rhartford

The ability to value something implies an entity capable of acting in the face of an alternative.

A plant can't choose not to seek sunlight, it is programmed that way. It has no alternative to act otherwise.

Rand explicitly points out that "where no alternative exists, no values are possible"

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. (Rand)

She's clear as a bell there. Per her own definition, plants can't value.

Certainly it was sloppy of her not to realize the contradiction.

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.

Take the audiovisual symobl "pupil" for example, which is quite obviously a homonym, with two different 'meanings' attached to it.

But as for the actual definition for each separate lexicon entry, (one for of pupil/student; one for pupil/part of the eye), it is these definitions which have to be in themselves consistent, unambiguous and contradiction-free in order to assure communication, and I have to USE them in this sense in order to avoid misunderstandings of ultimate magnitude.

So e.g. in "pupil" referring to a specific part of the eye, the definition has to be such that the reader knows what is meant, that is, after absorbing the definition, no doubt has to be left as to what it refers to. Entity identity is required.

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.

Biological necessities and values are not the same. People can also decide to go against biological necessities, for example a drug addict choosing the drug over his health.

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)

What you Objectivists are trying to do is to derive a moral ideal (which I heartily endorse) from reality (namely human nature), which cannot be done, as you always have to put in some non-scientific argument (preferably camouflaged with copious use of words like "objective" and "rational") to get the desired answer. It is a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy.

“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.

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

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.”)

Why not strike because folks it don't look good at all?

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!

. . . . .

Given that the Republican Party traditionally stood for limited govt and individual rights and adherence to the Constitution, I think it makes more sense to join with the Campaign For Liberty and attempt to take over the Republican Party and to run candidates within it.

. . . .

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.

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.

These brief thoughts are designed to prepare the reader for evaluating use and misuse of political terms during the inaugural ceremonies and beyond. Please send the paper, or a link, to anyone who may be interested in, or benefit from, the ideas presented.

The link is: www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6449

Seven score and four years ago, in the impassioned and memorable words of his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.” Weeks later his fond hope was realized. The war ended. The Union and Confederacy again became one nation, and along the long road to the ideal of political freedom begun in 1776 a milestone was reached. Freedom was formally extended to millions.

Traveling the road to political freedom continued. Suffrage was extended and the dehumanizing era of segregation ended. Cultural advances accompanied each new step toward freedom. The bigotry of racism declined. Benevolent toleration of individual choice grew.

Today, however, we again find political freedom under threat. Involuntary servitude is returning, not by lash and shackles, but by taxes, by government control of parts of the economy, by government borrowing, by government guaranteed loans, by government unfunded liabilities totaling trillions of dollars, and by government inflation of the money supply.

Because “The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies” selected “A New Birth of Freedom” as this year’s inaugural theme, we have a unique opportunity to focus the attention of the nation and the world on the meaning of political freedom, on current threats to political freedom, and on advocacy and action to advance political freedom. Political freedom, the unifying ideological principle on which this nation was founded, means protection of each individual’s time, effort, and property from being taken without that individual’s voluntary consent.

Unfortunately the two political parties have united in bipartisan support of an ideology opposed to political freedom. Rather than “A New Birth of Freedom” we are experiencing descent into the darkness of involuntary servitude. We are truly in the midst of the economic equivalent of “A New Birth of Slavery.”

We must expose the ideology of opponents of freedom. While disparaging competing ideologies, they use the ideology and dogma of pragmatism, of “what works,” and they implicitly and arrogantly proclaim that their “noble ends justify the means of using government coercion against defenseless citizens.” They dishonor the founding philosophy of individual political freedom and try to enforce their ideology of service through government edicts. In the spirit of ’76, we the people must reject this abuse of our rights.

We must expect opponents of freedom to distort the meaning of important political concepts. Political freedom may be redefined to mean “freedom” to have and use subsidized “green” products from subsidized businesses, or to mean “freedom” from concern for providing one’s own health care. Political equality may be redefined to mean that those of high productive ability must be required to serve those businesses and individuals whose productivity can’t meet their own needs. The income tax system may be redefined, not to raise revenue to protect our rights, but to take our money and give it to those who pay no income tax at all. Some people may receive refunds of part of their Social Security and Medicare “insurance” payroll taxes without any reduction of their benefits, redefining retirement “insurance” programs as welfare programs. All these are audacious changes that would require those of ability to serve others. History, logic, current events, and morality show that when those of ability are forced to serve those in need, ability silently erodes and needs noisily escalate.

In 1776 we had taxation without representation. Today, representatives use taxation to support politically favored businesses, organizations, families, and individuals at our expense. We must not let distorted notions of “freedom,” “equality,” and “taxation” threaten our right to pursue our own lives, well-being, and happiness. Taking political freedom away in the name of “freedom” makes a mockery of language and logic, and undermines the foundation on which our nation is built.

Echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln, we must here highly resolve that this nation will have a new birth of political freedom. Each individual citizen must be free to pursue dreams, neither demanding support from others nor being forced to support the needs and dreams of others. Some of us attribute a religious meaning to prayer and some of us consider prayer an expression of a passionate hope, but we can all unite with Lincoln in prayer’s essential meaning. We can all fervently pray that involuntary servitude ends.

In the decades before the American Civil War, abolitionists prepared the moral ground for the end of slavery. In 1860, anti-slavery Democrats and anti-slavery Whigs bolted their political parties, and propelled the Republican Party candidate, Abraham Lincoln, to the presidency.

In recent decades, friends of freedom have prepared the moral ground for Liberty, for protection of individual voluntary consent, and for prohibition of involuntary servitude to fellow citizens. The time may be near when pro-freedom advocates on the left and on the right will join political forces, bolt the two-party system, oppose the ideology of collective servitude, establish a political party based on social individualism, and elect those with a pro-freedom passion and commitment.

We must resoundingly reject a culture of social collectivism and a government that greedily and arrogantly takes the time, effort, or property of some to satisfy the needs of others. We must eagerly embrace and proudly promote a culture of social individualism, a society that respects and honors individual choice in pursuit of material and spiritual values. Let us be audacious enough to hope that freedom’s principal address will remain in the United States of America. Let us achieve political protection for our birthright of freedom. Let us ensure protection of each citizen’s right to seek to flourish. Let us dedicate ourselves to a new dawn of freedom.

Regarding "Proof of Egoism":

I thank Stephen for a fairly accurate description of a critical step in my effort at a "Proof of Egoism."

As noted earlier in this thread, Robert Hartford contributed a paper last spring to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 8(2):291–303. The title of his paper is “Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism.” In this paper, he argues that “the foundation of an objectively verifiable ethical system is the [voluntary] acceptance and use of the principle of holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action” (302).

Robert argues that if one rejects Rand’s principle of holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action, then one is contradicting a fact about the very mind rejecting the principle. That fact is the biological role that the mind has in human life. “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” (300). If one selects an action that is known—known consciously or subconsciously—to be harmful to one’s life, then some aspect of one’s mind is implicitly acting in a way at odds with the fundamental role of the mind in human life. The mind is then in a contradictory state. It strives to achieve what benefits the life of the person whose mind it is while at the same time, in the particular choice, it strives to harm that person. Therefore, one should always select one’s action with one’s own life as the motive and goal of the action. [RH: I would say 'non-contradiction requires selection of' rather than 'one should always select' See The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies paper for the reasons.]

I would say that the biological role of the mind is not only to enable the survival of the individual whose mind it is, but to enable the survival of other members of the human species. So I don’t think Robert’s proof works. The faulty premise in Robert’s argument is appealed to in the complex weave of Rand’s argument as well. How wide are the ramifications of this flaw in her argument? I wonder.

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

(BaalChatzaf post #24 in the 'Sense of Life' thread) "ethics is not -determined- by the laws of nature"

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.)

. . . "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.

"holding one's own life as the motive and goal of one's action"

Never encountered a convincing argument for this.

"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.

My question is what do "ought" and "should" [mean] in other contexts?

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