Concrete examples of values

[Nerian]

What are some examples of concrete values? I'm trying to brainstorm some to tie the concept back to reality.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Food.

Michael

[Nerian]

I guess this question is too open ended.

What can you do to determine if a value is actually a value?

[anthony]

Hey, it's a good, fundamental question. Briefly, whatever sustains and promotes one's life and "flourishing" - physically, materially and spiritually.

[dldelancey]

According to Objectivism, a value is something that you act to gain or keep. With that in mind, practically anything can be a value to you as long as you are willing to do something to get it or to hold on to it. The important question, in my opinion, is what principles motivate your actions? Your actions may be virtuous or... not.

[jts]

Start with a definition. Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

To value something means to act to gain and/or keep it.

Some people act to gain and/or keep irrational values, such as self-destructive poisoning.

What do you act to gain and/or keep?

Money. The action that you do to gain money is work. Then you use money to gain goods and services. The action of gaining goods and services from money is shopping.

Some people value health. Everybody values health after they lose it. Some people (perhaps the more intelligent) value health before losing it; they are called health nuts. When you are young and healthy and you feel invincible and you think you are going to live forever, you might be not motivated to value health and you might develop bad habits that you will pay for later.

Money is only a means to other things. It is a value only because you can buy goods and services with it. Money is of no value as an ultimate end but it is a means to almost everything else. Health is a value both for itself and as a means. The better your health, the better you can do everything else, including making money and enjoying life.

[moralist]

Jerry writes:

To value something means to act to gain and/or keep it.

Some people act to gain and/or keep irrational values, such as self-destructive poisoning.

That's a useful distinction. Values can be constructive or destructive. Although we usually regard them as good and a lack of values as being bad. I typically use the term "moral value" for clarity of reference. And so my definition of a moral value:

A principle describing behavior that makes better people.

Francisco's Money Speech in AS is chock full of values!

One of my all time favorite passages.

Greg

[Reidy]

Unity Temple in Oak Park IL is the first esthetically serious poured concrete building in the US and is of tremendous value to me.

[dldelancey]

Values are neither constructive nor destructive, they simply are. In what's you DO in order to gain or keep them that have constructive or destructive potential.

[anthony]

"The three cardinal values [N.B.- NOT directly 'virtues'] of the Objectivist ethics --the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life -- are:-

Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride".

Deanna, I think that beginning from and establishing those cardinal values, the rest, the DO-ing, falls into place.

Without that (as I believe you indicate) any dirty-rich mobster can also claim productiveness and pride in his work (and place 'value' in his life, money, possessions, family, etc.) evading how destructive of himself his values ultimately are.)

[moralist]

Peter writes:

Unity Temple in Oak Park IL is the first esthetically serious poured concrete building in the US and is of tremendous value to me.

That's absolutely beautiful!

It's a building literally worth looking up to.

To me the design conveys noble courage strength loyalty and steadfast endurance. Buildings are just one physical vessel that carries values within it so they can be transported through time from generation to generation.

Greg

[Nerian]

So an alcoholic values alcohol, but that is self destructive to his flourishing.

So it's not values per se that are good, it's a value that serves your life. So which values actually do serve life?

How do things like music or movies serve life in the survival sense?

I have had trouble with the distinction life qua man. Apparently, Rand didn't mean survival, she meant flourishing totally as a man. But how is listening to music or watching a movie helping that?

I can think of one way. It might serve to give life more pleasures and thus make it easier to get on with your work. If you never had any pleasures, you would probably not be very productive. You would be living a life of drudgery. I know when I don't feel like I'm getting any pleasure from life, I become defeated, even if I'm achieving in my studies. But then, isn't that just a rational form of hedonism? Do what feels good, that has few consequences, in moderation, that doesn't harm anyone else, as much as you can get away with it long term.

Rational hedonism. Sounds fun.

[moralist]

Peter writes:

So an alcoholic values alcohol, but that is self destructive to his flourishing.

So it's not values per se that are good, it's a value that serves your life.

Serves your life as what? It matters what we live as more than just that we live. It's a question worth asking because the moral quality of the life we live matters more than just our life itself..

So which values actually do serve life?

In my opinion, it is all of the values that make us better people. And not only us, but also help others to be better people, too. Because a side effect of becoming a better person ourselves is that it automatically effects those within our sphere of personal influence in beneficial ways. And when others who are close to us also become better people, that in turn improves the quality of our own life... and allows us to us enjoy our life even more.

How do things like music or movies serve life in the survival sense?

Well... that would matter what we live as.

I have had trouble with the distinction life qua man. Apparently, Rand didn't mean survival, she meant flourishing totally as a man. But how is listening to music or watching a movie helping that?

To me, it would depend on the moral value of the music or movie.

I can think of one way. It might serve to give life more pleasures and thus make it easier to get on with your work.

That's a good point. Music, for example, can help to improve your productivity by improving your mood to make your work more enjoyable. And if you're more productive you make more money which buys more freedom to enjoy your life even more.

Rational hedonism. Sounds fun.

That's because it IS fun.

I revel in the good things that enhance the quality of my life.

Greg

[Nerian]

Not long ago, Diana Hsieh did a podcast where she essentially said you need to listen to your emotions to find out what you need to do. (Disclaimer: that could merely be my misunderstanding) In that case, I asked 'isn't that valuing what you happen to already value and isn't that whim worship?' - Someone replied that it was a good question. I didn't get an answer.

Here are the ideas that make me wonder, "then what the hell is a rational value and how can I know? And what if they don't give me any pleasure at all!? What if I have to constantly fight myself not to do things that I merely like, and that don't hurt me long term!"

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964

This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild. Ayn Rand

So you can't just do what gives you pleasure. Pleasure isn't a rational value in itself? So if I go through my whole life and only have a few fleeting pleasures that happen to come to me while pursuing my survival that's fine? Won't that make life feel not worth living? Isn't pleasure something necessary for a healthy psyche? lol. Isn't that in man's nature? Thus isn't pleasure a rational value since without a healthy psyche I'm not going to do well at survival and flourishing?

[Nerian]

OK. I want to clarify. I agree that pleasure itself is not the standard of good. I reject hedonism. I simply don't see how simple pleasures for the sake of pleasures in a context where they are of no harm to you long term are not good.

I do *not* want to conflate hedonism with pleasure. They are different, and I'm not asking why hedonism is bad. I'm asking why it then follows that pleasure for pleasures sake, considered rationally, long term, is a bad thing. I'm talking in the context of a purposeful, meaningful life as well. As a supplement, not the ultimate goal of life, as a way of enhancing life. The pleasure mechanism is a physical fact of man's nature. I'm not talking about serving the pleasure mechanism, I'm talking about having the pleasure mechanism serve you. Set it up so that pleasures serve your rational ends and keep you in good spirits. Does that make any sense?

And then there's this quote!

The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure . . . . A chronic lack of pleasure, of any enjoyable, rewarding or stimulating experiences, produces a slow, gradual, day-by-day erosion of man’s emotional vitality, which he may ignore or repress, but which is recorded by the relentless computer of his subconscious mechanism that registers an ebbing flow, then a trickle, then a few last drops of fuel—until the day when his inner motor stops and he wonders desperately why he has no desire to go on, unable to find any definable cause of his hopeless, chronic sense of exhaustion.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pleasure_and_pain.html

So... umm...

edited: I do not want to conflate hedonism with pleasure

[moralist]

Ayn Rand lexicon

"The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure..."

Loving the reality of what is good is pleasure. And that pleasure is the positive feedback that encourages you to love reality all the more. It's the results of acting in harmony with that reality which is the source of pleasure, or even a more accurate term... joy.

There is another reason pleasure is sought out, and that is to temporarily escape from pain. That's a death spiral, because nothing is met or resolved and no growth takes place.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

Here are some random thoughts about the concept of "value."

"Value" is a complex concept. Ayn Rand defined a value as that which one acts to gain or keep. I don't think that's a very good definition. I know why she gave it --- she wanted a definition that would work for plants, animals and humans --- for every living thing. Well, it works pretty well for plants and animals because they act automatically but it doesn't work very well for humans. Plants and animals automatically pursue their values. Humans don't. Something may be valuable for a human, either objectively or subjectively, and a human still might not pursue it. A proper definition of value should be one step removed from the actual act of pursuit.

For example, one might define "value" as follows:

1. A value is that which one has identified as desirable.

Or:

2. A value is that which one has identified as being beneficial to oneself.

Or:

3. A value is that which one has identified as a potential object of pursuit.

None of the above definitions apply to plants because plants don't identify anything. The first definition is probably the easiest to understand, but it defines value in terms of an emotional state (which could cause confusion). The second assumes that a person has actually considered whether the thing of value is beneficial which isn't always the case. The third definition is probably the most accurate, but it is a bit cumbersome.

One could also say,

4. A value is that which has been identified as a goal or potential goal.

But, that sort of begs the question of what is a goal?

In order to cover all the bases, we could combine all of the potential definitions:

A value is that which one acts to gain or keep or which has been identified as desirable or beneficial to oneself or as a goal or potential goal or potential object of pursuit.

Got that?

The reason I say "a potential object of pursuit" is that a person may have multiple conflicting values. That is, it may not be possible to satisfy all of them at the same time. A man may value two women but have to make a choice between them. A woman may value attending her daughter's recital and her son's baseball game but be able to attend only one if they occur at the same time. A person may find value in a number of makes and models of automobiles but be able to buy only one. A college student may only be able to major in one subject, and so on. So, a person may have many values that he doesn't actually act to gain or keep.

Animals may also have multiple conflicting values. An animal might have to decide whether to pursue a drink of water or stay away from a predator. It might value a meal in the form of a smaller animal and value a potential mate nearby and have to decide between them, and so on. So, an animal may have values that it doesn't act to gain or keep at any given moment in time.

In addition to the above ...

There are objective values and subjective values. Subjective values are those values that a person chooses. Objective values are those values that a person should choose --- that is, those values that are objectively beneficial to that person.

Jerry mentioned irrational values. Irrational values are subjective values that aren't objective values --- values that one has chosen which one should not have chosen --- values that are objectively disvalues.

Pleasure can be a value because it keeps the mental machinery working. But, in many cases, higher pleasures have much more value than the value inherent in the pleasure they bring.

Instrumental music can bring an almost physical pleasure. It is hard to say why rhythmic, melodic intonations bring us such pleasure but they do. They may have beneficial effects on our brains as well.

Music with lyrics carries a message. Often the message is about love which is certainly a higher value. Understanding the concept of love and the feelings associated with love and the end of romance are important to life.

Movies convey messages of all kinds. Survival movies deal with the values and virtues necessary or important to life. War movies may contain messages about freedom and heroism. Romantic movies explore issues of love and relationships which are certainly important in ways that go far beyond the pleasure that one experiences in watching the movie. I'm just barely scratching the surface.

Darrell

[moralist]

Darrell writes:

Plants and animals automatically pursue their values. Humans don't.

That's because humans can choose, and animals can't.

Greg

[anthony]

OK. I want to clarify. I agree that pleasure itself is not the standard of good. I reject hedonism. I simply don't see how simple pleasures for the sake of pleasures in a context where they are of no harm to you long term are not good.

I do want to conflate hedonism with pleasure. They are different, and I'm not asking why hedonism is bad. I'm asking why it then follows that pleasure for pleasures sake, considered rationally, long term, is a bad thing. I'm talking in the context of a purposeful, meaningful life as well. As a supplement, not the ultimate goal of life, as a way of enhancing life. The pleasure mechanism is a physical fact of man's nature. I'm not talking about serving the pleasure mechanism, I'm talking about having the pleasure mechanism serve you. Set it up so that pleasures serve your rational ends and keep you in good spirits. Does that make any sense?

And then there's this quote!

The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure . . . . A chronic lack of pleasure, of any enjoyable, rewarding or stimulating experiences, produces a slow, gradual, day-by-day erosion of man’s emotional vitality, which he may ignore or repress, but which is recorded by the relentless computer of his subconscious mechanism that registers an ebbing flow, then a trickle, then a few last drops of fuel—until the day when his inner motor stops and he wonders desperately why he has no desire to go on, unable to find any definable cause of his hopeless, chronic sense of exhaustion.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pleasure_and_pain.html

So... umm...

A few things - you've mentioned "the pleasure mechanism", which to be accurate is the "pleasure-pain mechanism". What happens when pleasure is accompanied with pain? It often is, and may be the source of your perplexity.

First, each person personally will know when it is. When the simple advance prospect of such "pleasure", or (especially) in the carrying-out of it, or from the later (painful)recollection - causes a particular sense of self-loathing - one knows it. The knowledge can't be avoided. The virtue of pride, which gains/keeps the cardinal value of self-esteem, immediately suffers.

At heart, this kind of "pleasure" is a pleasure BECAUSE it is mixed with pain. Largely it's because of self-sacrifice of one's mind and principles; sometimes it's one 'sacrificing' another person to oneself; mostly, it is manifested by guilt, with some fear.

To go there once or twice is understandable: to continue pursuing those ends is irrational and so immoral.

Hedonists push so far past this point in the quest for further pleasure, always alloyed with pain, that they completely deaden all sense of what pleasure is.

Therefore, OF COURSE one has to be closely attuned to one's emotional state. To try to fathom the what and the why of our each emotional response. The aim and value is unconflicted pleasure without pain. His emotions are an individual's ally and friend.

When it comes to "subjective values". Subjectivity-subjectivism is the psychological-ideological belief that reality is constantly malleable by mind - primarily. Whims, feelings etc as the instruments of subjectivity, are something of a red herring, here: I think they constrain the pursuit of 'spiritual' and 'personal' values.

O'ists can tend to justification-explanation of their values - always carefully explicit ones - staying well away from anything which seems "subjective"--i.e. personal.

Values of the spirit then, like all values, are "objective" values. Objective, because they are right and proper as man's standard of life, and proper to each man's purpose. That the specific value may not be shared by others, doesn't render it subjective. They are also hierarchical, which mostly does away with conflicts of interest among them.

At bottom then, whichever a person chooses as a value is 'objective'... since the aim is to find and keep long-lasting value for each individual's sustenance. Any given value may be 'wrong' for him - since man is not omniscient - but then it can and will be changed as its falsity or inefficacy comes clear. This is not subjectivism: it stays true to reality and man's nature.

[BaalChatzaf]

Eat, drink and be merry. Hence food, booze and sex.

[BaalChatzaf]

Peter writes:

Unity Temple in Oak Park IL is the first esthetically serious poured concrete building in the US and is of tremendous value to me.

That's absolutely beautiful!

It's a building literally worth looking up to.

To me the design conveys noble courage strength loyalty and steadfast endurance. Buildings are just one physical vessel that carries values within it so they can be transported through time from generation to generation.

Greg

I has clean lines but it is rather stark.

[dldelancey]

It seems there’s still a good bit of conflation going on here. What one does to gain or keep a value is not the same as the value itself. To use Darrel’s example, the mother’s value is not attendance at her children’s events. Her value is the bond with her children. Attending events that are important to her children is the action she takes to gain and keep that bond. In the situation where there is a conflict, and she must choose one event over another, the value doesn’t change. Her actions do. For instance, she may need to weight the events according to the impact they have in the life of each child. Whichever event she chooses to attend, she will most likely do something to “make up” for missing the other because the value is not the event, but the relationship.

Perhaps I’m nit-picking, but this is an important distinction. If you conflate value with action, then you create conflict rather than resolve it. Your values should drive your actions which cannot happen if you aren’t clear about what they are. The mother in the example would be hopelessly deadlocked about how to resolve the dilemma if event attendance was the only goal. Whereas, knowing that her goal is to maintain a healthy long term relationship with her children, her options become identifiable and therefore, manageable, even predictable.

I guess what I’m getting at is that if you are identifying values at the level where action is necessary, then it’s too late. Identify your values at higher abstraction and then decompose downward when you must act.

[moralist]

Bob writes:

I has clean lines but it is rather stark.

It is austere... but that also conveys dignity and a lack of pride. It is a remarkable how concrete can literally communicate values. I could imagine Ayn Rand loving that design.

Greg

[Mikee]

Actions are the evidence that something is valued. The relation of the two is sometimes not immediately evident. The important thing is, if you don't act to gain or keep something, you don't value that something higher than something else. Value is subjective and therefor sometimes hard to figure out what people value. Their actions are simply evidence that they value something.

I guess what I’m getting at is that if you are identifying values at the level where action is necessary, then it’s too late. Identify your values at higher abstraction and then decompose downward when you must act.

Ah, you just reminded me of one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes:

"By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail."

[anthony]

[quote name="dldelancey" post="207270" timestamp="13990451

I guess what I’m getting at is that if you are identifying values at the level where action is necessary, then it’s too late. Identify your values at higher abstraction and then decompose downward when you must act.

Agreed. Values call for action, but they presuppose that identification "at higher abstraction" was made.

===========

AR: "Values are the motivating power of man's actions, and a ~necessity~ of his survival, psychologically as well as physically".

And: "Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one's lifespan, it is a part of one's life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it."[itOE]

===========

By someone's totally volitional actions, one knows his values.

A rational person's values are deliberately and consciously hierarchical. (I am not saying conflicts of interest don't come up).

Mike, if values are subjective, what does that make of an individual's highest value, his life? Of course, it's objective - and so I'm saying is every value below it in its hierarchical order.