Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want.

GS,

I don't really know what that means when Xray (or even you) say it, since it is not clear to me what choosing objectively means (choosing anything at all), especially in Xray-speak.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you claim I allegedly have "no idea" what objective means, would you please enlighten me what it means?

No.

[Xray]

If you claim I allegedly have "no idea" what objective means, would you please enlighten me what it means?

No.

And why do you refuse to provide me with this info?

Edited July 4, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want.

GS,

I don't really know what that means when Xray (or even you) say it, since it is not clear to me what choosing objectively means (choosing anything at all), especially in Xray-speak.

Michael

OK, if I leave out 'subjectively' and simply say values are chosen, in other words, we are free to value whatever we want. Is that better? We can't escape the consequences of what we choose but we can choose. Now Rand or Korzybski are free to say we should choose this or that for whatever reason and that is fine and dandy. It then becomes a theory of values and it may stand up to scrutiny or it may not, time will tell.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK, if I leave out 'subjectively' and simply say values are chosen, in other words, we are free to value whatever we want. Is that better?

GS,

Absolutely. In Objectivism, this even has a name. It is called exercising the faculty of volition.

Objective and subjective apply to the standard used for choosing, not to the capacity to choose and faculty used for it. If you said you have an objective kidney (or a subjective kidney), that would sound strange. But the same applies to the faculty of volition. There is no objective free will as opposed to subjective free will as an existent. There is only free will and you can use it objectively or subjectively.

The faculty of volition is what you use to choose values. In using this faculty, you are free to choose what you want. You are not free to rewrite reality and/or the consequences of any choice you make.

In this context (Objectivism), objective means the standard used for making a choice is aligned with reality on the most fundamental level, and subjective means it is severed from reality on that level.

In other words, a person can look to reality to decide how to gauge the worth and consequences of a value he wishes to choose (or not), or the person can look to an irrational source like whim or imaginary supernatural being and claim it is just as valid as reality is to gauge the worth and consequences of such a possible value.

The first case is objective, the second is subjective. The first relies on the evidence of the senses allied to our conceptual faculty, whereas the second relies on whatever a person imagines from one moment to the next.

We can even judge the objectivity of the standard by trial and error, comparative testing, etc. There is no way to measure and test irrational sources like whims or imaginary supernatural beings with any sort of consistency (other than blind chance).

When we say "objective value" in Objectivism, we mean a value that was chosen according to a standard that is aligned with reality. "Subjective value" is a value where the reality standard is ignored (i.e., where the standard's source is an impulse from the mind without taking reality into account).

Michael

[Selene]

And the truth shall set you free...

if you exercise your volition properly

:cheer: :thumbsup:

[Brant Gaede]

If you claim I allegedly have "no idea" what objective means, would you please enlighten me what it means?

No.

And why do you refuse to provide me with this info?

Because then you will ask questions? If you provide it and it's valid there is a basis of a discussion about all the rest you have been ineffectually throwing at us for the last few months, but your questions are only designed to spike discussions. Without the objective, subjective has no purchase. It's a derivative and parasitical concept. If it wasn't, anything you want goes. What you want most of all is for people here to join you in dancing the subjective. Failing that you will enjoy stymieing us with your arguments and questions. It's been like a game of chess. You make the first move. I, say, make a move. Then you make one more move and claim "Checkmate!" The problem is that's impossible in chess, but it's also impossible for us to keep saying that while you keep repeating "Checkmate!" because you have won by wearing us out. Enough is enough. We can't tell if you are a liar or actually believe your horse____. I don't care one way or the other where you are coming from, but Michael Jackson's home in California was recently sold, so if it was from there you can't go back.

--Brant

all valuing is subjective

Edited July 4, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All my salespeople were Sandler trained which I suggest you look at if you are not already familiar with the "system". http://www.sandler.com/

Adam,

I got my hands on an audio version of Close the Deal a while back, but I have not listened to it yet.

I will be looking into Sandler's works as part of my marketing studies.

Michael

[Xray]

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want.

GS,

I don't really know what that means when Xray (or even you) say it, since it is not clear to me what choosing objectively means (choosing anything at all), especially in Xray-speak.

Michael

I think Michael knows what is meant, GS.

It was of course not the objective act of choosing which Rand had in mind when claiming her values to be "objective" values.

Michael claims I have no idea what "objective" means. But when I asked him to give me his definition, he refused to do so.

QUOTE (Xray @ Jul 4 2009, 12:56 PM)

If you claim I allegedly have "no idea" what objective means, would you please enlighten me what it means?

Michaels answer:

"No".

I asked back:

Xray:

And why do you refuse to provide me with this info?"

No reply from Michael.

Okay I thought, I'll go it alone then and went through this thread to dig for posts where he may already have given the definition of objective.

Found this from him:

[Michael]:

In any dictionary, "objective" means "actually existing" and other terms like that. This is also the way Rand used it.

Okay, we can use that as a basis for the discussion, Michael.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Michael knows what is meant...

Wrong.

Xray also knows what Rand meant all the time (as she gets it wrong)...

[Xray]

OK, if I leave out 'subjectively' and simply say values are chosen, in other words, we are free to value whatever we want. Is that better?

GS,

Absolutely. In Objectivism, this even has a name. It is called exercising the faculty of volition.

"Exercising the faculty of volition" acknowledges the fact that human individuals are volitional goal-seeking entities.

Objective and subjective apply to the standard used for choosing, not to the capacity to choose and faculty used for it. If you said you have an objective kidney (or a subjective kidney), that would sound strange. But the same applies to the faculty of volition. There is no objective free will as opposed to subjective free will as an existent. There is only free will and you can use it objectively or subjectively.

You have correctly pointed out the fact of volition existing in all human beings.

Example: John likes ice cream, wants to eat some and goes to the fridge to get it.

The ice cream is the subjectively chosen value. John's goal is to get something of value to him, and the means chosen is to go to the fridge where he knows it is kept.

So there is no using free will "objectively" or "subjectively" either.

The faculty of volition is what you use to choose values. In using this faculty, you are free to choose what you want. You are not free to rewrite reality and/or the consequences of any choice you make.

It looks like Rand felt pretty free to rewrite reality by e. g. claiming that plants can seek values or gangsters are "selfless" men.

As for the consequences of an action by a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity, this is a different matter altogether.

In this context (Objectivism), objective means the standard used for making a choice is aligned with reality on the most fundamental level, and subjective means it is severed from reality on that level.

Okay let's test it with an example:

Suppose a group of gangsters (valuing money highly) plan a bank robbery and successfully carry out the act, then, according to the premises outlined in your post, they have followed the standard used for making a choice in alignment with reality. For they correctly assessed reality by concluding that a lot of money can be found in a bank (and not e. g. in a playground sandbox). The deed was carefully planned, taking into account possible obstacles. Again, an act in alignment with reality. The means to achieve the end were chosen in alignment with reality too: masks for the face, a gun (and not e. g. a plastic water pistol), duct tape, suitable rope, and a fast flight car.

When we say "objective value" in Objectivism, we mean a value that was chosen according to a standard that is aligned with reality. "Subjective value" is a value where the reality standard is ignored (i.e., where the standard's source is an impulse from the mind without taking reality into account).

Please give an example for objective value.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Xray

[galtgulch]

When we say "objective value" in Objectivism, we mean a value that was chosen according to a standard that is aligned with reality. "Subjective value" is a value where the reality standard is ignored (i.e., where the standard's source is an impulse from the mind without taking reality into account).

Please give an example for objective value.

If I may chime in. I have not been following this thread but just read your question. It occurs to me that in order for a human being to take the actions his life requires it is necessary for him or her to have acquired the requisite conceptual knowledge.

Now it may be true that something can be both an objective value and a subjective value at the same time, such as choosing to focus one's mind in order to acquire conceptual knowledge. So there it is.

For a human being, and this is not original with me, although I guess that in a sense each of us comes to appreciate the necessity to learn so much in so many fields, the language, grammar, arithmetic, history, geography, philosophy, art, religion, economics and politics, athletics, manners, customs, and so on, that each of us realizes that in order to do so we need to focus our minds to do so.

It happens once we set our mind to the task in response to the desire to acquire knowledge, "I want to learn this!" and we do it. It is implicit in our mother's admonition, to pay attention to the teacher in class.

We may take pleasure in the process and its success as we learn and do well on tests to see if we did learn what is taught. It may become a subjective value to us to learn and to go on learning.

But the action required of us in order to learn is to focus our mind on the conceptual level so that the sounds the teacher is making or that the little lines we see in print on a page of a textbook have conceptual meaning to us. Thus in order for us to live well and to know what actions to take in our lives as human beings it is objectively true that we focus our attention.

Does that make sense to you? Is it not an objective truth and value that humans focus their minds on the conceptual level to learn and then to think, and then to abstract choices, and then to decide what to do, and then to attend to the doing after considering consequences and choosing a path and a goal.

www.campaignforliberty.com 5July 1PM 165,619

gulch

Edited July 5, 2009 by galtgulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I am giving up on you. You have no idea what objective is and apparently do not understand "fundamental." Yet your absolute is that Rand is found wanting irrespective of your lack of understanding. I've had enough.

Feel free to discuss whatever you like with other posters and even bash Rand since that is your thing, but please do not spam my forum with your bullshit like you have been doing. If the number of posts continues in the same volume as before, I will intervene.

Less is more in your case.

Michael

[Xray]

If I may chime in. I have not been following this thread but just read your question. It occurs to me that in order for a human being to take the actions his life requires it is necessary for him or her to have acquired the requisite conceptual knowledge.

For a human being, and this is not original with me, although I guess that in a sense each of us comes to appreciate the necessity to learn so much in so many fields, the language, grammar, arithmetic, history, geography, philosophy, art, religion, economics and politics, athletics, manners, customs, and so on, that each of us realizes that in order to do so we need to focus our minds to do so.

...

It happens once we set our mind to the task in response to the desire to acquire knowledge, "I want to learn this!" and we do it. It is implicit in our mother's admonition, to pay attention to the teacher in class.

Galtgulch, what you refer to is the adequate means selected to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

Yes it is true that most people here consider being an educated person as a value.

But there are also people who consider education as a non-value. Certain groups of religious fanatics denying women the right to learn for example. Or governments who have no interest in their subjects becoming knowledgeable and independent thinkers, which is why they exercise censorship depriving people of knowledge.

And even in so-called democratic countries, suppose you would try to educate yourself e. g. about dirty dealings involving government authorites, powerful industrial lobbies, etc. - your ability to use your brain, knowledge and researching skills would not be considered a "value" by these groups at all. It would be a non-value to them because it goes against their self-interest.

The act of valuing always implies an individual or group attributing value to this or that.

It is a fact that each individual is a valuing, goal-seeking entity, and the actions chosen are always in alignment with those values the individual subjectively rates highest at the moment of the decision. There is non exception to this natural law.

Example: Jane wants to learn a foreign language. Speaking a foreign language is obviously considered as a value by her. She attends a course for a couple of weeks, but soon finds it pretty stressful to go to night school after her full-time job.

After which she decides to quit the course.

Does Jane still consider speaking a foreign language as a value? She does, this has not changed. What has changed is that she considers her free time as a greater value.

Objectively, there is no ultimate value. Certainly one may at any given time value X more that Y, but this is a matter of subjective choice, not a fixed hierarchy.

Imo declaring something to be an objective, ultimate value is superimposing a personal preference upon other personal preferences, thereby, negating those other preferences. Which means, negating the natural law of volition and subjective choice.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

See Post #437

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CB1tBjcWug

[Xray]

The term in focus is value.

By entity identity, it is observed that a

volitional entity attributes value to this or that in infinite variations. Definitively, it is expressed as "I prefer."

This conforms to the personal and subjective nature of attributing value as a verb indicating a mental action. Without this mental action (valuations), "values" don't exist.

Using the term value, or values, as a noun tends to obscure the mental action upon which the definitive meaning of the term, depends. The consequent psychology is value set apart from individual valuer and subjective valuation. It is from this that the notion of objective value arises.

In some odd, non-sequitur thinking, many seem to believe that a person pointing out that there exist no objective values is an “immoral”, “anything goes” type who has no values of his/her own, and

then shift the discussion to a personal level leading away from Rand.

Again, this goes right back to the "evil nature of man" thing. Whether they realize it or not, they imagine that rejecting the notion of morality is the rejection of ("needed") external guidance, hence, "anything goes."

Of course, it's exactly backward. It's the very notion of objective value universally applicable to all that motivates and "justifies" "anything goes."

The Crusades and all other similar incidents verify this fact.

Whether in ancient times or modern, there is expressly or implicitly posited an external source of valuation. The commonality is, of course, the psychological dismissal of each real

individual as the creator and attributer of value. The logical differential

replacement is the concept of subordination of each individual to the alleged objective values.

[Brant Gaede]

So the bad guys get to have their "objective" values and the good guys, us, get to get taken out by the bad guys as we gave ours up, thanks to Xray?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Objective in Xray-speak is a meaningless term that could be anything.

It's not that she doesn't know what it means. It's that she has no meaning of her own for the word, other than saying what it isn't. Once she mentioned objective meant agreement by a consensus of experts, but I did not see her insist on it nor explain what to do when experts disagree. I only keep mentioning it to be fair.

Ask her and you'll see. It will go something like this:

Me: Do you have any meaning for objective other than what it isn't and consensus of experts?

Xray: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ... What is your meaning? Please give examples. TIA

Michael

[Selene]

I like to blame the crickets in the fog, or the Bossa Nova:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJcyyR-kJQ8