that becomes a primary matter to be

discussed. Do you have any objections? If so, what and why?

Several times, I have brought these definitions to the forefront as the

basis for my arguments. You have repeatedly pretended I did

not do so. You insist I am in error, but refuseto provide a

definition for the term, objective, that refutes the one I have often given.

Perhaps Barara would be kind enough to now fill in this gap by providing

definitions of the terms, subjective and objective. Examples are fine, but I

would like to see the definitions to which her examples refer. (see also post # 180)

Edited July 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

X-rat, you seem to require that for a value to be objective, it must be of value to everyone under all circumstances, in all contexts, and under all conditions.

Barbara,

That's exactly what the term, objective, indicates. What does

the term, objective, mean if not universal; that is, existing independently of a valuer or valuation?

But you're arguing against a straw man.

What I require is that the terminology be connected to reality.

Where's the strawman in that?

I could not help but notice you did not provide a definition of the term,

objective. How do you propose to validate the premise of objective value

without a definition of the term, objective, as reference?

Going to the fundamental as stipulated in Webster's, the term, objective

means: " having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>"

Are you OK with this?

In definitive contrast, the term, subjective means: "4 a (1): peculiar to a

particular individual : personal <subjective judgments>"

I see this as a clear demarcation line between objective and subjective. I

accept the definitions because they conform to what I observe. If you have

some objections to these definitions, that becomes a primary matter to be

discussed. Do you have any objections? If so, what and why?

Several times, I have brought these definitions to the forefront as the

basis for my arguments. Michael (and others) have repeatedly pretended I did

not do so. He (they) insist I am in error, but refuse to provide a

definition for the term, objective, that refutes the one I have often given.

Perhaps, you would be kind enough to fill in this gap by providing

definitions of the terms, subjective and objective. Examples are fine, but I

would like to see the definitions to which the examples refer. TIA.

That is not the Objectivist concept of value. For instance, (to oversimplify) if you asked me if taking tonight's redeye from Los Angeles to New York is a value -- I'd say it would be an objective value to someone with an urgent need to be in New York as soon as possible -- but not to someone slated for emergency surgery in Los Angeles tomorrow morning. As Rand made clear, "Value" presupposes an answer to the question: Of value to whom and for what? She wrote, "Value presupposes a standard, a purpose, and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative."

Good example. You make my point. I'm not disputing the redeye is a suitable

objective means to quickly get to New York from Los Angeles. This fact

exists independently of any personal valuation by anyone, hence, is

objective. However, whether someone values the means is a subjective choice

as your illustration demonstrates. Is this choice independent of mind? If

not, how does it become "objective?"

To label both means and choice as objective makes no distinction between

WHAT is being valued and WHO is doing the valuing. Where then does the term,

subjective, come in in differentiating contrast? The choice is personal

preference, isn't it? If you don't equate personal choice with the term,

subjective, what label do you put on it? How do you use the term,

subjective, if at all?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have posted this so often here: Going to the fundamental as stipulated in Webster's, the term, objective

means: "having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>"

Are you OK with this?

In definitive contrast, the term, subjective means:

"4 a (1): peculiar to a

particular individual :personal <subjective judgments>"

I see this as a clear demarcation line between objective and subjective.

Xray,

Actually I am not OK with this. This is an epistemological tossed salad with thumbtacks thrown in.

Let's start with objective. You took part of Webster's second definition (part of part "b" of the first to be precise) out of context and just now claimed that objective means "having reality independent of the mind." Once again you are saying what objective isn't, although indirectly. You obliterated the human mind. To illustrate, please tell me how you can know something without engaging your mind.

How can you do that? You don't even need to tell me. Try it. You won't succeed.

The adjective "objective" pertains to knowledge, specifically its relationship to existents. Even Webster is clear on this if you read the full definition instead of hacking it up. Objective is an epistemological term, not a metaphysical one.

Reality does exist independently of the mind, but not objectively. There is no such thing. Only mental operations can be objective or subjective. Reality just exists, period.

I'm not sure you are able to understand this, especially in your thirst to debunk Rand, so I will stop for now and see if it sinks in.

Michael

[merjet]

Good example. You make my point. I'm not disputing the redeye is a suitable

objective means to quickly get to New York from Los Angeles. This fact

exists independently of any personal valuation by anyone, hence, is

objective.

In other words, your game is to equivocate or bait and switch on the word "objective". You say that there are "objective means", but if a person values an "objective means", it is no longer an "objective value" but a "subjective value".

[Brant Gaede]

On the one hand "objective" to Xray is "universal" and on the other it is "having reality independent of the mind."

That's not exactly "universal."

It's the mind that Xray keeps kicking in the ass--a mind that would determine through reason that freedom is a(n objective) value to human beings considering their nature even if only as an idea. This objective-subjective debate is only a smokescreen for an attack on mental efficacy, philosophy, individualism, the pursuit of happiness, capitalism--the whole ball of wax. It is an extremely small part of the great levelling of the United States going on right now primarily aided and abetted by the Chicago mob out of Washington, leftest media group-think, Marxist academia and people on the public take and payroll.

Her philosophy is as good as my philosophy as good as your philosophy as good as anyone else's and we can all say the same thing about each other's as long as we understand it's all bottom line bad as factions of the human race fight to the death for their "objective" values. If they only understood that their values are really "subjective" and they shouldn't be hot-under-the-collar terrorists but free from the scourge of their personal objectivisms.

--Brant

[Selene]

Well, Brant, now I feel better!

I do not have to think anymore.

I do not have to chose anymore.

I do not have to make any commitments anymore.

Everything is equal.

I feel so much better...I am going to vegetate now.

Please water me at the appropriate times.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

right on queue [sic].

Ha ha, perhaps you should buy a good dictionary... Je te souhaite bien du plaisir avec ta queue!

[Dragonfly]

Good example. You make my point. I'm not disputing the redeye is a suitable

objective means to quickly get to New York from Los Angeles. This fact

exists independently of any personal valuation by anyone, hence, is

objective.

In other words, your game is to equivocate or bait and switch on the word "objective". You say that there are "objective means", but if a person values an "objective means", it is no longer an "objective value" but a "subjective value".

OK, but if we accept your definition of objective, the values of a moocher or an embezzler are also objective.

[Matus1976]

Since the issue is about a volitional, valuing, human individual, "differentiating set of characteristics" is not limited to physical characteristics but implies psychological characteristics too.

Absolutely, which is exactly part of Rand's statement. Women, psychologically, her statement suggests, have a specific set of influences that 'define' (i.e. differentiate it from others within the next heirarchy (people))

By entity identity, each individual is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity.

Indeed, but you are taking our existence as individual volitional and value / goal seeking entities out of context. We are not JUST these things, we are things things encased in a Multi-cellular vertarbrate mammallian hominid bi-pedal primates that reproduce sexually and evolved in small hunter-gathering tribes dependent on communal distribution of labor which were highly xenophobic. The circumstances have consequences on our 'volitional valuing goal seeking' highest nature. For instance, I might seek a PhD in Astrophysics or perfect my Marble sculpting abilities - these are value based actions in pursuit of a goal - but I also must stop to eat, sleep, and generally maintain a healthy psychological condition.

The point of Rand's statement is that until we as volitional beings can remove ourselves from the influences and consequences the box for material medium of our volitional existence - that box and it's needs must still be considered - and in fact happiness is not possible to us as volitional beings that are housed in these forms unless we take the forms we are housed in into consideration.

These characteristics imply 100% self interest and attributing value in correspondence with beliefs and personal preferences. There is only value to an entity identity; not value to an abstract, category or otherwise.

"Man" is not an abstraction, in this context, it is the hominid homo sapien male.

If you were, in fact, a formless fog housing a consciousness you would not have even a 'gender' which would imply some consideration of it's defining characteristics. If this fog were a 'utility fog' of transhumanist's dreams (a distributed swarm of nanotech ai which house your consciousness) it could materially coalesce into any form you desire and you can materially act on the world based on your volitional desires. BUT you must still seek and acquire energy to sustain THAT, so one might say a defining characteristic of a utility fog's consciousness is it's relationship with energy - or more broadly, a consciousness is defined by it's relationship to existence.

Similarly then our consciousness and existence as volitional beings are defined by our relationship to existence as well. But any consciousness must have a material means to manifest it, and thus considerations and demands from that. And existence pertains not only to the continued existence of the consciousness, but to the reality that the consciousness exists in.

Homo sapien males and homo sapien females all have "beliefs and personal preferences" but some of those preferences are no doubt consistent across all members of those classifications since they exist in a particular form which must interact with reality in a particular way. As a homo sapien female, I grantee you will not find happiness or Eudaimonia by pretending you are a dog, nor by pretending you are not a homo sapien female.

Valuations (values) are by entity identity and therefore inherently subjective.

And so would you suggest that being a homo sapien female is NOT part of your identity as an entity? ... A is A. Choosing what you value is indeed subjective, but what you must value in order to continue to exist is not. And what you must choose to value in order to exist happily as a homo sapien female, is also not arbitrary. SOME aspects of it ARE objective and undeniable. What aspects those are, and to what degree they are necessary to adopt for psychological well being is an entirely different question, but there is no rational doubt nor objection to the notion that you existence as an entity with a certain identity comes with preconditions for existence AND flourishing based on the nature of the entity you are.

Any and every thought or claim to the contrary is false. When the dust settles and source is easily seen, the values, i.e., attributing value, will ALWAYS be some individual flying under the false colors of "universal values."

I suppose if you consider something like desiring to eat food a false 'universal value' I can see where you objection comes from, but if that's the case it's irrational.

But the term "man" Rand uses in "life proper to man" does not refer to a finite entity either but to an abstract category, in denial of the many individual human entities. Claiming a set of values existing for an abstract category is a fallacy.

No, it was used in the term above, it does not refer to an abstract category, but a real tangible category based on real similarities among individuals, it is specifically Man as a Eukarya Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cladotheria Eutheria Primate Hominidae Hominini Homo Sapien Sapien, i.e. the wisest of the wise upright bipedal with prehensile tales, external breasts, opposable thumbs with back bones internal skeletons made up of cells with nuclei that reproduce sexually and evolved in small hunter-gathering tribes.

Our heirachy of values should be something like the following

Animal

Human

Sex - Male / Female

Volitional Being

Hierarchically, the values we choose to exist and to flourish must consider our nature. Our existence as volitional beings requires us to choose certain things conducive to the well being of conscious volitional beings if we desire a good life, that is, things which have increasing marginal utility for example. But these things can not contradict our nature as male or female humans, or as humans in general, or as animals in general.

Rand's standard of ethics is Life Qua Man, but for an individual it is Life qua man qua you.

All life has certain things it must value in order to continue to exist as life - that is why Objectivism's ethics is the objective standard for morality. Morality is the question of the way a living being ought to behave, the only answer is that it must necessarily live in the way that living being ought to behave in order to continue to live - and those conditions are demanded by the nature of reality and life. The question of morality has no purpose if it's focus is not life, because it is a question of how a living being ought to live. Any other answer is self refuting and destructive - you can not answer the question of how one ought to live by saying in a way that would kill one's self.

But mere mechanical existence is not the standard of ethics, but an existence proper to our nature as a particular kind of being that exists - a human being. A lion can thrive with a standard of behavior based only on the perpetuation of it's existence, it's capacity and consciousness are limited. But if Humans lived the same way, they would sabatoge their own requirements for a healthy psychological existence in the pursuit the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence (e.g. Galt threatening to kill himself to keep Dagny from being tortured)

The capacity for volition and reason is the defining characteristic of human beings and so they are defined by the relationship of their identity in regards to existence - that is they use reason to understand reality, change it, and live in it. But the ability of a single man to do so is extremely limited, and so humans are social and co-operative beings. It was historical one of the greatest punishments to be banished or ostracized from one’s society. Not only did this usually mean death, but in the rare cases it did not it lead only to a miserable and entirely unfulfilled existence. To the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the notion of a transcendalistic / ascetic like withdrawal from society was a horrific thought. Solitary confinement is still today one of the worst forms of punishment. Looking at the lives of people who have done such a thing, from ascetic monks and zen Buddhists to the likes of Thoreau and Emmerson. The former were driven by the desire to abdicate values – indeed, their own identity and the implications in reality of that. The latter were driven by a misanthropic cynical hatred and the desire to deny existence and reality.

I suspect we have a hardwired desire for inclusion in social groups, and that being a social being is in fact part of man’s nature. However, even if that is not the case, I’m hard pressed to think of anyway such a life could possibly be a flourishing one. So the only kind of flourishing life then is one characterized only by non-zero sum interactions with other rational volitional beings engaged in activities of perpetually increasing marginal utility which pose no threat to their own existence as rational entities in that society nor to other entities within that society.

The only question then is the extent to which our nature as human male or human female require a certain set of actions in order to live a fulfilled psychologically existence. It is said that Isaac Newton, upon his death bed, stated that of all things he was most proud of the fact that we would die a virgin. Though unparalleled in regards to productive activities of increasing marginal utility that reward his life and the society of rational beings he lived within, could he be said to have had a “flourishing” life? Was his life full of as much Joy and Happiness and Fulfillment as it could have been? I don’t know, but I doubt it, and this is why one must not let one’s desires and curiosity govern all their behavior, unrestricted by constant introspection and evaluation and explicit recognition of values. One could act productively in pursuit of a goal, say, understand the nature of some aspect of the universe, but could disregard all aspects that relate to their psychological well being as human males (or females). Choosing to be driven to understand the nature of the universe WHILE still living a flourishing and healthy fulfilling human life is another thing entirely.

Rand’s statement regarding what a woman is defined by and a man is defined by then is the implication of the recognition of our nature as men and women that evolved and are sexual, but her statement is dependant on a strong influence by our genes on us in relation to our gender. Modern behaviorial genetics seems to provide very strong evidence in support of her assertion, if only in the fact that there are many influences that come from our genes, even if it is not in the direct implication she draws from it. It is equally clear, however, that virtually nothing in behavioral genetics is absolute, even identical twins raised in similar living conditions can have radically different behavioral characteristic. In fact, identical twins reared apart tend to be MORE similar than ones raised together, which is more of a testament to the ability of volitional choice (the desire to distinguish one’s identity) to override genetic influence then it is evidence of genetically governed behavior.

All in all, the answer is a scientific one, not a philosophical one. It depends on exactly how much our genes influence us regarding our behavior, if it is absolute or not, and if it is a requirement for a fulfilling existence to abide by some (or all) of those influences.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In other words, your game is to equivocate or bait and switch on the word "objective". You say that there are "objective means", but if a person values an "objective means", it is no longer an "objective value" but a "subjective value".

OK, but if we accept your definition of objective, the values of a moocher or an embezzler are also objective.

Dragonfly,

You leave out conceptual hierarchy.

It is possible to have lesser or derivative values that are objective when the fundamental value is subjective. I don't even like these terms, anyway.

A more precise way of saying it is objective valuing and subjective valuing. The objective-to-subjective gradient applies only to volition, not to automatic processes or things outside of human awareness. You can choose values in an objective manner or you can choose them in a subjective manner.

It is entirely possible for a "moocher or an embezzler" to chose to be that while ignoring or blanking out knowledge of human nature, but once that choice is made, that person can be very objective in what he or she pursues and how such "objective values" are pursued. There are even close to fundamental parts of the situation where the moocher or embezzler can justify as objective, like money providing greater survival opportunities in critical situations.

But mooching and embezzling is not an objectively good way of life for all humanity. We would become extinct if everybody chose that.

In other words, it is possible to be both objective and subjective at the same time if you take into account the conceptual hierarchy of the different aspects involving the choice.

That means that being an embezzler is not an objective value for realizing your potential as a human being, but if that is what you choose to be, you can go about quite objectively obtaining embezzled funds. If you want to be an embezzler, it's not very objective to work honestly for a living. It's more objective to steal.

If you want to be an honest person, embezzling funds is not an objective way to be that. If you believe that it is, you are using some rather subjective standards on your logic.

Michael

[Selene]

right on queue [sic].

Ha ha, perhaps you should buy a good dictionary... Je te souhaite bien du plaisir avec ta queue!

wow - I knew it looked wrong, but was just happy the red spell check did not come on!

Thanks DG

I will have to leave a mental cue in queue the next time I use that lol.

Being one of those Neanderthal masculine Americans, I doesn't know any of that thar Frenchy "speakin" type

of lingo, we didn't pick up much of it when we liberated Europe twice.

Adam

Edited July 23, 2009 by Selene

[Dragonfly]

A more precise way of saying it is objective valuing and subjective valuing. The objective-to-subjective gradient applies only to volition, not to automatic processes or things outside of human awareness. You can choose values in an objective manner or you can choose them in a subjective manner.

It is entirely possible for a "moocher or an embezzler" to chose to be that while ignoring or blanking out knowledge of human nature

Not at all, they may know much better what human nature entails.

That means that being an embezzler is not an objective value for realizing your potential as a human being

"Your potential as a human being" is a term that is just as elastic as "man qua man", this is an example of begging the question. The embezzler may have a quite different definition of the potential as a human being, how can you prove that he is wrong?

If you want to be an honest person

Ah yes, but if you don't want to be an honest person?

[Matus1976]

"The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice."

The standard of value is life.

You know this.

You're just being dishonest at this point.

I'm not being dishonest.

You are repeating Rand's words, that's all I know. Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life. Nor does it apply to governments sending soldiers out to kill other people. So much for life as an "objective value".

I answered this in my other post, I'm sorry I missed this discussion for the past few days, but now I see where your questions are coming from and this point bears re-iterating because I don't think you grasp Rand's conception of Objective morality here (enough even to try to counter it properly) though I admit I may not have a full grasp so other feel free to add.

Life is the objective standard for MORALITY (not values) but because of that, when you *choose* something to value, it ought to be something that is conducive to life.

Why is Life the objective standard of morality? Maybe it's not your standard of morality? Can't anyone choose whatever standard of morality they want?

Yes, they can choose any standard they want, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality. This is because when someone asks "what is the standard of morality" they are asking 'how is it that a being who lives ought to behave' and the ONLY answer to that question that is *right* is that a being that lives ought to behave in the manner which enables it to live Any other standard of behavior can lead only to it's death, whether slow or fast, and so the question of how a being that lives ought to behave is meaningless -- if the answer is merely instructions on how to die.

The idea that morality can not be 'objective' if a different standard can be chosen is rooted in a philosophical fallacy itself, that of intrincicism. Objective has two meanings and mixing them has caused alot of this confusion - even among scientists (like Michael Shermer) who criticize Rands' claim of an objective standard of morality. Objective in the context of morality is often used to mean something like the 10 Commandments, received and absolute authority from an omnipotent and omniscient being.

When scientists like Shermer (who I otherwise admire) say things like "Rand suggests there is an objective morality but there isnt, morality is merely a social convention..." they are using objective in that religious epistemlogical sense, of some sort of divinely inspired authority. They are NOT using it in the scientific science, as in 'the objective mass of an electron' or 'the objective cause of celiac disease' - this is an egregious error by these scientistifically minded people, holding something that is the result the only true tools of cognition - reason, to a standard of a completely false tools of cognition - divination.

When Rand uses "Objective Morality" she is talking about morality in the scientific sense (the only sense worth talking about) i.e. like the mass of an electron, it is available to anyone with the ability to reason and having the most basic tools of cognition. Life is the objective standard of morality - not because Rand said so - but because reality imposes objective consequences - completely free of opinions, whims, or feelings to the contrary - to all actions, and only actions that are conducive to life result in life, any other action is conducive to death.

It's ironic that religious people use "objective" in that sense, since it rejects all other concepts of 'objective' Can I, questioning the accuracy of the 10 commandments, visit Mt Sanai and divinely inspire them myself? Objective to religious epistemology is forced authoritative declarations that are in fact subjectively derived. Objective to rational epistemology is a recognition of an aspect of reality acquired by rational inquiry.

This is why and how Rand resolved the 'is ought' 'problem' in philosophy, that is, taking a description of reality (man exists, requires food, uses reason to live, etc) and prescribing a form of behavior, how they 'ought' to behave. The only logical consequence of recognizing the nature of a being that exists within reality and asking how it ought to be have is the answer that it ought to behave in the manner that ensures it's existence in that reality.

"Life" of course is not the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence either, not to rational volitional beings like humans. It is a particular kind of life, an Aristotlean Eudaemonic life that is the standard, aka Life Qua Man.

[rhartford]

OK, but if we accept your definition of objective, the values of a moocher or an embezzler are also objective.

It may be useful to keep in mind the distinction between “value principles” and “values.”

A person’s “value principles” are formulated objectively if those principles guide one to pursue goals that benefit one’s life, that is guide one to pursue “values.” A value is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep” that benefits one’s life. A value principle is objective and valid if it guides action in pursuit of something that is, in fact, beneficial when achieved.

Subjectively formulated “value principles” dispense with objectivity and may easily lead one to pursue goals that do not benefit ones life.

For more on the distinction between “value principles” and “values,” see More Here

[merjet]

OK, but if we accept your definition of objective, the values of a moocher or an embezzler are also objective.

You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. Firstly, I did not give a definition of "objective". Secondly, mooching and embezzling fail to fit my idea of "morally objective".

[DavidMcK]

X-ray doesn't seem to understand when Rand is pointing out the contradictions that exist in society's philosophy and when she is being contradictory. I'm talking about calling Keating a 'ruthless egotist',: Rand makes it very clear that she is creating a portrait of someone who in the eyes of society is a ruthless egoist, and showing how empty of independent values they are on the inside, all selfishness outside and nothing within; the total lack of an ability to choose something because they want it for themselves. What has to be distinguished is pseudo-values (for example an alcoholic who wants a drink) and actual values...yes Objective values....those values that can be shown to be connected to the actual needs of human beings by virtue of what human beings are (rational, alive, requiring self-esteem etc.) Just because someone wants something doesn't make it subjective or objective: objective values have a subjective component (we not only need water but we want it when we haven't had any in a while) but subjective values don't necessarily have an objective component (the alcoholic doesn't need the bourbon and coke but may want it very much). A good model of a human being not only shows what human beings are but what they need to be.

[Matus1976]

X-Ray, I hope the posts here so far have resolved the apparent contradiction you were seeing here. I came from the scientific skepticism movement of Sagan, Randii, Shermer, Dawkins, etc, before getting interested in Rand and I wrestled with the same question you have here. To everyone else, I think you are attributing X-Ray’s disagreement with a deliberate attempt to incur debate, but the cause is in the definition of objective and subjective being used – different definitions are being used interchangeably (they should be separate words)

Lets look at this quote in particular

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

This is the common religious conception of “objective” morality (or values) and is a pristine example of flawed epistemology and the Stolen concept fallacy. This idea of “objective” attempts to acquire the end result of the scientific concept of “Objective” but without going through any of the motions or criteria that have earned the scientific conception of “objective” it’s well deserved stature.

Objective, as an end, means, just as you quoted the definition

“having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>”

But the huge problem here is that this definition of Objective does not include any notion of how this aspect of reality that is independent of the mind came to be known

As your example of the religious claim clearly demonstrates, When that person says "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." How is it that another person could in fact verify that these values “have reality independent of the mind” There is, in fact, no possible way a 3rd party could verify that this claim by an individual is a definite aspect of reality. If it is a definite aspect of reality, could it ever be true that the verification of it could *never be known to another person* and you use THAT as an example of an “Objective” claim? Oddly enough, that seems to exactly fit this definition “a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments>”

Given that, X-Ray, do you think it’s at all reasonable for religious people to use “objective” in this sense? What this is, essentially, is a *subjective* claim about objective reality – where as science produces *objective* claims about objective reality. One concept of “Objective” here is derived only through intrinsic religious inspiration, the other is derived through reason and observation. Only one of these actually deserves to be called “objective”

Epistemologically (considering the nature of knowledge) reason is the only true means of cognition, and that subjective objective claim is, while a claim about reality, not a verifiable testable claim and it’s epistemology is religious – and fallacious.

No system of philosophy that is rational will consider anything but rationality as a means of cognition, thus the standard of religious objectivity is not applicable to objectivity which comes from sentient non-omniscient beings using reason and science to determine that which is objective – and it is why objectivism rejects that type of ‘objectivity’ . One can embrace other systems of philosophy, but those systems which advocate anything other than reason – and reason alone - in epistemology are objectively objectively wrong – while they may claim subjectively objective veracity – they have no objectively objective means to prove it!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Your potential as a human being" is a term that is just as elastic as "man qua man", this is an example of begging the question. The embezzler may have a quite different definition of the potential as a human being, how can you prove that he is wrong?

Dragonfly,

This is not begging the question at all. I do agree the standard was only hinted at when I said, "But mooching and embezzling is not an objectively good way of life for all humanity. We would become extinct if everybody chose that."

If you want a universal value (a value principle as Robert H. just so aptly mentioned) for human beings, especially a moral principle people can choose for reaching their potential, you only have to ask what would happen if everyone did that. If everyone produces, for example, the human species flourishes. If everybody does something like genocide, we get tribal warfare to extinction.

For the sake of clarity, my meaning of "human species flourishes" entails conditions for each individual to flourish, i.e., the species is made up of individuals. I am not talking about sacrificing good individuals to a collective whole.

The "What if everybody did that?" standard is the one the moocher and embezzler leave out or blank out in their identification of human nature.

I will agree with you the moochers and embezzlers generally know a lot more about the part of human nature dealing with subconscious drives than most Objectivists I know. They have to for simple reasons of... er... survival .

Michael

[Xray]

right on queue [sic].

Ha ha, perhaps you should buy a good dictionary... Je te souhaite bien du plaisir avec ta queue!

Ce jeu de mots me fait rire aux larmes!

Edited July 23, 2009 by Xray

[ginny]

Translation: "This word game makes me laugh with tears."

X-Ray, are you trying to make some sense by using a different language?

Ginny

[Xray]

Life is the objective standard for MORALITY (not values) but because of that, when you *choose* something to value, it ought to be something that is conducive to life.

Wrong premise, evidenced by the simple fact that human beings quite obviously can choose as a value to end their life.

Can't anyone choose whatever standard of morality they want?

You are getting it. Since humans have the abilitiy to choose, it logically follows that the ethical values they select are a matter of subjective choice.

Yes, they can choose any standard they want, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality.

Non-sequitur in your reasoning: since you have already acknowledged that "anyone [can] choose whatever standard of morality they want", this shuts the door to objective standard of morality, doesn't it?

This is because when someone asks "what is the standard of morality" they are asking 'how is it that a being who lives ought to behave' and the ONLY answer to that question that is *right* is that a being that lives ought to behave in the manner which enables it to live.

Well, someone asking "what is the standard of morality" can ask this question to get people to check their premises and discover possible fallacy.

Also, your opinion in terms of the "the only answer" is an "ought to" recommendantion on your part, and therefore, like all "ought tos", a subjective value issue.

But even when one goes along for argument's sake with your "ought to behave in the manner which enables it to live" - well, this applies to e.g. a bank robber too, or to whomever Rand labeled as "looters" and "moochers".

Matus, instead of taking every empty phrase Rand wrote as gospel, why not take her advice ("check your premises") and apply it to her own work?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... this shuts the door to objective standard of morality, doesn't it?

Xray,

Do you have a meaning for objective other than what it isn't, a consensus of experts, or knowledge that is miraculously independent of human minds?

Michael