rhartford

Imagine two individuals discussing the quality of students at the local public school. One adamantly asserts that the pupils are all black, no exception. The other says that some pupils are white and some are black. Yet, I claim, they both are asserting a truth. See the quotation from Xray that I included in this post for the resolution of the paradox. That post also indicated a word that both Rand and Xray use to refer to two separate concepts. In the post by Xray quoted here, we see a word denoting the same concept, but used in two different contexts. This time I suspect Rand recognizes that fact, but Xray does not. It is important, once a concept and the word labeling is learned, not to disassociate the word from the facts the word denotes in its contextual usage. “[Value] presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative.” Here alternative refers to the possibility of failed action or a failed result, for example, a plant in too much shade may fail to reach the sunlight that it is automatically programmed to seek. “there is no alternative in a plant's function” This use of “alternative” refers to the fact a plant’s action is “programmed” by its nature and no alternative action is possible. The first use of alternative refers to alternative results of action, the second use refers to an alternative means of taking action. Treating “alternative” as an audiovisual symbol without careful analysis, in context, leads to Xray’s error and claim of contradiction. (I applaud Michael for letting Xray continue to post, because it prompts those that find Objectivism to be a valuable guide to philosophy to do the thought required to place it on a sound basis.)

Xray provides a clear, simple example of an audiovisual symbol, the word “pupil,” that refers to two different concepts. She provides identification of the facts of reality underlying each of the two concepts. If Rand had been that clear decades ago, it would have saved us much time and internet “ink.” Rand used a single word for two different concepts and it is often difficult to tell from the context which concept is meant. One use refers to a principle one has accepted for guiding one’s action. The other use refers to things in reality that a living organism acts to achieve in pursuit of its life. Unfortunately both Rand and Xray use that single word without making clear (or possibly without understanding) that two different concepts are being discussed. See this post to reveal that word and find suggested terminology to avoid confusion. See also this for more detail.

Martyrdom in the cause of freedom is not necessary, but effort is. I closed my Free Minds ’09 presentation, “A Political Standard for Absolute Political Freedom,” with a warning in the spirit of Patrick Henry: Is comfort so dear; or tranquility so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of the shackling chains of government control on our time, effort, health, and property? – Forbid it, my fellow citizens – reduce government to its proper role, support American value principles, not the value principles of the collective or the commune. Support the American value principle of economic freedom, not the commune value principle of economic equality. Support the American value principles self-responsibility, equality under the law, and justice, not the commune value principles of dependency, the forcing of some to be keepers of others, and injustice masquerading as fairness. The time has come for wealth creators to proudly proclaim their right to their wealth and to use their time and talent in the service of political freedom. The time has come to scare and starve the politically power hungry by giving them less to expropriate and redistribute. The time has come to righteously state that it is morally wrong to steal, and it only compounds the moral abomination when the government is used to do the stealing. I know not what course others may follow, but as for us, give us Liberty or feel the power of our advocacy and activism for our birthright of Freedom. I encourage all, especially “older” Americans, to put aside “comfort” and “tranquility” and join a growing coalition of friends of freedom. Support each individual’s right to freedom of action in pursuit of life and condemn any individual, group, or government that would violate that freedom and force an individual to serve the wishes of others. The coalition can be large if members exercise social toleration in the name of a united political intolerance for violations of political freedom. For Patrick Henry’s words in 1775, search for “give me liberty” in the document on the web here.

The above quotation uses the term “value” with two different meanings without realizing that is what is being done. (In philosophy this is known as the logical fallacy of equivocation.) “Biological necessities” are conditions that benefit the life of the organism and Objectivism holds that those conditions are “values” that ought to be pursued. (Comparing "biological necessities" and "values" in the quotation's first sentence implicitly puts both in the same category of "biological conditions.") “People can also decide to go against biological necessities, for example a drug addict choosing the drug over his health.” This sentence implicitly discusses “value principles,” which are the principles one uses to choose one’s actions. Objectivism holds that one’s “value principles” are valid principles if they lead you to take action to achieve “values,” those things that benefit one’s life. The distinction between “values” and “value principles” is of crucial importance in discussing morality. Discovery of “biological necessities” is relatively easy and the identified conditions are referred to, in Objectivism, as “values” that should be pursued. The discovery of valid principles for action, “value principles,” is fraught with controversy because of the differences at the foundation of the moral codes of different people. One can’t expect progress until all use the separate terms “value” and “value principle” to refer to the appropriate facts. (See also post #220)

“Check your premises!” Below are excerpts from “Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism” published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Spring 2007: With the evolution of a volitional mechanism to select action, the question arises, “Is there some cognitive principle to demonstrate that a particular choice of action is valid?” Knowledge of valuing mechanisms and the study of human value achievement lead to identifying the human mind as an important human valuing mechanism. The mind has unsurpassed power to select action that results in pursuit and achievement of values, pursuit and achievement of that which benefits one’s life. All volitional action originates from a person’s mind, conscious or subconscious. If the mind chooses volitional action that one knows (at some level, conscious or subconscious) to be harmful to one’s life, some aspect of the mind is implicitly acting on the premise that the human mind is not a valuing mechanism. The law of noncontradiction tells us that the mind cannot both be and not be a valuing mechanism at the same time and in the same context. Either the identification of the mind as a human valuing mechanism is an error or the use of the mind to select harmful action is an error. Resolution of the contradiction requires either rejecting the mind as a human valuing mechanism or rejecting the selection of harmful action. The first choice contradicts the modern understanding of living organisms and the evolution of the human species. The second choice requires analyzing the reasons for selection of harmful action and correcting the errors that led to the action. The contradiction would not arise if one chooses action based on holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action. Choosing action harmful to one’s life is a negation of that principle and leads to the above contradiction. The above is only a sketch of some of the essential points to be found in the paper. Note that the above is based on human nature and the law of non-contradiction. Some may consider the identification of the mind as a “human valuing mechanism” to be insertion of a “non-scientific” argument or an assumption. I consider it a valid inductive observation. Please see the paper for a fuller discussion.

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

I think most Objectivist Living readers believe that “To build Objectivism into a more comprehensive and robust philosophy is to honor the work of its founder.” (Quotation from my Free Minds ’09 presentation.) Over the years I have addressed three issues toward that end. The third (discussed below) was presented at Free Minds ’09. The first contribution, presented to the TAS (then IOS) 1996 Summer Advanced Seminar, dealt with the distinction between “value principles” and “values.” “Value principles” are normative guides to gain and/or keep those things that benefit one’s life, values. Because a person’s “value principles” are sometimes referred to as a person’s “values,” it is not always clear in Objectivist literature whether “values” means “value principles” or “values.” The second contribution attempts to support Ayn Rand’s vision of “a morality which can be proved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.” My article “Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism” in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Spring 2007, is an attempt in that direction. (An early version was presented at the 2001 First Annual Enlightenment Conference.) The third contribution attempts to put the intuitive concept of “the right to life” on a firm ethical foundation. My talk at Free Minds ’09, “A Political Standard for Absolute Political Freedom,” derives a political standard of judgment to separate chosen actions into political freedoms and violations of political freedom. The goal is absolute political freedom, which means unfailingly protecting political freedoms and unfailingly constraining violations of political freedom. The derived political standard uses the concept of a valuing-chain for “unit economy” in discussing the various actions that need protection in the pursuit of a value. The relation between political freedoms and rights principles is also discussed. (All the talks were recorded by Haywire Recording and I expect they will be made available by the “The Free Minds Foundation.”)

I agree! This is an opportune time to strike, not an "Atlas Shrugged strike," but striking out with advocacy for freedom. The clarity of the opponents' collectivism, and the ground prepared by friends of freedom over recent decades, may make such an "advocacy strike" preempt the need for an "Atlas Shrugged strike." Now is the time to increase our efforts to promote a culture of freedom. Success may be near!

Ideally, a "Social Individualists" party based on social and economic freedom, with vigorous protection of individual rights from both domestic and foreign threats, could form a united and harmonious political party. With the growing registration of independents, such an "clean-slate" effort may indeed be practical. Leave the opponents of social freedom to the Republicans. Leave the opponents of economic freedom to the Democrats. Leave the whimsical and the anarchists to the Libertarians.

It's Later Than You Think Now that the adherents of collectivism and enforced service are united, it is time for the advocates of individualism to act.The upcoming emphasis on "A New Birth of Freedom" is a perfect opportunity to highlight the "New Birth of Economic Slavery" that is all too rapidly approaching. Mainstream response in opposition to the enormous outlays for "economic recovery" is a promising indicator. Pro-freedom advocates on the left and the right can join in a political party of social individualism. Possibly they can take over the Libertarian party, eliminating some politically poisonous planks, strengthening advocacy of protection of rights from foreign threats, and emphasizing protection of property rights. The religious, who believe thou shalt not steal, and the secular, who are convinced individual voluntary consent is required for property transfer, can politically join forces. An earlier post, Freedom's Address, indicates arguments and rhetoric that may appeal to mainstream citizens.

Regarding "Proof of Egoism": I thank Stephen for a fairly accurate description of a critical step in my effort at a "Proof of Egoism." It would require someone better versed than I in evolutionary biology to assess our conflicting assertions. I asserted that "the mind [is] a human valuing mechanism" is a valid inductive inference based on the nature of value, valuing mechanisms, and "the evolution of the human species." (302) I take Stephen's assertion that the "role of the mind" is also to "enable the survival of other members of the human species" to be a possible consequence of the mind's fundamental role as a valuing mechanism. Therefore, I don't think that his assertion negates the proof I present. http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v8_n2/8_2toc.asp#rh

But, a valid theory of ethics, like a valid theory of spacetime, is derived from the laws of nature. Just as one must study the facts regarding space and time to understand the validity of the non-Euclidian nature of spacetime and the truth of the theory of general relativity, one must study the biological facts to understand the validity of egoistic choice and the truth of the theory of ethical egoism. (See previous post and the cited reference for details.)

"holding one's own life as the motive and goal of one's action"Never encountered a convincing argument for this. Below is a sampling of my argument based on quotations from the paper cited below:"To protect against equivocation, this paper will carefully use the term 'value' to denote a single concept valid for all living organisms. I will . . . strictly limit the concept of value to denote a beneficial condition for its own life that an organism produces through its own action." (p. 296) "In a human context, some authors use the term value to denote any goal sought or anything that a person chooses to value. That is more properly labeled a value principle. This paper will not use the term value to denote a value principle." (p. 296) "What is at issue here is proving an ethical system that includes guidance for assessing the objective validity of a person’s value principles." (p. 297) "The concept of a valuing mechanism also applies to all living organisms. An organism’s valuing mechanisms are its specific biological features that enable it to pursue and achieve values." (p. 297) "All volitional action originates from a person’s mind, conscious or subconscious. If the mind chooses volitional action that one knows (at some level, conscious or subconscious) to be harmful to one’s life, some aspect of the mind is implicitly acting on the premise that the human mind is not a valuing mechanism. The law of noncontradiction tells us that the mind cannot both be and not be a valuing mechanism at the same time and in the same context. Either the identification of the mind as a human valuing mechanism is an error or the use of the mind to select harmful action is an error." (p. 300) "Resolution of the contradiction requires either rejecting the mind as a human valuing mechanism or rejecting the selection of harmful action. The first choice contradicts the modern understanding of living organisms and the evolution of the human species. The second choice requires analyzing the reasons for selection of harmful action and correcting the errors that led to the action." (p.300) Please obtain the paper for the full argument and interesting consequences. Hartford, Robert. 2007. Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8, no. 2 (Spring): 291–303. Click for Subscription and Back Issues Order Form

Egoism – Objective or Subjective? Ayn Rand’s vision was of “a morality which can be proved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary” (Rand [1959] 1998) Her brief analysis did not provide proof to my satisfaction. The following quotations are from (Hartford 2007), cited below, which contains my attempt at proof. “Since the time when Hume said it seems inconceivable that an ‘ought’ proposition can be deduced from any set of ‘is’ propositions, many have thought the task of proof to be impossible.” “They appear to overlook the fact that the results of action are descriptive facts. The characteristics and causes of action are also descriptive facts. Integration of those facts is a requirement of truth and will be essential to proof.” “If it can be shown that building such descriptions into a noncontradictory body of mental contents requires specific normative action, then a proven link from the descriptive to the prescriptive will be forged.” The paper uses “a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ approach to proof by examining action based on the negation of ‘the choice to live’ principle and showing that it provides evidence of contradictory mental contents.” Rand, Ayn. [1959] 1998. Mike Wallace Interviews Ayn Rand. No Free Lunch Distributors. Video tape. Hartford, Robert. 2007. Objectivity and the proof of egoism. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8, no. 2 (Spring): 291-303. Click here for a Subscription and Back Issue Order Form for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

"Should" in the context of ethical fundamentals. Human beings have the capacity for volitional selection of action. The reference below attempts proof that "acceptance and use of the principle of holding one's own life as the motive and goal of one's action" serves as the foundational principle of a valid ethical system for selecting action. With that proof in hand, "we can derive actions that 'should' be taken, actions that are required to implement the foundational principle." The quotations in this reply are from: Hartford, Robert. 2007. Objectivity and the proof of egoism. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8, no. 2 (Spring): 291-303