Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Xray]

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.

I apologize if my post came across as "smart-aleck". I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but to me as a non-native speaker of English it is often quite difficult to choose the adequate phrases, that is, what may not sound annoying or offensive to my ears at all, may be perceived differently by others.

I'm just very passionate about this issue and am enjoying this inspiring discussion. It would be boring if one agreed on everything, and as for opponents in a discussion, imo they keep each other on their toes, which often leads to a review of their thoughts.

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.

[JohnGalt]: "... 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." (end quote)

So Galt's personal, subjective value system leads him to chose non-existence over existence under certain circumstances?

To sum up the points in the discussion:

Life is a value to the one wanting to live it. (objectivism 101)

Life is a non-value to the one not wanting to live it. (also objectivsm 101)

For the person wanting to survive in the desert, life is a value, so this person will value the water in his bottle or in an oasis.

For the person not wanting to survive (e. g. the old-aged member of a primitive tribe who has voluntarily left his community to die in the desert), life is a non-value, so he will not value water even if it is offered to him.

Doesn't this indicate that objective values don't exist, but that what one values/disvalues always depends on personal goals and choices?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"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

That man was "created" and "endowed by their Creator" is a theist position.

Doesn't this pose problems for the atheists in the country?

It's the same here in Germany. The premable to our constitution speaks of the "responsibility to God".

In recent time, some politicians refuse to add "so help me God" to their oath.

There is currently a controversial debate going on in various European governments about whether or not to include "god" in the common European constitution they are working on.

As for the postulated "equality" (correct me if I'm wrong) - weren't some of the Founding Fathers slave-owners themselves?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

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.

Correct imo.

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.

But it is a fact that people can (and sometimes do) choose death over life. Choosing to end one's existence as a biological entity is an option. What we call death of a biological entity is the irreversible result of the transition from one stage to another, in numbers from a stage 1 to a stage 2. The chooser in that case values stage 2 more than stage 1.

[Xray]

The notion of objective value comes from the conclusion that values exist in objective reality independently of individual cause. Whether called "God's will", or "life proper to man", the common is the concept of "universal moral values."

Each individual is by nature a volitional, valuing, goal seeking entity.

The root is ALWAYS an individual ATTRIBUTING value to this or that. This identifies the valuations as always subjective.

There is no definitive escape from this conclusion. For example, the phrase, "old fashioned values" means nothing more than attributing value to certain beliefs held by an individual and/or others. "Honesty, "hard work", "thrift",

"kindness", etc. set out as "values" is simply saying, "I attribute value to these characteristics because they are suited to my purpose."

There are no "cardinal values" imo. There is no hierarchy of values. 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. The objective and identifying characteristic is attributing a value to an goal desired and attributing value to the mean to achieve that goal.

One has personal preference subject to change at any time and any place. I can say my goal is to build a house, or my goal is to get the materials to build a house, or my goal is to enjoy the comforts of a house.

It logically follows that I must be alive to value the comforts of home. However, since to be alive is my subjective choice within my capabilities, it cannot simultaneously be an "objective standard" (an "ultimate value") with application to all.

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 April 26, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

Not quite. Some values or both ontologically and logically prior to others. Life is required to do anything else, so life is the primary value. If you ain't alive, you are not going to seek or try to retain anything else.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

"That man was 'created' and 'endowed by their Creator' is a theist position." The founders were theists. This was a radical change from the European paradigm that whatever "rights" you possessed were "given" to you by the good graces of the monarch or the state.

The American theists were the radicals of their day.

"Doesn't this pose problems for the atheists in the country?" Only if they chose to make it a problem. The guarantees of the Constitution guaranteed their right to practice their own non-religion or be a Wiccan if they chose.

"It's the same here in Germany. The preamble [sic] to our constitution speaks of the 'responsibility to God'. <<This concept is quite different than the endowed by their creator concept, as the German iteration implies a set of responsibilities, but the American Constitution states where the inalienable rights came from. Clear, yes.

In recent time, some politicians refuse to add "so help me God" to their oath. << the US added the phrase to the "pledge of allegiance" in 1952 under Dwight David Eisenhower who had something to do with the fact that Germany has a Constitution lol.

"As for the postulated 'equality' (correct me if I'm wrong) - weren't some of the Founding Fathers slave-owners themselves?"

Yes some were, but the difficult issue of slavery forced a cobbling of that section of the Constitution as a political compromise to get this amazing experiment into existence.

The importation of slaves had a "drop dead" date of 1812 I believe. And we spent almost 1/2 million of our populace resolving the contradiction of slavery during our civil war from 1860 to 1865.

I know that those numbers are low in comparison to the European war carnage numbers, but we finally managed to move to "equality under the law" which is what the concept in our Constitution means.

I hope this answered your questions.

Out of curiosity, did you grow up in east or west Germany?

Adam

[tjohnson]

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

A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep.

These statements are contradictory.

[UncleJim]

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.

Correct imo.

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.

But it is a fact that people can (and sometimes do) choose death over life. Choosing to end one's existence as a biological entity is an option. What we call death of a biological entity is the irreversible result of the transition from one stage to another, in numbers from a stage 1 to a stage 2. The chooser in that case values stage 2 more than stage 1.

Xray; how is it possible to choose something which does not exist? Death is not a something which exists in an objective way, it therefore cannot be an objective choice; i.e., it cannot be considered a value based choice. .

The issue you bring up is whether or not one is acting (or can act) as the rational being; i.e., a properly functioning human-being. To not do that which is a requirement of ones life is evidence of an improperly functioning mind. A choice is a value based action - an action based on the requirements [the needs] of ones life. But the implication is that one is able to understand what the requirements of ones life is. This ability to understand is the requirements of ones life carries with it the ability to understand ones purpose. With that being to do whatever is required to support the needs of ones life. This is the derivation of the principle that the needs of life describe the values of human existence.

Edited April 26, 2009 by UncleJim

[Xray]

"That man was 'created' and 'endowed by their Creator' is a theist position." The founders were theists. This was a radical change from the European paradigm that whatever "rights" you possessed were "given" to you by the good graces of the monarch or the state.

The American theists were the radicals of their day.

"Doesn't this pose problems for the atheists in the country?" Only if they chose to make it a problem. The guarantees of the Constitution guaranteed their right to practice their own non-religion or be a Wiccan if they chose.

"It's the same here in Germany. The preamble [sic] to our constitution speaks of the 'responsibility to God'. <<This concept is quite different than the endowed by their creator concept, as the German iteration implies a set of responsibilities, but the American Constitution states where the inalienable rights came from. Clear, yes.

In recent time, some politicians refuse to add "so help me God" to their oath. << the US added the phrase to the "pledge of allegiance" in 1952 under Dwight David Eisenhower who had something to do with the fact that Germany has a Constitution lol.

"As for the postulated 'equality' (correct me if I'm wrong) - weren't some of the Founding Fathers slave-owners themselves?"

Yes some were, but the difficult issue of slavery forced a cobbling of that section of the Constitution as a political compromise to get this amazing experiment into existence.

The importation of slaves had a "drop dead" date of 1812 I believe. And we spent almost 1/2 million of our populace resolving the contradiction of slavery during our civil war from 1860 to 1865.

I know that those numbers are low in comparison to the European war carnage numbers, but we finally managed to move to "equality under the law" which is what the concept in our Constitution means.

I hope this answered your questions.

Yes. Thanks for the helpful info.

Out of curiosity, did you grow up in east or west Germany?

West Germany.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep.

These statements are contradictory.

GS,

In what manner?

One seeks to gain a successful specific use of water. One seeks to repeat it often, so in that sense, one seeks to keep it.

Michael

[Selene]

x-ray:

You must know some folks who grew up on the other side of the Wall. Did you or they ever think that you would see the Wall come down?

I sure had my doubts. Yet it was a religious leader Pope John Paul who with Lech Walesa and the Man - Ronald Wilson Reagan, who was a lefty in the late 1930's and early 1940's.

That night was one of the most joyous nights in history.

Surely, you can, as I can, the positive effects of religion in peoples lives. And, yes lots of non-positive results. Some absolutely evil results and some absolutely heroic results.

Look at the thousands of Christians who died protecting Jews, gypsies, etc. Look at Sophie Scholl and the White Rose

http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/holocau...e-rose.2786.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426578/

Hannah Arendt has argued that there is a fundamental "flaw" in German culture.

http://www.hait.tu-dresden.de/ext/institut.asp?la=2

Finally, is there any truth to this article on "potential street unrest" in Germany?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...isis-looms.html

Adam

[Xray]

x-ray:

You must know some folks who grew up on the other side of the Wall.

Sure. I know plenty of them.

Did you or they ever think that you would see the Wall come down?

I never thought I would see this happen during my lifetime. But then it was like an opening of the floodgates from the time Hungary let the east Germans climb over the frontier.

As for the people I know, it differed depending on how much they were actively involved in the resistance movement. Some were still kids back in 1989.

I sure had my doubts. Yet it was a religious leader Pope John Paul who with Lech Walesa and the Man - Ronald Wilson Reagan, who was a lefty in the late 1930's and early 1940's.

Without Gorbatchev consenting by NOT sending his army and crushing the rebellion (as the USSR had done with Czechoslovakia in 1968), all this would not have happened. But the USSR was economically in such a devastating state in 1989 that he agreed to a deal: he was granted immense financial help in exchange for not chosing military intervention. Since Gorbatchev had his back up against the wall, he accepted the deal. He also was intelligent enough to realize that the times were different than in 1968. Embedded reporters were everywhere reporting everything, the media coverage in those months preceding the final climax had been gigantic. Honecker (who was far less astute than Gorbatchev), had already 40,000 armed soldiers prepared to attack his own people, when the message came from Gorbatchev that he would get no support from the USSR. For Gorbatchev had no interest in having the whole world via the media watch a carnage between two socialist brother countries.

Here btw is an illustrative example of a 'sacrifice'. Every sacrifice is a trade-off guided by self interest (there is no such thing as altruism):

Gorbatchev "sacrificed" the (in this situation) 'lower value' Honecker for the sake of a bigger value: financial support plus saving his image to the world as the visionary glasnost/perestroika politician. 100 self-interest guided Gorbatchev's every move during the whole thing.

That night was one of the most joyous nights in history.

It was incredible, yes. I was so happy that I had to cry.

Surely, you can, as I can, the positive effects of religion in peoples lives. And, yes lots of non-positive results. Some absolutely evil results and some absolutely heroic results.

Imo the horrific effects religion has had in the history of mankind by far outweigh the positive.

Look at the thousands of Christians who died protecting Jews, gypsies, etc. Look at Sophie Scholl and the White Rose

<a href="http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/holocau...e-rose.2786.htm" target="_blank">http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/holocau...e-rose.2786.htm

</a>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426578/

But the vast majority complied with the regime. For only very few people have the courage to to risk their own lives.

Hannah Arendt has argued that there is a fundamental "flaw" in German culture.

http://www.hait.tu-dresden.de/ext/institut.asp?la=2

I see myself as an in individual, an inhabitant of the earth who happens to live in this country. The cultures in highly industrialized Western countries resemble each other more and more - it is a global phenomenon, the internet playing a pivotal role here.

The children in my current kindergarten class for example come from 18 different countries from all over the world. Only two are from Germany. My focus is not on German culture, but on empathy, mutual respect, a set of rules we can agree on, and to lay the basis for them to become independent thinkers.

Finally, is there any truth to this article on "potential street unrest" in Germany?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...isis-looms.html

Yes. The devastating effects of the "credit crunch" have hit Germany fully too.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

x-ray:

Thank you. That was a pleasant exchange. You gave a grounded example with: "btw is an excellent example to illustrate 'sacrifice'. Every sacrifice is a trade-off guided by self interest (there is no such thing as altruism):

Gorbachev 'sacrificed' the (in this situation) 'lower value' Honecker for the sake of a bigger value: financial support plus saving his image to the world as the visionary glasnost/perestroika politician. 100 self-interest guided Gorbatchev's every move during the whole thing."

Ok, might you play chess by any chance? There is a chess analogy that might work. I have to read back through this thread because I may have misunderstood something.

Finally, "I was so happy that I had to cry." That struck me because I am trying to remember a Randian hero that cried and I can't. Interesting, geez the Church of Objectivism will have to have a "crying pledge":

I vow by my life and the water the gives it value, that I will never waste tears, nor ask another Church member to waste tears."

It is kind of a screwed up version of Dune by Herbert.

Once again thank you, I know a lot of Germans and some never made it out of that pigs gulog of East Germany. There is an excellent film, which I cannot remember now about Tanzi or Zazi and life in East Germany. We have mentioned it before in this forum.

Later, you and I may have some very interesting discussion concerning education because the way you describe it is chilling.

Adam

Edited April 26, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

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.

Not quite. Some values or both ontologically and logically prior to others. Life is required to do anything else, so life is the primary value. If you ain't alive, you are not going to seek or try to retain anything else.

Certainly, one must be alive to attribute value. However, there is nothing in nature that precludes an individual from disvaluing life.

On the principle that nothing has value unless and until someone attributes value to it, if an individual attributes no value to being alive, the alternative

is valuing death. If this goal is reached, then what the person would have or have not valued if alive is an irrelevant and moot point isn't it?

In reference to natural volition and personal preference, each side of an alternative is of equal standing in regard to nature. This puts the concept

of "life as a standard" at zero; zero meaning there is no objective mandate that requires valuing life. On the other hand, there are animals which

do not have the mental capacity and ability to make such a choice. "Life as a standard" may be appropriate to these creatures, but not to volitional

entities with the ability to choose and act upon choice.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

Certainly, one must be alive to attribute value. However, there is nothing in nature that precludes an individual from disvaluing life.

On the principle that nothing has value unless and until someone attributes value to it, if an individual attributes no value to being alive, the alternative is valuing death. If this goal is reached, then what the person would have or have not valued if alive is an irrelevant and moot point isn't it?

In reference to natural volition and personal preference, each side of an alternative is of equal standing in regard to nature. This puts the concept of "life as a standard" at zero; zero meaning there is no objective mandate that requires valuing life. On the other hand, there are animals which do not have the mental capacity and ability to make such a choice. "Life as a standard" may be appropriate to these creatures, but not to volitional entities with the ability to choose and act upon choice.

There is a widely held premise that that which is chosen is that which is valued - by that person. This implies that life may or may not be a value depending on the whim of the person making the choice. The premise equates being alive with being dead. This is, of course, is an absurdity. The real issue here is whether the person making the choice is a rational actor.

Life is not a value - it is the standard by which values are known and ordered. Absent life value has no meaning or application. To act against ones life is evidence of insanity. To not be able to gain the needs of ones life is evidence of physical and/or mental incapacity.

[Xray]

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.

I take it you mean by "it is not a value" means the water has no value unless and until someone attributes value to the water? Am I reading you right?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

IMO value is not determined by humans. In other words: Value is not subjective - it is not subject to human whim.

Since one is a living organism; then, one must behave in a certain way to remain a living organism. Since humans are considered to be the rational actor; then, one must be a rational actor prior to be considered a properly functioning [a rational] human-being.

Water does not 'magically' become a value because someone simply says it is. It is a value only because it is a need of life. First life must exist, then its needs must be understood; only then does value have meaning and application. In this way value is described as being a human creation. Value was created to denote the existence of that which life needs to remain life. Not any life, of course, just ones own.

Value moves need from metaphysics to epistemology.

[tjohnson]

A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep.

OK, this is a value, now what is an objective value?

[UncleJim]

A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep.

OK, this is a value, now what is an objective value?

It is whatever ones life requires to remain in existence.

[Brant Gaede]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

A value in Objectivism is something one acts to gain and/or keep.

OK, this is a value, now what is an objective value?

That which is required to stay alive objectively and according to the laws of physics. For example, food, air and water without which we are dead. Obviously the amounts and conditions under which these essentials are acquired or sought are also bound by the laws of physics. Too much water and we drown. To much food and we become sick etc etc etc.

After we secure our physical lives we enter a region where what we seek is desired but perhaps not necessary. That kind of value could be thought of as subjective, rather than objective.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Judging by this use of 'objective' it seems that the underlying premise of objectivism is that an individual wants to continue to live. Given that, then these values apply to everyone hence they are objective?

[BaalChatzaf]

Judging by this use of 'objective' it seems that the underlying premise of objectivism is that an individual wants to continue to live. Given that, then these values apply to everyone hence they are objective?

Being alive is both causally and logically prior to anything else (for a human). That is why life occupies the Number One Spot on the scale of values. Nothing matters or is possible for a dead person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, folks.

Look up "objective," then use that meaning to modify "value."

An objective value is one that is chosen with respect to facts (as opposed to insisting on tradition, whim, etc., when they contradict the facts). In any dictionary, "objective" means "actually existing" and other terms like that. This is also the way Rand used it.

Conceptual knowledge of facts in Objectivism has the axiomatic concepts (existence, identity and consciousness) at the bottom. These are the conceptual identification of direct experience in the broadest terms possible. They cannot be contradicted without negating the validity of the mind doing it.

If a value is to be based on facts, those facts have to be identified before the choice is made. Cognitive before normative is the only way to correctly use conceptual volition for consciously choosing values. Essentially an objective value does not contradict the identity (the nature, the fundamental fact) of the valuer, as opposed to an irrational value that does.

In all values, context and measurement are included. Objective values use factual context and standards of measurement that actually exist, not ones that are set just because someone says so. For instance, a slave receiving food from a master is receiving an "objective value" in terms of biology (the facts used as a context and standard of measurement), but the practice of being forced to receive food from a master is not an objective value in terms of the slave's conceptual and volitional nature (other facts used as a context and standard of measurement). The slave is a human being before being a slave, therefore the identity (nature) of human beings trumps the conditions of being a slave. This is true regardless of what the master says or thinks.

(So he uses force, which is another fact, but also another discussion.)

The only way to verify whether a value is objective or not is with rational thought, which is the only valid means of obtaining conceptual knowledge of existence. Direct experience works, too, but rational thought in Objectivism uses direct experience as an inseparable part.

There is no way to explain the urge to live in purely volitional terms. It is a mix of biology and experience and volition. So there is no "one size fits all" choice to live to use as a standard of value. I mentioned John Galt's condition for committing suicide as a perfect example of this. Other people would have, and do, choose to live under conditions that were unacceptable to him.

Peikoff's "premoral choice to live" (which is what much Objectivist thought is based on when "life as a standard" is discussed) is an embarrassing twist of logic. It is an attempted oversimplification, but it is just plain wrong.

The truth is that survival is one standard for choosing values, but it is not the only one. Quality of life is another. (There are even others, but that is another discussion.) Trying to make survival the only standard of objective value is like trying to say that it is the only fundamental fact about human beings. That's simply not true. Survival is essential, but it is not the only essential part of human nature that needs to be used for choosing values, that is, if one wants to be objective.

Michael

[UncleJim]

There are all kinds of values and valuing. Some contradict others. The question is: What is the value in devaluing a valuing?

--Brant

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.