Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[UncleJim]

It is really hard to have a discussion with someone who ignores half of what you say. I agree with you about objective value. I disagree with you about subjective value--i.e., that there is no such thing.

Belief is a value maker, but not an objective value maker. Objective values are passive and have to be sought out by a valuer who is truly blessed when his value ideas are validated by facts. To deny subjective experience of value is to rend the organism of free will and choice and leaves the door totally wide open to the dictatorship(s) of those who claim to know what is good for you.

This is also why I despise ignoramuses like Perigo who thinks(?!) he can objectify the superiority of his musical esthetics. He just wants to be the leader of a band of idiots.

--Brant

I am not ignoring what you are trying to say. I am disputing your claim that value can be other that what it is. Value is a specific idea. Value is the idea derived from observing that life requires certain conditions to be in-place in-order for to remain whatever it is.

Life is the idea derived from the acknowledgment there is a difference which exists between the animate and the inanimate. This difference is possessed by the animate. The animate possess a specific additional identifying characteristic which the inanimate lacks. This additional identifying characteristic is called life. The human mind created life in-order to allow for discussing what this difference is and requires to remain what it is.

That which human based life requires to remain what it is is called value. Value was created to allow rational human to discuss what their life requires to remain in existence.

[Selene]

Then it would be arguable that you can "observe" what is valueless and then make a choice as to which values to pursue that objectively preserve your life, yes?

Similar to Mazlow's value rankings because some values would be more "valuable" than others.

I am not disagreeing here, trying to mold this discussion in my mind because it is close to a number of thoughts I have pondered.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I mean is that a person who values fast food thinking it is nutritional has made an irrational choice - a subjective value? But if they have a healthy diet that leads to longevity then it's objective and rational?

GS,

Put it this way. If a person values longevity and health, then sticks to a diet of fast food, it is an irrational value. Not only does he have the studies, etc., to look at, he has his own direct experience. If a person does not value longevity and health, another standard is used. For instance, I just read that KFC is the top requested last meal on death row in USA prisons. In my view, that's a pretty rational value in that context. Who needs nutrition if you are going to die shortly?

In normal living, the urge for health and longevity are automatic built-in standards for the vast majority of us. When we are seduced by advertising to replace proper nutrition for taste and the products come chock full of taste enhancers that do nothing nutrition-wise at best (being that they are usually detrimental to health), I claim that we are being seduced into holding a nonobjective value. Of course, I am using health and honesty as standards.

This does not mean joy (taste) is nonobjective. The ideal standard for total objectivity is to have both taste and nutrition. But to say that something detrimental is good for you health-wise just because it tastes good is irrational because the facts contradict it. Thus it is a nonobjective value. If you want an example, just look around you. The USA is currently a nation of fat-asses with all kinds of weird diseases cropping up. Behold the results of Fast Food Nation!

"Her time" peaked with the publication of AS. Smoking enables a writer to focus his mind to the exclusion of outside influences. Some but not much of the "irrational" in smoking today is PC BS which has replaced the too easy acceptance of smoking in the 1950s and 1960s. Considering the tremendous effort of her professional career through the publication of AS and the hard life she chose for herself, it's really difficult for me to label her smoking "irrational." It was both a writing crutch and a personal pleasure.

Brant,

You forgot the long cigarette holder as a punctuation stick.

(I really want to make a quip about where a certain loathsome individual might have gotten the idea for air conducting as a form of high artistic expression... )

I can go part way in your line of thinking. Supposing cause and effect did operate here and Atlas Shrugged would not have been written had Rand not smoked, that smoking cigarettes was somehow intimately tied into Rand's creative nature and she was incapable of producing masterpieces without it, and supposing she had been given the choice of smoking and writing AS, or living a longer and healthier life without smoking, but also without producing AS, smoking would be perfectly rational. I couldn't think of a more objective value for the life she envisioned.

What was not rational to me was Rand preaching love of life, then glorifying smoking as a supreme joy because man tamed one of nature's most destructive elements (fire) through reason and put it at his finger-tips for the sole purpose of his pleasure.

I'm sorry, but blah, blah, blah...

I got taken in by that crap and smoked for 14 years. I wonder if years of my own life got taken off because of it.

Even after Rand got sick and stopped smoking herself, she would not speak out against it, knowing full well that her romanticized image was out there influencing people of the supreme joy of smoking. I can't call that rational at all. Rand just couldn't stand being wrong and that's the long and short of it. There is no deeper level to analyze in behavior like that.

I love Rand's works and ideas, but not all of them. (And I don't like that thin skin she had.) She did brilliant work, but when she was wrong, she was wrong. I have become weary of an intellectual kind of bullying that is common in O-Land where Rand's behavior in these matters gets rationalized and a strong insinuation is made that you are some kind of lower intellect or soul because you will not give her a pass. (This is not your case. I see you as one of the bullied in the respect, not as one of the bullies.)

Some of Rand's ideas, like this one on smoking, are not only irrational, this particular one is dangerous to your health. I have paid enough dues with my own life to be able to say that and be totally convinced that I am not only right, but that this must be said emphatically if I want Rand's influence on the people around me to be in the direction of independent thinking and not tribe-formation. I have seen too many tribes for comfort and I despise watching this being done with the beautiful individualist vision Rand created.

As with fast food in my statement above, call smoking free choice. Call it a right. Call it a pleasure. Call it taming fire at your finger tips and Rand's whole spiel... Call it anything you want. But don't call it an objective value for normal living. It isn't. It is irrational for a person to persist in it, especially today knowing what we know.

Michael

[Selene]

And can we get another AMEN from the assembled.

I would not have lasted more than three posts on those other sights. Well there is the exception that proves the rule.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I smoked for five years quiting 40 years and one month ago. I knew I'd end up with some chronic or fatal lung disease if I kept it up.

Because of my medical training I was well aware of the delicate structure of the human lung and what would happen to it if emphysema took hold.

AR had no medical training and little knowledge. Nevertheless her public position on smoking--as well as a number of other subjects--was not right and she should have known that over time and set it right. It's as if one acknowledged blemish would cause the whole public face of her life work to collapse.

When I took Basic Principles Of Objectivism in Tucson in 1968 by tape transcription, we could send philosophical questions back to NYC. The local rep. informed us that Barbara Branden had indicated to him that an example of an improper question was asking Miss Rand why she smoked. I thought I understood that then. Now it makes little sense beyond don't piss off the author of AS.

Another question no one could seem to get Miss Rand to answer was whether she had ever read any book by Kant. I saw this at some college in an out-borough of NYC in Dec. 1970 after she had given a talk. I think it was Brooklyn Community College. She somehow deflected the question without answering it. I don't quite remember just how she beat around that bush, but she sure did. I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the guy who asked the question, motive and such, probably expanded to include other philosophical, Rand, Objectivism diminishers.

--Brant

Edited April 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

It is true that "Values are always subjective..." except when they are objective.

Adam

And what IS an objective value in your opinion? Could you give a concrete example?

[Selene]

xray

The action of breathing air.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

xray

The action of breathing air.

Adam

Not breathing air if your name is Adolf Hitler.

--Brant

sophistry in action

Edited April 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Yes and I could add a whole shitload to that list!

[Xray]

Another way to examine my positing of subjective and objective values is to consider the limits of general human plasticity: People are not dogs, cats or dinosaurs. Considering what a person is reveals what he is not. What a person thinks is a value to him is a value to him even if he's insane--but the value is in his head. So he steps off the roof of a tall buiding thinking he can fly and goes splat and that's that for Jack. He experienced what he did as a value (selfish value) but it was not a value to the flourishing and life of that organism which is now dead.

--Brant

This is exactly why value is not determined by human whim. It is determined by life. Just because "Jack" believed he could fly does not magically make that a value - to him. The effect of that belief on his life is the indicator of whether his belief is of value - to his life.

Belief is not a value maker. That is the error of religion.

When Jack, for whatever reason, believes he can fly and tries to do so by flailing his arms, at that moment, flying is a value to him. It does not matter whether Jack is locked up in a mental institution, whether he has had a few too many at a party with judgment impaired, or whether Jack is a small kid not yet having enough mental abilities to see the futility.

In all cases, "Jack" is a volitional, goal-seeking identitiy. The goal is there in manifest character ("I want to fly"), but it is a subjectively chosen goal. Flying is perceived as a subjective value to Jack, only the means used to reach the goal are insufficient. It is means and only means, which are subject to proof or disproof.

Another example (mentioned before in the discussion): it is objective fact that one cannot survive without water. No one will challenge this. However, this is not the issue. Although water is an objective means to sustaining life, to value, or not value this means (of life) is subjective choice.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

xray

The action of breathing air.

... is of no value to someone who plans to hang himself.

Although air is an objective means to sustaining life, to value or not value it is subjective choice.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

No, it is not.

Regardless of the choice, it is still a value for the continuation of organism, which has different levels of sentiency [do not know if that is a word], sins and psychologies. Did I mention that I love alliteration, lol.

Also, objective fact is awkward to my ears, as the German I do not know would be to yours, It is a fact would be a better way to say it.

I cannot imagine what a "subjective fact" would even look like.

Adam

[Xray]

Similar to Mazlow's value rankings because some values would be more "valuable" than others.

Mazlov speaks about a hierarchy of needs, not of values.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

No, it is not.

Regardless of the choice, it is still a value for the continuation of organism, which has different levels of sentiency [do not know if that is a word], sins and psychologies. Did I mention that I love alliteration, lol.

It is a necessity, like an adequate intake of water.

Like MSK pointed out in the water example,

"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." (end quote)

I don't quarrel with this biological fact, but where does philosophy fit in? Isn't the philosophy part the choice to drink water and live, or don't

drink water and die? Doesn't this recognize both subjective choice and objective causality?

Also, objective fact is awkward to my ears, as the German I do not know would be to yours, It is a fact would be a better way to say it.

The "objective" in "objective fact" was used for stylistic emphasis because the discussion is about "objectivism". But you are correct: "fact" does not need the qualifier "objective" since 'objective' is implied in "fact".

I cannot imagine what a "subjective fact" would even look like.

Nor can I. There are no subjective facts of course. Nor are there objective values.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Re-read by post that you quoted. Notice it says nothing about physics. If something supports the existence of life then, and only then, is it a value.

That was my point precisely. There is no value in the non-sentient physical domain. It exists purely within the contexts of judgments made by sentient beings. In non-sentient nature there is nothing intrinsically valuable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exactly.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Similar to Mazlow's value rankings because some values would be more "valuable" than others.

Mazlov speaks about a hierarchy of needs, not of values.

That might have been the reason that I used the word "similar". I should have been more precise. As I remember ole Abela's list, it was hierarchical and that was what I was making the comparison to. Poor choice in retrospect.

Adam

[Xray]

By your claim that anything can be a value allows a non-value to be a value. That is called an absurdity.

Anything can be considered a value by individuals, yes.

Rand tries to dilute the full implication of this hard fact by labeling "whims"certain individually chosen values.

But here is the wrinkle: considering something a "whim" is a subjective value judgement too.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The issue in not "what is life or does life exist." The issue is why does life exist? Why did the human mind create life? What is the purpose behind why the human mind created life?

Unble Jim, you think the "human mind" mind creates life?? How does that work? Edited April 28, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

Then it would be arguable that you can "observe" what is valueless and then make a choice as to which values to pursue that objectively preserve your life, yes?

Similar to Mazlow's value rankings because some values would be more "valuable" than others.

I am not disagreeing here, trying to mold this discussion in my mind because it is close to a number of thoughts I have pondered.

Adam

Values can be, and ought to be, ranked. The method to used to rank value is the degree by which they support the needs of life. Human whim should never be a value ranking instrument. However for a human to rank value he must apply reason and that does require a human mind. The real issue is, then, the rationality of the mind doing the ranking. The more rational the human mind doing the ranking the more happy the consequence.

[BaalChatzaf]

The issue in not "what is life or does life exist." The issue is why does life exist? Why did the human mind create life? What is the purpose behind why the human mind created life?

First of all, life existed on this planet billions of years ago, long before our kind came on the scene. As to why, no one knows exactly how. Long strands of amino acids formed and were able to replicate. That is -what- happened. -Why- as in for what physical reason? No one knows at this time. All we know is that such replicators formed through a perfectly natural process and that is how life began. For the first two and half billion years after life started, only one celled critters lived and replicated. Later on, mutations occurred producing more complex life forms. About five to seven million years ago (a mere eye-blink) primates happened and from the primates evolved the hominids of which we are the last living surviving specie.

What you call life is a sustained chemical process which will continue as long as the right ingredients and the right heat and moisture levels are maintained. Humans had nothing to do with it. It happened long before we were and long after we are gone life will go on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

The issue in not "what is life or does life exist." The issue is why does life exist? Why did the human mind create life? What is the purpose behind why the human mind created life?

Unble Jim, you think the "human mind" mind creates life?? How does that work?

How did 'life' come into existence? The human mind created it. What is life? It is a word! Every word ever created was created by a human mind. Consider the enormous impact on your thinking when you begin to realize what the human mind has created. Some examples: water, salt, space, time, distance, god, heaven, hell, universe, everything, "child kidnapping, raping, murdering bastards" etc., etc.

[UncleJim]

The issue in not "what is life or does life exist." The issue is why does life exist? Why did the human mind create life? What is the purpose behind why the human mind created life?

First of all, life existed on this planet billions of years ago, long before our kind came on the scene. As to why, no one knows exactly how. Long strands of amino acids formed and were able to replicate. That is -what- happened. -Why- as in for what physical reason? No one knows at this time. All we know is that such replicators formed through a perfectly natural process and that is how life began. For the first two and half billion years after life started, only one celled critters lived and replicated. Later on, mutations occurred producing more complex life forms. About five to seven million years ago (a mere eye-blink) primates happened and from the primates evolved the hominids of which we are the last living surviving specie.

What you call life is a sustained chemical process which will continue as long as the right ingredients and the right heat and moisture levels are maintained. Humans had nothing to do with it. It happened long before we were and long after we are gone life will go on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That which 'life' was created to denote the existence of has always existed. But 'life' has not always existed. Life is a word and only the human mind can create words. Therefore life has existed only as long as the human mind has possessed the ability to create words.

The real issue is not "does life exist or what is life?" but is instead "why does life exist?" For what reason [purpose] did the human mind create life? And that reason is to denote the difference between the animate and the inanimate.

Edited April 29, 2009 by UncleJim

[BaalChatzaf]

That which 'life' was created to denote the existence of has always existed. But 'life' has not always existed. Life is a word and only the human mind can create words. Therefore life has existed only as long as the human mind has possessed the ability to create words.

The real issue is not "does life exist or what is life?" but is instead "why does life exist?" For what reason [purpose] did the human mind create life? And that reason is to denote the difference between the animate and the inanimate.

Nonsense! Living things have existed on this planet for nearly three billion years. About a half billion years ago the one celled critters evolved into more more complex life forms. If humans had never happened this planet would still be a riot of living beings.

Living stuff has the following characteristics.

1. It replicates, if not exactly then closely.

2. If maintains its dynamic state in a relatively small portion of its dynamic phase space.

Negative feedback control loops evolved spontaneously to maintain the organism in some kind of dynamic equilibrium with its environment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

By your claim that anything can be a value allows a non-value to be a value. That is called an absurdity.

Anything can be considered a value by individuals, yes.

Rand tries to dilute the full implication of this hard fact by labeling "whims"certain individually chosen values.

But here is the wrinkle: considering something a "whim" is a subjective value judgement too.

A person can say anything he wishes. He can say death is a value - to him. But that does not make it so. Value is not a human determinate. Value lies outside of human whim. Failing to identify what value is, is why we some people are able to justify convincing their children and grandchildren to commit murder by suicide bombing.

[UncleJim]

That which 'life' was created to denote the existence of has always existed. But 'life' has not always existed. Life is a word and only the human mind can create words. Therefore life has existed only as long as the human mind has possessed the ability to create words.

The real issue is not "does life exist or what is life?" but is instead "why does life exist?" For what reason [purpose] did the human mind create life? And that reason is to denote the difference between the animate and the inanimate.

Nonsense! Living things have existed on this planet for nearly three billion years. About a half billion years ago the one celled critters evolved into more more complex life forms. If humans had never happened this planet would still be a riot of living beings.

Living stuff has the following characteristics.

1. It replicates, if not exactly then closely.

2. If maintains its dynamic state in a relatively small portion of its dynamic phase space.

Negative feedback control loops evolved spontaneously to maintain the organism in some kind of dynamic equilibrium with its environment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Every word used in your post was created by the human mind; including the words life and living. Until you acknowledge that life and what it means are not one and the same (and I am confidant that you do know the difference) this conversation is not going to resolve.