Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Roger Bissell]

Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

By Roger E. Bissell

August 14, 2003

I don't agree with those who claim that Reason is the "primary value" in the Objectivist Ethics. Reason is not the source of Purpose and Self-Esteem, but their concomitant. It is Rationality, the virtue, that is their source. Again, together, Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem are "the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life..." [That is a direct quote from Rand VOS p. 27.]

I am not saying that the virtue of Rationality precedes the value of Reason. You choose reason as a value and you then choose to act to gain and/or keep it. In general, you first have to decide what your values are, before you can act virtuously to obtain them. However, in terms of cause and effect, you do have to act before you can gain and/or keep something that you have chosen to be a value.

If we do not adhere to Rand’s "and/or" usage, but instead replace it with "and" in referring to Rand's definition of "virtue," we end up obscuring an important point. Some values are already there, and virtue consists from that point in acting to keep them. For instance, life is something we all begin with, and we value it even on the pre-conceptual, pre-moral level, and act automatically to keep it. But at some point, we realize that acting automatically is not enough to sustain our lives, that we must behave deliberately and in a focused, rational manner if we are to survive. That is, we realize that rationality is necessary to living. This is long before we engage in formal philosophical thinking and go through all the derivations and deep conceptual study from metaphysics and epistemology through ethics.

At some later point, we realize that there are three factors, i.e., values, on which our lives hinge (thus "cardinal" – see the etymological derivation of the word) – and these, as Rand notes, are reason, purpose, and self-esteem. Because they are the hinge or pivotal values in human live, this is why Rand said that "to live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life." (Galt's Speech, FNI, p. 128)

Reason may be, as Peikoff says, the "greatest" of the three and "[make] the others possible" (see OPAR, p. 220), but there is no denying that Rand said that all three of the cardinal values together "imply and require all of man's virtues." (GS, FNI, p. 128) I think it would thus be confusing and unhelpful to deviate from Rand's reference to Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem as the three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics and instead characterize the three as unequals in such a way as to view Purpose and Self-Esteem as the cardinals and Reason as the pope. :-)

Are the descriptions of the virtues Rand gives in VOS, pp. 25-26 all applications of rationality? Not obviously so. In the one long paragraph on the virtue of Rationality (VOS, pp. 28-29), Rand says, "The virtue of Rationality...means...the virtue of Independence, ...the virtue of Integrity, ...the virtue of Honesty,...the virtue of Justice..." In two additional, separate paragraphs, Rand speaks of the virtues of Productiveness and Pride (p. 29), and she does not there make the same unequivocal connection between those virtues and Rationality as she does between Independence/Integrity/Honesty/Justice and Rationality.

True, there is a mention of Rationality in her paragraphs on Productiveness and Pride, but it is clear that she does not view them as subsidiary or corollary virtues of Rationality in the same way that she does Independence, Integrity, Honesty, and Justice. And this, I suggest, is because she views Productiveness as corresponding to Purpose, Pride as corresponding to Self-Esteem, and Rationality along with Independence, Integrity, Honesty, and Justice as corresponding to Reason. Any other reading, it seems to me, does not agree with the parallel structure of Rand's discussion – nor with her statement (in Galt's Speech) that all three cardinal values together imply and necessitate all seven of the virtues.

[Chuck]

Roger and all -

The source_ of Purpose and Self-esteem is not Reason per se. Such basic non-optional values each derive from some basic fact about our nature - about a reason-based life.

There is of course some causal mutuality amongst the three values and the virtues for attaining them. Clear purposefulness and good self-esteem facilitate the application of reason (thinking, work), while spastic purpose and self-complacency impede it. But it's a gross understatement to speak of reason 'helping' or unreason 'hindering' other values. To the extent that the pursuit and application of reason conks out the results can be poor career choices, dumb marriages, taking pride in the wrong things or failure even in well-chosen purposes.

Can anyone think of a value that does not depend crucially on reason - conscious living - to be gained, kept? I question that it would be at all confusing and unhelpful to regard Reason as a notch or two more fundamental than the other two big ones.

One red herring:

When many people think "Reason" they think Objectivism, their own take on it, or generally some set of ideas. The "primacy of Reason" may thus evoke goals or personal targets being deduced rationalisically from big abstractions. Indeed, haven't Objectivists been known to deduce careers, spouses and who they want to be from half-digested First Principles?

Pride and Purpose to all,

Chuck

[UncleJim]

Ayn Rand said "life is the standard of value."

As such life; itself, is not a value but rather it is how values are known and ranked. The existence of life; being a physical existent, is absolute. By normal human sensual observation it is obvious that Life itself has evolved into living organisms. It is the need of life to continue exist within ones own body that establishes what the concept of value means. Not just to one but to all living organisms wherever they may exist.

Since each living organism has specific identifying characteristics then what its values are and how it gains them may be somewhat different from the other organisms. But this does not deny that life is the standard for how the concept of value applies to that organism or to its actions.

Humans are a specific kind of living organism. They have evolved in such a way that their mode of survival is based in purposeful identification rather than sensual observation as is the case with the other high functioning animals.

Value and virtue are human ideas. They can; however, be extrapolated to apply to any living organism. This is because value; and its associated virtues, is life based. If ones actions are not life based they are not considered to be virtuous. Notice how virtue does not apply to one when one is dead, therefore, the standard of virtuous action is self-action; i.e., it is selfish action.

[Xray]

Ayn Rand said "life is the standard of value."

Rand speaks of "the only objective value", one's life.

A nihilist may state that "the only objective value" is never to be born at all.

Imo the truth is that both values claimed to be objective are merely subjective choices.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Rand speaks of "the only objective value", one's life.

A nihilist may state that "the only objective value" is never to be born at all.

Imo the truth is that both values claimed to be objective are merely subjective choices.

I agree;

value - an ideal accepted by some individual or group; "he has old-fashioned values"

Value implies a valuer and so is necessarily personal, subjective, etc. Calling value X objective is an attempt to disguise that you are really saying one should value X, which is an entirely different story.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

value - an ideal accepted by some individual or group; "he has old-fashioned values"

GS,

That's not Objectivism. A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep. An ideal can be a value, but a value is not necessarily an ideal.

I agree that a value presupposes a valuer. One of Rand's most famous statements is from The Fountainhead (p. 376):

To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I have made that point with that Rand quote to more than 10 people in the last week. It is another one of the basic foundational pieces of simple truth that verifies an incredible panoply of assumptions for me and when I "share" those quotes and ideas in the flow of a conversation, they are extremely empowering for the person I am trying to persuade. It works beautifully.

Always one of my favorite "closers" to allow a person to listen to her other ideas.

Adam

[Selene]

Michael:

I have made that point with that Rand quote to more than 10 people in the last week. It is another one of the basic foundational pieces of simple truth that verifies an incredible panoply of assumptions for me and when I "share" those quotes and ideas in the flow of a conversation, they are extremely empowering for the person I am trying to persuade. It works beautifully.

Always one of my favorite "closers" to allow a person to listen to her other ideas.

Adam

OOPS

Edited April 24, 2009 by Selene

[tjohnson]

That's not Objectivism. A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep. An ideal can be a value, but a value is not necessarily an ideal.

OK, so an ideal can be a value and a value can be an ideal - that's not saying much. But what is an objective value? And how do objective values automatically apply to all valuers?

[BaalChatzaf]

That's not Objectivism. A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep. An ideal can be a value, but a value is not necessarily an ideal.

OK, so an ideal can be a value and a value can be an ideal - that's not saying much. But what is an objective value? And how do objective values automatically apply to all valuers?

Fatti fatti, non parole. Deeds, deeds, not words.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

OK, so an ideal can be a value and a value can be an ideal - that's not saying much. But what is an objective value? And how do objective values automatically apply to all valuers?

That would interest me too. For Rand's definition of "value" = "something one acts to gain or keep" says nothing about what the value is.

For e. g. the Marxist, the "value he acts to gain or keep" is the dictature of the proletariat. For the Christian, it is the promised resurrection of the flesh, etc.

Sure, in the history of mankind, there have always been attempts to declare the values of a specific ideology as allegedly "objective" and impose them on others. Those who openly disagreed were risking their lives. Still happens today in many places all over the world.

But the declaraton of a value as objective does not make it so.

So what is an objective value? What qualifies "an objective value" as one common set for all, without exception (for this is the strict requirement for it be "objective")?

The example of the nihilist has already disproved Rand's claim that the only objective value is one's life. The one common set for all here clearly does not apply to the nihilist.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oversimplification alert.

You guys are mixing up cognitive and normative abstractions. A value is a normative abstraction. As has been stated, it is impossible to have a value without the valuer.

All normative abstractions exist in terms of being compared (and measured) against a standard.

Here is how it works in terms of water, which I will use a simple example for clarity.

Water is an existent. As a cognitive abstraction, we identify it and that's all.

On the cognitive level, it is not a value, but simply an existent that exists as itself only (or as a specific state of being in relation to all of existence, however one prefers to think about it). It also exists in relation to other existents in terms of what happens on contact with it, but this relationship is limited on the cognitive level to us observing what exists and what causes what reaction.

When we observe human life, we see that without water, human beings die. This observation is also a cognitive abstraction of causality. It is a fact and nothing more.

From the perspective of an individual human being as opposed to knowledge in general, however, things change and an addition takes place. If the human being wishes to continue living, water is a value, and a crucial one at that. The standard (and full scale) for judging that is—on one end—being able to satisfy the survival need for water on down to the other end—death by thirst. There is even death by drowning and death by too much water consumption. Note, these are standards with countless gradations in between.

So water in itself is not even the value. The value is water used in a certain manner.

That is the normative abstraction.

(For the sake of simplicity, I will exclude other standards like level of purity/contamination, temperature, etc.)

There is no such thing as a value without being able to classify it according to importance. That does not make it subjective, however, since physical cause and effect are not subjective. But it does make it personal to an individual.

Let's say that all values have two components for the valuer: (1) causality in all the different relationships, which is universal and not alterable, and (2) the personal context of the valuer, which can range from outright need (on pain of death) to mere whim. I believe it is a mistake to exclude whim as a component of standard since that is a blank out, but it is a mistake of the same nature to pretend whim is all there is and blank out the rest. Pure subjectivity (i.e., whim) is merely one end of a scale for measuring one part of a value. This implies that there is another end to the scale and that there are other parts that are integral to the value.

Thus, an objective value is one that is properly identified in terms of causality according to a standard set by the valuer's individual context.

Michael

[UncleJim]

OK, so an ideal can be a value and a value can be an ideal - that's not saying much. But what is an objective value? And how do objective values automatically apply to all valuers?

That would interest me too. For Rand's definition of "value" = "something one acts to gain or keep" says nothing about what the value is.

For e. g. the Marxist, the "value he acts to gain or keep" is the dictature of the proletariat. For the Christian, it is the promised resurrection of the flesh, etc.

Sure, in the history of mankind, there have always been attempts to declare the values of a specific ideology as allegedly "objective" and impose them on others. Those who openly disagreed were risking their lives. Still happens today in many places all over the world.

But the declaraton of a value as objective does not make it so.

So what is an objective value? What qualifies "an objective value" as one common set for all, without exception (for this is the strict requirement for it be "objective")?

The example of the nihilist has already disproved Rand's claim that the only objective value is one's life. The one common set for all here clearly does not apply to the nihilist.

Life is the standard of value. Life; itself, is not value; what life needs to remain life is, is what value is. Since life is a physical absolute then what it needs to remain what it is, is also a physical absolute. Absent life 'value' has no meaning or application.

[Xray]

Oversimplification alert.

You guys are mixing up cognitive and normative abstractions. A value is a normative abstraction. As has been stated, it is impossible to have a value without the valuer.

All normative abstractions exist in terms of being compared (and measured) against a standard.

Here is how it works in terms of water, which I will use a simple example for clarity.

Water is an existent. As a cognitive abstraction, we identify it and that's all.

On the cognitive level, it is not a value, but simply an existent that exists as itself only (or as a specific state of being in relation to all of existence, however one prefers to think about it). It also exists in relation to other existents in terms of what happens on contact with it, but this relationship is limited on the cognitive level to us observing what exists and what causes what reaction.

When we observe human life, we see that without water, human beings die. This observation is also a cognitive abstraction of causality. It is a fact and nothing more.

From the perspective of an individual human being as opposed to knowledge in general, however, things change and an addition takes place. If the human being wishes to continue living, water is a value, and a crucial one at that.

Water is necessary for survial. A necessity.

The standard (and full scale) for judging that is—on one end—being able to satisfy the survival need for water on down to the other end—death by thirst. There is even death by drowning and death by too much water consumption. Note, these are standards with countless gradations in between.

So water in itself is not even the value. The value is water used in a certain manner.

That is the normative abstraction.

(For the sake of simplicity, I will exclude other standards like level of purity/contamination, temperature, etc.)

There is no such thing as a value without being able to classify it according to importance. That does not make it subjective, however, since physical cause and effect are not subjective. But it does make it personal to an individual.

Let's say that all values have two components for the valuer: (1) causality in all the different relationships, which is universal and not alterable, and (2) the personal context of the valuer, which can range from outright need (on pain of death) to mere whim. I believe it is a mistake to exclude whim as a component of standard since that is a blank out, but it is a mistake of the same nature to pretend whim is all there is and blank out the rest. Pure subjectivity (i.e., whim) is merely one end of a scale for measuring one part of a value. This implies that there is another end to the scale and that there are other parts that are integral to the value.

Thus, an objective value is one that is properly identified in terms of causality according to a standard set by the valuer's individual context.

Michael

Like you said, water is a necessity for survival. So is taking in air to survive, or shedding metabolic waste products. You equate those physiogical necessities with the word "objective value"?

One MUST do these things (take in water etc), in order to survive. There is "no ought to" here.

Rand:

"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. Where no alternative

exists, no goals and no values are possible."

Edited April 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Life is the standard of value.

But not for e. g. a nihilist. Philosophical standards are subjective choices too.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You equate those physiogical necessities with the word "objective value"?

Xray,

Please read more carefully. I never stated that a need is a value. If you have read anything of Rand, you know that need is not a value, nor is it a claim on others.

A need creates the conditions for value. Correctly identifying a need and how to satisfy it with efficacy and within context (the big picture—which is basically the perspective of a conceptual mind having volition facing reality) is an "objective value" in the sense of ethics.

btw - Need is not the only standard for measuring a value, but it is a main one.

You are putting a subjective meaning on "ought to," then complaining that others who use a conceptual daisy-chain back to reality don't use your meaning. You are essentially refusing to see what we are talking about, then complaining that our language and ideas are flawed. For instance, you are equating "ought to" with "duty" as mandated by someone (usually Rand with the anti-Rand folks).

You don't need to read much (not even here on OL) to see that "ought to" always occurs with respect to an expected outcome in Objectivism. It is not related to any authority other than reality. (This point is extremely difficult for some people to understand for some reason.) "Ought to" is intimately tied to the law of causality. There is always an implicit "if you want this" before "you ought to do that."

Go back to ignoring this if you wish as you explain to people who have studied Objectivism what is wrong with it. You certainly do not have a monopoly on getting the ideas all wrong before bashing them.

You have a good mind from what I read. You have no need to do it that way, but you make your own choices. This, in fact, is an instance of using a subjective standard of value in using your mind. There are other standards, but judging before knowing seems to be important to you in discussing Rand.

Do carry on.

EDIT: To address your misunderstanding of what Rand wrote, it does not apply to the condition that you need water in order to survive. It applies to whether you choose to act to get water. You do have a choice about what acts you wish to perform. You can choose to refuse to drink, depending on your values (your inner "ought to"). There is no choice about what certain outcomes will be if you make a poor choice.

As Rand wrote, ethics is a code of values to guide man's actions, and this implies choice of what action to take. That means a set of standards for using volition. Where man can choose to act, he has values that guide him. Some are subjective and some are objective. You can even choose which you prefer.

Here's one for you. Imagine a man in a desert. Is periodically drinking water a value to him? It sure is. But there are other values, also. Suppose he encounters a person who has water, but demands he betray everything he holds sacred to get a drink of it. (This is actually a good metaphor for several aspects of modern society.) To some people this will be easy. To others, they will refuse to drink. This is the choice they can make. Clear standards are in order here. They cannot choose whether lack of water will kill them. It will. And they cannot choose the impact of what betraying their most sacred values will have on their character. They will lose the sense of sacred.

The person will have to choose which is more important to him and act accordingly.

To carry this one step further, a typical approach in Objectivism is to reject the choice altogether (and the person demanding it) and seek water elsewhere.

Michael

[tjohnson]

I think I understand you Micheal. I think you are saying that an objective value is a tangible one - one that can be readily perceived by others. So 'water' as opposed to 'democracy'?

[Xray]

From the perspective of an individual human being as opposed to knowledge in general, however, things change and an addition takes place. If the human being wishes to continue living, water is a value, and a crucial one at that.

No. It is the wish to continue living which is the value. The water is the 'tool' to achieve that goal, a means to an end.

If I want to sew me a dress, the scissors I use to cut the fabric is not the value behind the action.

Here's one for you. Imagine a man in a desert. Is periodically drinking water a value to him?

Same as above. The value is the wish to continue living directing the use of a means (water) to that end.

Suppose he encounters a person who has water, but demands he betray everything he holds sacred to get a drink of it.

(This is actually a good metaphor for several aspects of modern society.) To some people this will be easy. To others, they will refuse to drink. This is the choice they can make.

Again, it is about valuing one's own survival more or one's sacred ideas.

So water in itself is not even the value. The value is water used in a certain manner.

The water is merely a means to achieve a valued end.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think you are saying that an objective value is a tangible one - one that can be readily perceived by others. So 'water' as opposed to 'democracy'?

GS,

All concepts ultimately reduce to something tangible at the root. That includes values as concepts.

btw - Democracy without the context of the tangible, i.e., living human beings who use their minds to survive, is nothing but mob rule. Democracy needs to be anchored on individual rights to be a value, i.e., something other than a dictatorship by mob.

A means to end is no value.

Xray,

Where on earth did you get that idea? Not from Rand, I assure you.

You act like there is no such thing as a hierarchy of values and there can be no relationship between them. Rand's definition (from VOS, p. 17):

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

I have seen no statement on that primary level about why one acts to gain and/or keep something. Life is a value to the one living it. Sure. But so is water, using life as the standard of measurement. This is Objectivism 101.

I am more and more arriving at the opinion that you are disagreeing with anything and everything for the sole purpose of disagreeing. And that's boring.

Is there any positive idea you are interested in? This is the second time I am asking.

Michael

[Xray]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Not from Rand, I assure you.

My point was to trace back (in the desert example you used, to the

subjective value (wanting to continue living) directing the use of the

tool (in that case, water) to achieve the goal.

Of course the person will also "value" the means helping him to achieve

the end, but it is still merely the means chosen to achieve a

(subjectively valued) goal.

You act like there is no such thing as a hierarchy of values and there can be no relationship between them. Rand's definition (from VOS, p. 17):

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

Let's not get sidetracked. The discussion here is about whether objective values exist and the quote from Rand is not about a hierarchy of values. It merely stresses the volitional choice of an individual acting to gain or keep what he /she considers as a value.

I have seen no statement on that primary level about why one acts to gain and/or keep something.

The "whys" are subjective choices.

Life is a value to the one living it. Sure. But so is water, using life as the standard of measurement. This is Objectivism 101.

And life is a non-value to the one not wanting to live it. This is logic 101.

Rand's objectivist claim that "the only objective value", one's life, does not stand up to scrutiny imo.

To illustrate, I'll use the "thirst in the desert" example posted by you.

In former times, old-aged members of some tribes went into the wilderness on their own to die there because they did not consider their life as the ultimate value. Even if they had been offered water there, they would not have taken it.

I am more and more arriving at the opinion that you are disagreeing with anything and everything for the sole purpose of disagreeing. And that's boring.

Again, what one considers as 'boring' is an entirely subjective assessment. You will see in the course of the discussion that I'm not disagreeng for the purpose of disagreeing. But I am a stickler for preciseness and will ask for clarification to avoid any misunderstandings. Feel free any time to ask me to clarify too.

Is there any positive idea you are interested in? This is the second time I am asking.

"Positive idea" is a subjective statement too. But I suppose you mean if there is anything about Rand's work I personally agree with. There sure is.

Example:

Rand: "Religion ... is the first enemy of the ability to think. That ability is not used by men to one tenth of its possibility, and before they learn to think, they are discouraged by being ordered to take things on faith." (end quote)

I have shed my faith, but don't want to replace one Procrustes's bed with another.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"And life is a non-value to the one not wanting to live it. This is logic 101."

This is the other part of Rand's insight that comes out repeatedly in Jim Taggart, Galt's "ARCHETYPAL TEACHER OF EVIL" at the State Science Institute [sSI] Dr. Stadler when they realize that it is death they seek.

Adam

At least that is not a juvenile fantasy question that can be approached.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And life is a non-value to the one not wanting to live it. This is logic 101.

Xray,

I will let the smart-aleck stuff slide for now (in light of the rest of your post), but your statement is also is Objectivism 101. See Galt's declaration to Dagny that he would commit suicide if she were captured and tortured to force him to fix things. The woman who loves him even agrees. The following is from Atlas Shrugged, p. 1003. John Galt is talking to Dagny Taggart.

... you cannot take my side, not so long as we're in their hands. Now you must take their side."

"What?"

"You must take their side, as fully, consistently and loudly as your capacity for deception will permit. You must act as one of them. You must act as my worst enemy. If you do, I'll have a chance to come out of it alive. They need me too much, they'll go to any extreme before they bring themselves to kill me. Whatever they extort from people, they can extort it only through their victim's values—and they have no value of mine to hold over my head, nothing to threaten me with. But if they get the slightest suspicion of what we are to each other, they will have you on a torture rack—I mean, physical torture—before my eyes, in less than a week. I am not going to wait for that. At the first mention of a threat to you, I will kill myself and stop them right there."

He said it without emphasis, in the same impersonal tone of practical calculation as the rest. She knew that he meant it and that he was right to mean it: she saw in what manner she alone had the power to succeed at destroying him, where all the power of his enemies would fail. He saw the look of stillness in her eyes, a look of understanding and of horror. He nodded, with a faint smile.

"I don't have to tell you," he said, "that if I do it, it won't be an act of self-sacrifice. I do not care to live on their terms, I do not care to obey them and I do not care to see you enduring a drawnout murder. There will be no values for me to seek after that—and I do not care to exist without values. I don't have to tell you that we owe no morality to those who hold us under a gun. So use every power of deceit you can command, but convince them that you hate me. Then we'll have a chance to remain alive and to escape—I don't know when or how, but I'll know that I'm free to act. Is this understood?"

She forced herself to lift her head, to look straight at him and to nod.

(Edit: My post crossed with Adam's and he made a very good point.)

Until you learn this stuff correctly, I suggest you do a double take before making some kind of false assertion like the one below.

Rand's objectivist claim that "the only objective value", one's life, does not stand up to scrutiny imo.

It is far better to ask for clarity and verify that you fully understand an idea before bashing it than to declare at the outset that it "does not stand up to scrutiny," especially when you have not scrutinized it very well—to the point of error.

You will see in the course of the discussion that I'm not disagreeng for the purpose of disagreeing. But I am a stickler for preciseness and will ask for clarification to avoid any misunderstandings. Fee free any time to ask me to clarify too.

. . .

I have shed my faith, but don't want to replace one Procrustes's bed with another.

These are excellent attitudes. I hope you keep to them and never let them go. They will take you far in life.

You do them injustice when you bash ideas before you understand them. I suggest you take some time getting to know the ideas better since your mistakes are very obvious. Ask a lot of questions. There are some enthusiastic people around here, but believe me, there are no missionaries I know of. They will all be glad to explain things to the best of their ability if they sense you are seeking information and not seeking some pretext to bash Rand.

They can't make you want to understand, though. That has to come from you.

Then, once you are sure you understand an idea, bash away if that is what you want to do. But at least you will be bashing what you say your are bashing, and not falsely attributing Rand with ideas she did not hold.

I sense you have a good mind. Just a slight excess of zeal. That is why I am taking time with you.

Michael

[UncleJim]

You equate those physiogical necessities with the word "objective value"?

Xray,

Please read more carefully. I never stated that a need is a value. If you have read anything of Rand, you know that need is not a value, nor is it a claim on others.

A need creates the conditions for value. Correctly identifying a need and how to satisfy it with efficacy and within context (the big picture—which is basically the perspective of a conceptual mind having volition facing reality) is an "objective value" in the sense of ethics.

btw - Need is not the only standard for measuring a value, but it is a main one.

You are putting a subjective meaning on "ought to," then complaining that others who use a conceptual daisy-chain back to reality don't use your meaning. You are essentially refusing to see what we are talking about, then complaining that our language and ideas are flawed. For instance, you are equating "ought to" with "duty" as mandated by someone (usually Rand with the anti-Rand folks).

You don't need to read much (not even here on OL) to see that "ought to" always occurs with respect to an expected outcome in Objectivism. It is not related to any authority other than reality. (This point is extremely difficult for some people to understand for some reason.) "Ought to" is intimately tied to the law of causality. There is always an implicit "if you want this" before "you ought to do that."

Go back to ignoring this if you wish as you explain to people who have studied Objectivism what is wrong with it. You certainly do not have a monopoly on getting the ideas all wrong before bashing them.

You have a good mind from what I read. You have no need to do it that way, but you make your own choices. This, in fact, is an instance of using a subjective standard of value in using your mind. There are other standards, but judging before knowing seems to be important to you in discussing Rand.

Do carry on.

EDIT: To address your misunderstanding of what Rand wrote, it does not apply to the condition that you need water in order to survive. It applies to whether you choose to act to get water. You do have a choice about what acts you wish to perform. You can choose to refuse to drink, depending on your values (your inner "ought to"). There is no choice about what certain outcomes will be if you make a poor choice.

As Rand wrote, ethics is a code of values to guide man's actions, and this implies choice of what action to take. That means a set of standards for using volition. Where man can choose to act, he has values that guide him. Some are subjective and some are objective. You can even choose which you prefer.

Here's one for you. Imagine a man in a desert. Is periodically drinking water a value to him? It sure is. But there are other values, also. Suppose he encounters a person who has water, but demands he betray everything he holds sacred to get a drink of it. (This is actually a good metaphor for several aspects of modern society.) To some people this will be easy. To others, they will refuse to drink. This is the choice they can make. Clear standards are in order here. They cannot choose whether lack of water will kill them. It will. And they cannot choose the impact of what betraying their most sacred values will have on their character. They will lose the sense of sacred.

The person will have to choose which is more important to him and act accordingly.

To carry this one step further, a typical approach in Objectivism is to reject the choice altogether (and the person demanding it) and seek water elsewhere.

Michael

Beginning with what Rand said:

"I quote from Galt’s speech: 'There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.' "

For this premise to work life must exist. For life to exist it [life] must consume specific energy resources. These energy resources are the "needs" of life; they are what life "needs" to remain in existence. Translating the needs of life into a human context the idea expressed by the concept of need must is changed to value. Therefore the needs of ones life become the values one must choose to be considered a properly functioning human-being.

[UncleJim]

You equate those physiogical necessities with the word "objective value"?

Here's one for you. Imagine a man in a desert. Is periodically drinking water a value to him?

Michael

In this example man must drink water or die. His fundamental choice seems to be life or death. If he chooses life that choice makes it a value. But this example also implies that if he chooses death that choice makes it a value. This conclusion is called an absurdity. It's an absurdity because of the implied "objective existence" of death. Death is not a something which actually [objectively] exists, death; therefore, can not be chosen.

The existence of life is absolute. Life cannot be chosen - it already exists. The choice (and therefore that which is chosen) is to act in accordance with the needs of life or not; i.e., to act properly or not. When one drinks water one is acting properly with regard to what ones life requires to remain in existence. The act of drinking is a value based act. That which is chosen [here water] is the what ones life needs to remain in existence.

Water is not a human need, it is a need of human based life. In other words: Since humans are not what life is; then, water is not a human need. The need of water, by ones life, makes it [water] a human value. The drinking of water is a value based action.

Edited April 26, 2009 by UncleJim

[Selene]

"We hold these truths to be self–evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are

{this is a syllogistic ranking of existence and values as a hierarchical structure}

Life, All life exists

this is a key constitutional issue in abortion argumentation [government's prime directive must protect life. Without life there can be no liberty.

Liberty existent life has the liberty to choose. Without liberty you cannot choose to pursue happiness.

and the pursuit of Happiness. therefore, one of the choices is pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is that simple.

Adam