Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Rich Engle]

One of the most interesting things to watch (especially if you are a marketing person, say) when someone puts out great, multi-faceted work is to see, of all the places available, where the most hats are hung.

If reason is the best hat-hanging place with Rand, I'll take it over some other choices I've seen.

But reason alone is nothing more than a fine tool. The finest we have, maybe, huh?

Reason works best, like most things, in concert. I think it works gloriously when tempered by tolerance (you could call it empathy, other things), and reverence for life.

Makes a helluva team, those three.

rde

[Xray]

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

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

The context is objective reality. Whether this appears in Rand's works, or anywhere else - it stands on its own. It is not at all necessary to read Rand's works extensively, or any other, to evaluate this alleged definition.

In this instance, the alleged definition is correct. It is an accurate abstract representation of the real. Value to whom for what goes to choice in the face of an alternative. No problem. It conforms to reality.

The objective referent for this is each volitional human individual with the capacity to be aware of alternatives and to attribute value in accordance with personal preferences. This is the entity identity on which the definition depends.

Sentient being, volition, awareness of alternative, attributing value are interdependent concepts applicable to a conscious human being. These characteristics are what provides the definition ("objective meaning") for the term, value. Any alteration by "personal meanings", is a mental departure from actual definition, i.e. departure from reality. The phrase, "automatic values" of an insentient plant dismisses sentient being, volition, awareness of an alternative and attributing value; all the characteristics by which the

term, "value" is defined.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

Xray,

We are in full agreement on this. Please understand that when I use the term "objective," it is always within this orbit of meaning.

The objective referent for this is each volitional human individual with the capacity to be aware of alternatives and to attribute value in accordance with personal preferences. This is the entity identity on which the definition depends.

Actually this is incomplete. It is correct, but not the whole picture. It's only one part of the referents. (All concepts have many referents.)

The other part is the actual existent being sought, including its own identity and the impact that identity can have on the individual valuer and vice-versa. "Objective value" means—in choosing a value—being fully aware of this (i.e., the nature of the valuer, the nature of the existent sought and the causal impacts each have on the other), and taking it into account in weighing the benefits.

This is why it is wrong—within these meanings—to say that since each person chooses his/her values, this means all values are subjective.

There is actually a danger here when these meanings (or similar ones) are not used. When a broad term like "subjective" is thrown around without too much criteria in making sure the meaning is clear, this can insinuate that something wrong is right because nobody objects. Then the logical extensions develop and you get absurd statements taken seriously by many people through intellectual osmosis—like, "Since all values are subjective, good and evil really don't exist. They are only matters of personal opinion."

Then come the artworks and entertainment portraying this. Still nobody objects (or very few object, but they are rarely heard) because at this point it becomes really complicated to swim against the stream. Then after this settles well in the culture, there come the dictators in politics who cash in on it.

The people discover that evil really does exist, but by then it is too late.

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

I could put the following in my own words (which I often like to do to make sure I fully agree or disagree with someone), but Rand did a really good job of it.

See here (from The Ayn Rand Lexicon): Objectivity.

(The last entry on that page is not Rand at her finest, but the other entries, especially the first and the one on axiomatic concepts are top notch.)

Michael

I could hardly disagree with what I read there more.

[UncleJim]

Jim,

Roger is correct. You are using the term "value" differently than Rand did.

He already provide the quote so I will not need to. You are free to accept Rand's meaning or not. Ignoring it is a critical mistake.

Michael

I have not disputed Rand's various definitions of value. I have expanded them without being in contradiction with them. She said that "life is the standard of value." She said that life; itself, is not value. She said that value is that which mans seeks to hold or gain. Etc.

As one example of Rand's statements:

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

The red highlights are critical in understanding how Rand applied the concept of value. When one ignores that Rand insisted on talking only about, and in reference to, rational beings it becomes very easy to be trapped into suggesting that some value based conclusions can be irrational and yet still be claimed to satisfy the idea of value. Under Rand's stated postion on what value is and requires - that conclusion is just simply impossible.

[UncleJim]

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

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

The context is objective reality. Whether this appears in Rand's works, or anywhere else - it stands on its own. It is not at all necessary to read Rand's works extensively, or any other, to evaluate this alleged definition.

In this instance, the alleged definition is correct. It is an accurate abstract representation of the real. Value to whom for what goes to choice in the face of an alternative. No problem. It conforms to reality.

The objective referent for this is each volitional human individual with the capacity to be aware of alternatives and to attribute value in accordance with personal preferences. This is the entity identity on which the definition depends.

Sentient being, volition, awareness of alternative, attributing value are interdependent concepts applicable to a conscious human being. These characteristics are what provides the definition ("objective meaning") for the term, value. Any alteration by "personal meanings", is a mental departure from actual definition, i.e. departure from reality. The phrase, "automatic values" of an insentient plant dismisses sentient being, volition, awareness of an alternative and attributing value; all the characteristics by which the

term, "value" is defined.

And the valuer; under Rand's premise, is a rational actor. An irrational actor; by definition, cannot value. They don't have the mental framework; i.e., they are lacking intelligence. When a person chooses death that is evidence of irrationality because it denies what the the basis of value is. It denies that life is the basis of value.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The objective referent for this is each volitional human individual with the capacity to be aware of alternatives and to attribute value in accordance with personal preferences. This is the entity identity on which the definition depends.

Sentient being, volition, awareness of alternative, attributing value are interdependent concepts applicable to a conscious human being. These characteristics are what provides the definition ("objective meaning") for the term, value. Any alteration by "personal meanings", is a mental departure from actual definition, i.e. departure from reality. The phrase, "automatic values" of an insentient plant dismisses sentient being, volition, awareness of an alternative and attributing value; all the characteristics by which the term, "value" is defined.

Xray,

Defined by whom? I'll get back to this question in a sec.

First, I want to complement what I stated above in my last post. The "objective referent" is a human being only because the word "objective" is used as a modifier. Something can be objective or not only to a being with conceptual volition.

A value is neither objective or subjective to a lower life form. It is merely a value.

You are talking as if a lower life form can only act in the face of an alternative if it has conceptual volition. That is not that case. The simple predator-prey reality of life shows that lower mobile life forms act in the face of alternatives all the time. What they seek is not chosen, but how they seek it is. That is an "automatic value."

I admit that on the level of plants, the ability of a plant to act in the face of an alternative is so restricted that it is easy to imagine that no choice is possible. I think "choice" is a horrible word for that level, but I can't think of another one right now. Go into any forest and you will see a large number of twistings and turnings among the vegetation, not all of which can be attributed to lack of alternative. Alternatives were obviously present during growth and the plants took them.

Your may disagree with Rand's meaning for "value." I'm OK with that. It is wrong to claim that Rand's meaning is a departure from reality. It is merely a departure from your restricted way of thinking about this (as I understand it, limiting the concept of value to volitional consciousnesses only).

It is also wrong to claim that value is defined in your manner for Rand, when Rand clearly defined her term and you even quoted it. You claimed that "each volitional human individual with the capacity to be aware of alternatives and to attribute value in accordance with personal preferences" is the prerequisite for the definition of value. Once again, as defined by whom? Obviously not as defined by Rand.

I happen to use Rand's meaning and I see it clearly at play in nature.

Saying it ain't so doesn't make it so. I would need to see it ain't so to change my view and your arguments have not convinced me that there is a rational need to do so.

I suspect there is an issue of semantics.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Jim,

Roger is correct. You are using the term "value" differently than Rand did.

He already provide the quote so I will not need to. You are free to accept Rand's meaning or not. Ignoring it is a critical mistake.

Michael

I have not disputed Rand's various definitions of value. I have expanded them without being in contradiction with them. She said that "life is the standard of value." She said that life; itself, is not value. She said that value is that which mans seeks to hold or gain. Etc.

As one example of Rand's statements:

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

The red highlights are critical in understanding how Rand applied the concept of value. When one ignores that Rand insisted on talking only about, and in reference to, rational beings it becomes very easy to be trapped into suggesting that some value based conclusions can be irrational and yet still be claimed to satisfy the idea of value. Under Rand's stated postion on what value is and requires - that conclusion is just simply impossible.

Jim, it is NOT true that "Rand insisted on talking only about, and in reference to, rational beings." She defined her concept of "value" in reference to ALL living beings, not just rational and not even just conscious. All living beings act to gain and/or keep things. Thus all living being value things--i.e., are valuers. You are doing a typical Randroid move of shrinking down the concept "value" to the subset "rational value" and blotting out all the others. Next you're going to tell me that Kant didn't just have an irrational or evil philosophy, that he didn't have a philosophy at all!

Go back to "Collectivized Ethics" and read about the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction. Rand & Company struggled to make the point that altruists who treated egoism as though it were not a morality were being illogical. Is it any less an error for egoists to treat altruism as though it is not a morality? Or for rational valuers to treat irrational values as though they are not values, just because one ~should not~ value them?

The longer I live, the more I keep hearing the same errors from Objectivists, recycling endlessly, diverting us from dealing with REAL problems. As Rand would have said, "God save me from my followers."

<sigh>

REB

[UncleJim]

Jim, it is NOT true that "Rand insisted on talking only about, and in reference to, rational beings." She defined her concept of "value" in reference to ALL living beings, not just rational and not even just conscious. All living beings act to gain and/or keep things. Thus all living being value things--i.e., are valuers. You are doing a typical Randroid move of shrinking down the concept "value" to the subset "rational value" and blotting out all the others. Next you're going to tell me that Kant didn't just have an irrational or evil philosophy, that he didn't have a philosophy at all!

Go back to "Collectivized Ethics" and read about the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction. Rand & Company struggled to make the point that altruists who treated egoism as though it were not a morality were being illogical. Is it any less an error for egoists to treat altruism as though it is not a morality? Or for rational valuers to treat irrational values as though they are not values, just because one ~should not~ value them?

The longer I live, the more I keep hearing the same errors from Objectivists, recycling endlessly, diverting us from dealing with REAL problems. As Rand would have said, "God save me from my followers."

<sigh>

REB

To value means to volitionally engage ones mind for a specific purpose. It means to act in that what required for a human-being to be considered a properly functioning human-being. Sure there are lots of people who fail the definition of what it is to be a properly functioning human-being but that does not sanction their actions as being 'somehow' value oriented.

To value is to purposefully engage in a specific kind of mental action. To value is to volitionally engage ones rationality for a specific purpose. Since this is the case; then, only certain kinds of living beings can value - only rational functioning human-beings. Any person can claim to be functioning rationally but only those who actually are can prove it.

A rose bush cannot value. It automatically absorbs from the environment what is required for it to remain what it is. A whale does not value, it instinctively [by the law of necessity] acts in that way required for its continued survival.

Only humans choose their course of action. And only rational humans are able to choose the actions determined by what being a properly functioning human is and requires.

Edited May 5, 2009 by UncleJim

[Xray]

Actually this is incomplete. It is correct, but not the whole picture. It's only one part of the referents. (All concepts have many referents.)

The issue was about an entity, an individual, attibuting value to this or that.

Could you illustrate your "all concepts have many referents" with examples? TIA.

The other part is the actual existent being sought, including its own identity and the impact that identity can have on the individual valuer and vice-versa. "Objective value" means—in choosing a value—being fully aware of this (i.e., the nature of the valuer, the nature of the existent sought and the causal impacts each have on the other), and taking it into account in weighing the benefits.

Benefits for whom and in what context? For example, Jim benefiting from his choice may imply detriment to John or vice versa.

This is why it is wrong—within these meanings—to say that since each person chooses his/her values, this means all values are subjective.

But doesn't the very word "choose" imply "subjective"? How can a choice be "objective"? Would you give an example?

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

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

No objection here. But this contradicts what Rand says about insentient plants "seeking values".

Since per Rand's own definition, a plant clearly is NO "entitiy capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative", it follows that a plant can be no value seeker.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

Under Objectivism if there is no alternative then choice is not possible. And absent an alternative choice value cannot exist. Choice is then a value driven idea. But if the choice is made outside the principle that "life is the standard of value" then a choice cannot be considered to have been value driven.

It is an absurdity to say that I choose to kill my baby therefore that choice must be considered a value driven choice - for me. Or that it satisfies the idea of what an irrational-value is. When a choice is subject to human whim it is, by definition, a subjective choice. Such a choice can be the result of insanity or worse; religion.

Note that some consider when their daughter is raped that she must be killed in-order to save the reputation and good standing of the family. The implication is that this is an example of the rational application of the idea of value. It is not!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To value means to volitionally engage ones mind for a specific purpose.

Jim,

If this is your meaning, OK. You are entitled to define your terms.

But that is not what Rand wrote. That is not the Objectivist theory of value.

Rand wrote what she wrote. As the lady said, "A is A."

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Under Objectivism if there is no alternative then choice is not possible. And absent an alternative choice value cannot exist. Choice is then a value driven idea. But if the choice is made outside the principle that "life is the standard of value" then a choice cannot be considered to have been value driven.

It is an absurdity to say that I choose to kill my baby therefore that choice must be considered a value driven choice - for me. Or that it satisfies the idea of what an irrational-value is. When a choice is subject to human whim it is, by definition, a subjective choice. Such a choice can be the result of insanity or worse; religion.

Note that some consider when their daughter is raped that she must be killed in-order to save the reputation and good standing of the family. The implication is that this is an example of the rational application of the idea of value. It is not!

You are equivocating all over the place, Jim. And you're just plain wrong.

In "The Ethics of Emergencies," Rand defined "rational values" as "values chosen and validated by a rational standard." Obviously, she is defining rational values as a ~subcategory~ of values, which ALSO includes ~other~ subcategories, such as values chosen and validated by an irrational standard, as well as automatic values (which she discusses in relation to plants and animals in "The Objectivist Ethics"). (I'm not going to give you the page numbers for this. If you have really read these essays, you know exactly where the points are made; and if you haven't, then your first action now should be to ~read~ them.)

What you are doing here is to re-write Rand's definition of "value" -- that which one (including plants, animals, non-volitional babies, and irrational people) seeks to gain and/or keep -- so that it applies more narrowly to ~rational~ values. Apparently you believe that Rand mis-spoke herself in "The Ethics of Emergencies" and instead should have said: "values (goals chosen and validated by a rational standard)." But don't feel bad. Even Leonard Peikoff slips into this syndrome occasionally.

As for your equivocating, I mean your referring to the ~logically~ rational application of the concept of "value" as though it were the same thing as the ~morally~ rational application of that concept. It is logically rational for an arsonist to acknowledge that his setting on fire of other people's property is, ~in fact~, a value of (something sought after by) the arsonist--even while it is morally irrational for the arsonist to ~choose~ arson as a value. In the same respect, it is logically rational for a Catholic to acknowledge that his pursuit of sacrifice is ~in fact~ a virtue (an action taken in pursuit of a value)--even while it is morally irrational for the Catholic to ~choose~ sacrifice as a virtue. In the same respect, it is logically rational for a Kantian to acknowledge that his altruist beliefs ~in fact~ constitute a moral code--even while it is morally irrational for him to ~choose~ altruism as his moral code.

REB

[UncleJim]

To value means to volitionally engage ones mind for a specific purpose.

Jim,

If this is your meaning, OK. You are entitled to define your terms.

But that is not what Rand wrote. That is not the Objectivist theory of value.

Rand wrote what she wrote. As the lady said, "A is A."

Michael

But how does that challenge what I have said? Yes "A is A." A thing is what it is. This works equally well with value; "value is value." But my comment is on what valuing is. Valuing is a rational action as opposed to a mystical action, insane action, religious action, etc.

Ayn Rand; herself, declared that the term "Objectivism" has to do with, and was derived from, the objective nature of reality. Note that the deviation of the term 'life' is itself based one the objective nature of a very specific aspect of nature. And since "life is the standard of value" then value must also be a derivation of the objective nature of reality. By this logic; Value is that which life requires to remain what life is.

Since life is the concept that denotes the existence of the fundamental energy activity; then, value denotes that which this fundamental energy activity requires to continue to be what it is.

I am not in dispute of what Rand said, I am one of her strongest supporters. I can actually describe that which she was talking about.

[UncleJim]

Under Objectivism if there is no alternative then choice is not possible. And absent an alternative choice value cannot exist. Choice is then a value driven idea. But if the choice is made outside the principle that "life is the standard of value" then a choice cannot be considered to have been value driven.

It is an absurdity to say that I choose to kill my baby therefore that choice must be considered a value driven choice - for me. Or that it satisfies the idea of what an irrational-value is. When a choice is subject to human whim it is, by definition, a subjective choice. Such a choice can be the result of insanity or worse; religion.

Note that some consider when their daughter is raped that she must be killed in-order to save the reputation and good standing of the family. The implication is that this is an example of the rational application of the idea of value. It is not!

You are equivocating all over the place, Jim. And you're just plain wrong.

In "The Ethics of Emergencies," Rand defined "rational values" as "values chosen and validated by a rational standard." Obviously, she is defining rational values as a ~subcategory~ of values, which ALSO includes ~other~ subcategories, such as values chosen and validated by an irrational standard, as well as automatic values (which she discusses in relation to plants and animals in "The Objectivist Ethics"). (I'm not going to give you the page numbers for this. If you have really read these essays, you know exactly where the points are made; and if you haven't, then your first action now should be to ~read~ them.)

What you are doing here is to re-write Rand's definition of "value" -- that which one (including plants, animals, non-volitional babies, and irrational people) seeks to gain and/or keep -- so that it applies more narrowly to ~rational~ values. Apparently you believe that Rand mis-spoke herself in "The Ethics of Emergencies" and instead should have said: "values (goals chosen and validated by a rational standard)." But don't feel bad. Even Leonard Peikoff slips into this syndrome occasionally.

As for your equivocating, I mean your referring to the ~logically~ rational application of the concept of "value" as though it were the same thing as the ~morally~ rational application of that concept. It is logically rational for an arsonist to acknowledge that his setting on fire of other people's property is, ~in fact~, a value of (something sought after by) the arsonist--even while it is morally irrational for the arsonist to ~choose~ arson as a value. In the same respect, it is logically rational for a Catholic to acknowledge that his pursuit of sacrifice is ~in fact~ a virtue (an action taken in pursuit of a value)--even while it is morally irrational for the Catholic to ~choose~ sacrifice as a virtue. In the same respect, it is logically rational for a Kantian to acknowledge that his altruist beliefs ~in fact~ constitute a moral code--even while it is morally irrational for him to ~choose~ altruism as his moral code.

REB

I acknowledge what you are saying. But what is "the rational standard"? It is mans life!

Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

[Brant Gaede]

Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies.

Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him.

--Brant

Edited May 6, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies.

Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him.

--Brant

Indeed, Hitler is an (especially horrific) example of someone "pursuing that which does not exist": one group of humans allegedly being "racially superior" to the rest of the world's population. After coming into power, he became a mass murderer forcefully imposing his psychotic belief as "objective value" upon others.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies.

Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him.

--Brant

Indeed, Hitler is an (especially horrific) example of someone "pursuing that which does not exist": one group of humans allegedly being "racially superior" to the rest of the world's population. After coming into power, he became a mass murderer forcefully imposing his psychotic belief as "objective value" upon others.

That's the true crux of the matter. The guy claiming objectivity in value paves the way if not himself the knave for the knave. Go to Solopassion and see Perigo in his trance dance.

--Brant

[Xray]

Note that some consider when their daughter is raped that she must be killed in-order to save the reputation and good standing of the family. The implication is that this is an example of the rational application of the idea of value. It is not!

But when asked, these people would of course tell you that their decision is based on "objective value". The objective value (in their eyes) being the "honor" of the family. The raped daughter (i. e. the daughter who is no longer a virgin, for that's what it is about) 'devalues' the whole clan, so to reestablish the honor, her life is sacrificed.

Honor is one of THE cardinal (claimed of course as as objective) values in their system, so everything else has to take a back seat. Honor even justifies murder. Virginity in their not yet married daughters is one of the "cardinal virtues" required to preserve the family's honor.

They would never say their value is subjective, Uncle Jim. They would say it is objective, probably also citing to you some Koran passages as source of proof of the "objectivity", since god's will ("manifested" in the Koran) is in itself an ideological concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value.

The primary concern of those fundamentalist clans here is the daughter's loss of virginity, whether from rape or not plays no role for them.

The ideology of "virginity as a virtue/value" is a classic example of a value declared as "objectve" for centuries having lost its status in many (mostly highly industrialized) countries, but by no means in all.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Objectively speaking we must value the subjectivity in value if we value individualism and personal freedom. This does not mean that humans don't need objective values qua human, but derivatively into the actual being there is a tremendous amount of play and that must be honored or we live in a world of collectivist shit.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

To put it somewhat differently: Objective value is the primary and subjective the secondary EXCEPT in the derivative social situations. As long as the subjective does not violate the objective--violation of rights--then the subjective is free to be subjective and pursue happiness--i.e., as represented by "subjective" value.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But how does that challenge what I have said? Yes "A is A." A thing is what it is. This works equally well with value; "value is value." But my comment is on what valuing is. Valuing is a rational action as opposed to a mystical action, insane action, religious action, etc.

Jim,

I am not interested in challenging or winning or anything like that. I am interested in precision. I even happen to share your values on life.

We are discussing something else, which is correctly identifying cognitive versus normative abstractions, and, as Roger properly pointed out, the proper identification of categories and subcategories.

Setting aside the misidentification of what Rand wrote, I see you taking a "should" and saying it is an "is." There is a connection between the two but one is not the other.

When I said "A is A," I was using it in the sense of "Rand wrote what Rand wrote" or "Rand's writing is Rand's writing." Her words will not change because we believe that something is right.

I have seen two areas constantly confused when people discuss Objectivism. The first is that they replace a cognitive abstraction with a normative one (like you do with value). Even Rand did this at times. Here is an example: morality.

First there is discussion of the morality of altruism, the morality of Christianity, etc. versus the morality of Objectivism. This is cognitive. This is merely a classification of codes of values.

But then there is a discussion on how some of the values in altruism and Christianity, etc., are life-denying, thus evil. This is normative.

From that point the word "moral" takes on the meaning of "according to Objectivist morality" and altruism/Christianity are declared as immoral. Then, from that point, I have seen people say, "There is no such thing as a morality of altruism (or morality of Christianity). It is immoral." And they become quite insistent, despite having used the cognitive phrase before.

The same word. Two different meanings.

And one more useless discussion based on semantics instead of ideas.

The other area of confusion I see is that people often replace matters of degree with matters of kind. As I have stated elsewhere, black and white do exist, but so does gray and the other colors. Black and white thinking should be applied to black and white issues. As the saying goes, a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. The confusion I have seen goes the other way. Where a degree exists, a kind is preached and wholesale bashing ensues.

If something is declared as evil, for instance, then anything good about it becomes blanked out on a cognitive level and, as in David Kelley's famous comparison, the evil of a dictator like Hitler is equated with the evil of an obscure college professor teaching Marxism. The fact that the professor doesn't kill people gets blanked out.

Striving for cognitive precision is not the same thing as endorsing evil, but I have seen many people attacked like that.

Michael

[Xray]

To put it somewhat differently: Objective value is the primary and subjective the secondary EXCEPT in the derivative social situations. As long as the subjective does not violate the objective--violation of rights--then the subjective is free to be subjective and pursue happiness--i.e., as represented by "subjective" value.

--Brant

Even values agreed upon by a whole group remain subjective values. The Declaration of Human Rights is an example of a catalog of subjecvtive values the United Nations has agreed upon.

Vaue implies always the subjective decision to see something as a value.

That there are no objective values is shown in the simple fact that whole value systems thought as objective have collapsed over history.

For example, if Plato and his contemporaries had been told they should acknowledge the same rights for every individual (including women and slaves), they would probably have thought the person suggesting this was crazy and considered them as assaulting the values held highly by society.

Plato in turn today would probably get in conflict with the law when publicly praising homosexual love of adolescents.

Violating a right implies that what is violated is seen as a right But what is seen (and not seen) as a right and by whom is again an entirely subjective selection, and it plays no role whether lawmakers have written it down in black and white. Laws are arbitrary anyway - just think of the laws created by Hitler and his minions.

Example: in Old Rome, the father was the pater familias who could decide over life and death of his family members. We modern timers would say giving a father such power violated the rights of those family members. But the father acted in accordance with the law and the prevalent subjective value system of the time. If accused of violating rights, he would probably have told anyone how on earth can they think of giving his family members the same rights as the father? He would probably have argued that this would violate the law representing the Roman values.

See what I'm gettig at? However you slice it, "ethics" "morality "standards of value" - arbitrary subjective choices, all. This is the radical conclusion. But there is no need to be afraid of the word "radical", for it comes from the Latin "radix" ('root'). And getting to the root of the issue is essential here.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies.

Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him.

--Brant

The pursuit of something is not the same as the creation of something.

Notice how that which is created consists of that which already exists.

[UncleJim]

Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies.

Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him.

--Brant

Indeed, Hitler is an (especially horrific) example of someone "pursuing that which does not exist": one group of humans allegedly being "racially superior" to the rest of the world's population. After coming into power, he became a mass murderer forcefully imposing his psychotic belief as "objective value" upon others.

Hitler did not pursue "racial superiority" because it does not exist. Hitler is an example of a person whose mind faked reality.