Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Brant Gaede]

But the wish for the "right" philosophy lands you on the doorstep of subjective values again. Just look at the many philospies of which people have felt they were "right", and the many subjective values believed to be "objective" and imposed on others, often by force. I have listed several examples on this thread.

Get this folks: The search for the right philosophy leads to the wrong philosophy and she can objectively prove or demonstrate or adduce evidence for this objective truth. Isn't this like saying the search for scientific truth leads to scientific falsehoods (and therefore we shouldn't)? She's a subjectivist come to objectivist land to state her truth about her (objectively) true subjective values and to state the falsehood of our objective ones not even giving us the courtesy of the objective subjectivity of our objectivity. She eats her cake and ours too!

An objective truth is merely a truth. Values included. A subjective truth is a derivative, parasitical concept. There are subjective truths (in your head), but this is objectively true too.

An objective truth (includes values) is truth. A subjective truth (includes values) is only problematically true (existentially).

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Get this folks: The search for the right philosophy leads to the wrong philosophy ...

If you take 'philosophy' in the widest possible meaning then we all have some philosophy that we live by. But this is not necessarily a formal philosophy - in fact it is usually a mixture of a great number of factors. What does it mean to say "the right" philosophy? Is it the equivalent of a theory in science that works? How can one claim that a philosophy is the right one?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Any philosophy that proposes fundamental axioms, i.e., that there is an existence, that things that exist have identity that cannot be renounced, that we humans are living beings with a competent faculty of awareness of existence (and the things that exist), that we have free choice over whether to engage that faculty or not according to our individual will (self or whatever you want to call it), and that we have free choice over will-governed actions, is a right philosophy for using reason—at least according to fundamental principles.

It doesn't matter whether that is called Objectivism or anything else.

Any philosophy that claims that reality is an illusion, that the identity of things can be altered by miracles, that we cannot ever know whether we really do have a faculty of awareness, much less decide when to engage it, and that our actions and thoughts are predestined or are nothing but patterns of behavior playing out from preprogramming, is not a right philosophy for using reason, but instead a statement of the futility of existing.

It's not very useful unless it is proposed as a con, in which case one can gain power over others with it.

I am not saying illusions, extraordinary happenings, confusion, preprogramming and patterns of behavior do not exist. They do. But they exist as aspects of existence, identity, consciousness and volition, not as a replacement for them. A wrong philosophy proposes that they are the real truth.

(And "real" doesn't even exist for them, much less "truth"...)

Michael

[Xray]

We can take Rand's definition of 'objective' and 'fact' if you feel more comfortable with it. No problem.

Just post it here. TIA.

Xray,

I'm not the one preaching Rand is wrong in Xray-speak.

Michael

Not everything Rand wrote is based on fallacy. For example, her defnition of "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness) is correct. It is obvious that in this definition value is a subjective notion, in the sense that different persons may have different values: what A wants to gain and/or keep isn't necessarily the same as what B wants to gain and/or keep. Or as Rand says: "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?".

So just post Rand's definition of "objective" and "fact"; we'll then compare it to the lexicon entry I gave you and take it from there.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Moreover, you and I both know that you have at least one little friend on this board.

You make it sound as if is an infringement to make friends at OL. :question:

Edited July 1, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Skillfully evaded the statement, but it is ok as long as you put that smiley on the words, everything will be all right.

False trails, straw men, red herrings damn what a philosophical camping trip you are.

Adam

[Xray]

(Selene @ Jun 30 2009, 09:35 PM)

X-ray I underlined italicized and bolded a section which you will not understand, but since I recognized you quite early for what you are you will utilize it to conflate concepts, definitions, etc. until you are right again.

Selene, the black and white picture of the world's "good" and "bad" ("rogue") nations are just another example of a primitive friend-enemy ideology based on the illusion of categorial identity, i. e. is treating an arbitrarily established category "people" as if it were an entity. The supreme irony is that Rand herself was aware of that epistemological error by pointing out that society is no entity.

Despite the heart-rending plight of literally millions of Iranians (many of them young men and women whose “Death to Dictatorship” protests and brave defiance of a monstrous regime have been met with bloody slaughter), from Ayn Rand’s perspective whether our government should intervene — and if so, how — rests on what is in America’s self-interest.

There you have it again: self-interest lies at the root of it.

I think that, as Robert Tracinski correctly argued, “The success of the new Iranian revolution is ... vital to America’s interests.”

And what exactly is that interest?

Note again the denial of individual entity identity by substituting it with the collective "America".

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Brant Gaede]:

"An objective truth is merely a truth. Values included. A subjective truth is a derivative, parasitical concept. There are subjective truths (in your head), but this is objectively true too.

An objective truth (includes values) is truth. A subjective truth (includes

values) is only problematically true (existentially).

After "a truth is a truth and values are truth", everything goes downhill. Of course, values are included by nature: subjective values. But, what on earth is a subjective truth, parasitical" or otherwise? Do you have a couple of examples laying around?

The bottom line question is: Can you give a single example of value without a valuer subjectively attributing value? If value is mind dependent as opposed to objective existents not mind dependent, by what linguistics and definitive rationale does one presume to call values objective?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The bottom line question is: Can you give a single example of value without a valuer subjectively attributing value? If value is mind dependent as opposed to objective existents not mind dependent, by what linguistics and definitive rationale does one presume to call values objective?

One last time: valuing is subjective and there are both subjective and objective values. Subjective values are my personal values while objective values are values I need because I am a human being common to me as a man and men (and women) generally. Food and water are objective values. The air I breathe. Shelter, clothes, companionship, love, sex, good health.

Now you can slice and dice this any way you want, but you will fail to convince me there is any value to me in relabeling these things--all that work for a philosophical triviality I'd never be able to adjust to as washing the dishes is more worth my time.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, you can subjectively value an objective value. It's the same thing, essentially as the tentativeness of scientific knowledge: reality itself is not tentative, just theoretical knowledge.

My mind has essentially been working the way it does today since my first memories at age 2 1/2. Xray invites me to radically redo it all. Sorry, but cutting off my arms and legs isn't going to improve things for me. Or removing the head.

--Brant

[Xray]

The bottom line question is: Can you give a single example of value without a valuer subjectively attributing value? If value is mind dependent as opposed to objective existents not mind dependent, by what linguistics and definitive rationale does one presume to call values objective?

One last time: valuing is subjective and there are both subjective and objective values. Subjective values are my personal values while objective values are values I need because I am a human being common to me as a man and men (and women) generally. Food and water are objective values. The air I breathe. Shelter, clothes, companionship, love, sex, good health.

Now you can slice and dice this any way you want, but you will fail to convince me there is any value to me in relabeling these things--all that work for a philosophical triviality I'd never be able to adjust to as washing the dishes is more worth my time.

--Brant

Again, you have been able to name mere biological conditions and necessities.

But the issue here is philosophy, not biology.

Valuing ALWAYS means subjectively attributing value, and it is easy to see at a glance that each biological necessity and condition you listed can be valued differently, depending on the person attributing value. For a person choosing to end his/her life, all the things you listed are non-values. The motivation goes to self interest of ridding one's self of the torment of living.

Interesting that you did not list Ayn Rand's "objective values": "reason, purpose, self-esteem."

They are a mere subjective selection (of floating abstractions actually), aren't they?

Now you can slice and dice this any way you want, but you will fail to convince me there is any value to me in relabeling these things--all that work for a philosophical triviality I'd never be able to adjust to as washing the dishes is more worth my time.

When you look at the havoc wreaked by alleged objective values imposed on others, you will realize that the issue is anything but trivial, in many instances, it can be a matter of life and death.

"But then you have to deal with the objectivity of values, which she denies, but won't own up to the contradiction. It's all nihilistic."

How can anyone deal with the objectivity of values since objective values don't exist? The idea is anti nature. If someone chooses to die by jumping off a tall building, death is the objective effect, but the choice is always personal choice, i.e, subjective. If there was an "objective value" that he must live, there would be no such choice. Why do you insist subjective choice and objective effect are the same?

Look around you. Is there value without a valuer? Why the need of a valuer if not to attribute value according to personal preference? Personal preference = subjective. You know of an "objective value" without a valuer?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Brant Gaede]:

"This is the onion of self interest: keep peeling back the layers and theself interest gets better and better until best."

Peel all the layers you want. If and when you get to one of non self interest, please let me know.

"Stuck in stupid-land, this intelligent woman is reduced to such circumlocutions as people don't need philosophy (false) because everyone has a philosophy (true) ignoring the need for the right philosophy which means, of course, any philosophy not already in your head-banging-on-reality head."

Huh? Are you saying that one "needs" what one already has? "Right philosophy? What "right philosophy?" Right goes to

means in reference to suited to purpose. Are you saying there is a singular purpose and just one "right philosophy?" We're right back into the objective value illusion, aren't we?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The philosophy/biology dichotomy: If it doesn't fit reject it. The air we breathe is not an objective value because that's biological. Food too. I thought if we got some some objective values in there we could talk about more abstract ones, but noooooooo. Slice and dice. Cut and turn. Slip and slide.

I'm done. Stick me with a fork. Enjoy the meal.

--Brant

[Xray]

My mind has essentially been working the way it does today since my first memories at age 2 1/2. Xray invites me to radically redo it all. Sorry, but cutting off my arms and legs isn't going to improve things for me. Or removing the head.

My mind has been working radically different at the age of 2 1/2 than it is today. For example, I strongly believed in magic back then.

The invitation is to check the premises of any philosphy examined. No need remove one's body parts, Brant. All it takes is an open, questioning mind.

People often think that the realization of no objective values will pull the gound from under their feet, and this causes understandable fear.

This fear may also lead many to look for a philosophy offering strong guidance via a rigid value system, as good as always accompanied by a charismatic leader figure.

I personally believe in the mind-freeing potential which lies in not taking at face value things just because some mind leader says them. I'm interested in WHAT exactly is being said, and in checking the person's epistemological premises. I constantly check mine too and discussing with people holding opposing views keeps me on my toes in this regard, which why I welcome challenge in a discussion.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"I strongly believed in magic back then."

Great! Then imagine me raising my magic wand and putting understanding into your cognitive sections of your brain.

Or, in the alternative, we could make you disappear.

Ahh, but are either of them objective values?

[Xray]

The philosophy/biology dichotomy: If it doesn't fit reject it. The air we breathe is not an objective value because that's biological. Food too. I thought if we got some some objective values in there we could talk about more abstract ones, but noooooooo. Slice and dice. Cut and turn. Slip and slide.

Again, you are confusing subjective choice with objective effect.

Mere necessities are something else than values.. If you want to live, you MUST breathe. It is not you "ought to" breathe.

The variable lies in if you want to.

Insentient plants can't "seek" and attribute value. They merely follow a biological program.

Some random examples for illustration purposes.

Buddhism is a religion in which life is perceived as a non-value.

To an anorectic, food is a non-value, so much that it is perceived as a constant threat. Food is equated with "getting fat", which again in turn endagers the ultimate subjective value of ananorectic: being super-thin.

Michael Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe subjectively valued the millions of dollars she got fom MJ more than being with her children, whom she traded in as a subjectively believed lesser value for a subjectively perceived greater value (money).

So much for the alleged objective value "biological program motherly instinct" or what you may call it.

See my point, Brant?

The above D. Rowe example reminds me of Ayn Rand's example:

Example: "If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty." (AR - Galt's speech).

Dragonfly's comment "This is a perfect example of the subjectivity of values: for one woman a hat has a higher value than her child, while for another woman the child has the higher value." (end quote)

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I must taste pretty good. But before I leave here, breathing is one thing the quality of what you breathe another. Same thing for food. Raw pork, no. Well cooked pork, yes. Out of the objective fact of trichinosis we get the objective value of what we eat.

--Brant

[Selene]

"If you want live, you MUST breathe."

Therefore, you can breath carbon monoxide and live!

WOW! You still believe in magic!

[Brant Gaede]

And again: What value is there for me in seeing the world of values through your eyes--the way you see it? The idea that objective valuing means unnecessary war but subjective doesn't seems to be a gross inversion. And I doubt if either is true anyway. War comes out of other things albeit dressed up in appropriate rationalizations.

--Brant

[Xray]

"If you want live, you MUST breathe."

Therefore, you can breath carbon monoxide and live!

WOW! You still believe in magic!

Next time I'll add all kinds of redundant stuff to make sure you understand.

Like:

You also MUST eat if you want to live but - attention please, Selene: eating substances like shoepolish, dishwasher detergent, oven cleaner, arsenic and cyanide is not recommended.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I must taste pretty good.

Now that's a question you'd have to ask a non-vegetarian.

But before I leave here, breathing is one thing the quality of what you breathe another. Same thing for food. Raw pork, no. Well cooked pork, yes. Out of the objective fact of trichinosis we get the objective value of what we eat.

I'm afraid the pork example won't serve as evidence of "objective value" either.

For it is a fact that many people won't eat pork even if it is trichinosis-free and prepared by a blue ribbon cook.

They may simply dislike the taste of pork; or their religion has indoctrinated them to think of pigs as "dirty"; or they may be vegetarians, etc.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Now "objective value" means you can't leave it be which means it's not an "objective value."

--Brant

[Selene]

"If you want live, you MUST breathe."

Therefore, you can breath carbon monoxide and live!

WOW! You still believe in magic!

Next time I'll add all kinds of redundant stuff to make sure you understand.

Like:

You also MUST eat if you want to live but - attention please, Selene: eating substances like shoepolish, dishwasher detergent, oven cleaner, arsenic and cyanide is not recommended.

Deflect, avoid.

Why don't you tell me what I said that caused you to mask it with what passes for humor in your gestalt?

[ginny]

"To an anorectic, food is a non-value, so much that it is perceived as a constant threat. Food is equated with "getting fat", which again in turn endagers the ultimate subjective value of anorectic: being super-thin."

X-Ray, I appreciate your certainty about everything, but you are so wrong about so much. Re: your comment about anorectic, for instance. I've known a few. A former roommate of mine was one. Sure, she was as thin as a matchstick, but food was a tremendous value to her. She loved nothing more than shopping for food, handling food, cooking food, serving food. (No, she never ate any food.). She cooked for me. Served me breakfast in bed, packed my freaking lunch and had dinner on the table when I got home. She needed food desperately in order to control people and knew how to do just that. Frankly, food was her fucking life. It was all she thought about. When called upon to bring a salad to a family function, she was up a four in the morning, washing and scrubbing each leaf separately, drying each leaf separately with a paper towel, lining up each leaf carefully in the salad bowl ... well, you get to idea. (No, she never took a bite of the salad. One value that food had for her was NOT to eat in front of other people when others were stuffing their face. It was a matte of superiority for her.)

BTW, I moved out after two months. The freak drove me nuts.

Ginny

[Xray]

"To an anorectic, food is a non-value, so much that it is perceived as a constant threat. Food is equated with "getting fat", which again in turn endagers the ultimate subjective value of anorectic: being super-thin."

X-Ray, I appreciate your certainty about everything, but you are so wrong about so much. Re: your comment about anorectic, for instance. I've known a few. A former roommate of mine was one. Sure, she was as thin as a matchstick, but food was a tremendous value to her. She loved nothing more than shopping for food, handling food, cooking food, serving food. (No, she never ate any food.). She cooked for me. Served me breakfast in bed, packed my freaking lunch and had dinner on the table when I got home. She needed food desperately in order to control people and knew how to do just that. Frankly, food was her fucking life. It was all she thought about. When called upon to bring a salad to a family function, she was up a four in the morning, washing and scrubbing each leaf separately, drying each leaf separately with a paper towel, lining up each leaf carefully in the salad bowl ... well, you get to idea. (No, she never took a bite of the salad. One value that food had for her was NOT to eat in front of other people when others were stuffing their face. It was a matte of superiority for her.)

BTW, I moved out after two months. The freak drove me nuts.

Ginny

Ginny, there is no question that anorectics (like the vast majorty of people with eating disorders) are obsessed with food (actually they are extremely greedy for it). Just think of the bulimic binge-purge type where this is very obvious.

My point was that to anorectic/bulimic persons, ingesting food and keeping it in the body is considered as non-value since it jeopardizes their ultimate value "thinness".

Edited July 3, 2009 by Xray