Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Xray]

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.

I'm interested in your take on the article, GS. Could you give examples of what specifically bothered you about it?

[MSK]:

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."

"Evil" is a subjective morality judgement, yes. In Old Greece for example, virtually nobody would have regarded kidnappig people from the conquered home countries and transporting them as slaves to Greece as "evil". This was done everywhere in Antiquity.

Of course one can try, in discussions, to convince others of one's own subjective values, give one's arguments as as to why one has them and why one does not share certain values others have.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]:

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."

Preciseness is the mother of a fruitful discussion, so we will have to double check if we are on the same page when it comes to defining a term.

In an online dictionary, I looked up "subjective":

a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Agreed?

Edited to add: If you would also please answer the questions I asked of you in #161, TIA.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

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.

This implies that the "status" of the person can be held as the primary. That "personal status' is more important than the person. Notice the contradiction! In the absence of the person "personal status" cannot exist. In the absence of the people, the clan cannot exist.

They can claim objectivity in the murder of their daughter but it instead indicates insanity. Not naturally occurring insanity but the insanity as taught by their religious leaders.

[UncleJim]

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

When the subjective does not violate the objective then it dose not exist - it is objective.

[Xray]

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

But he was totally convinced it existed.

Many wars have been fought because people took their illusions for real. Surely you won't deny this fact?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

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

Michael thank you for your weool thought out explanation. I do understand what you are saying. The issue I have with it, is as you have explained. I do not see the benefit of having and/or holding both rational and irrational values. It opens the argument "Well those are your values, they are not mine. Lets just agree to disagree."

I see this as a very dangerous proposition. In my view it is why we are engaged in the war against terrorism. As Rand said; "in any conflict between the good and evil it is only the evil that can win." Meaning that whenever we permit the irrational persons are allowed to exist unchallenged they will gain strength and they will eventually hurt the rational persons. In a strange way being understanding of irrational persons and their beliefs is the most irrational action available to an otherwise rational persons.

[Xray]

When the subjective does not violate the objective then it dose not exist - it is objective.

What? Huh???

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

The ability to value does not produce a subjective value. Nor is valuing a subjective act. Each have to do with rationality. Rationality is the ability to connect ones intellectual content to that in reality responsible for it. It means one is acting in accordance with their identity as the rational being.

To hold that values are subject to human whim is wrong thinking.

[tjohnson]

I'm interested in your take on the article, GS. Could you give examples of what specifically bothered you about it?

Well, for starters;

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is.

This makes no sense to me. While it is true that man observes nature in order to produce knowledge he must create a language and attempt to put the structure which he has observed into the language. Once is it incorporated into language then it may be discussed by others and ultimately there will be a decision as to how right or wrong it is. To say that man does not decide is just plain wrong, IMO.

[BaalChatzaf]

I see this as a very dangerous proposition. In my view it is why we are engaged in the war against terrorism. As Rand said; "in any conflict between the good and evil it is only the evil that can win." Meaning that whenever we permit the irrational persons are allowed to exist unchallenged they will gain strength and they will eventually hurt the rational persons. In a strange way being understanding of irrational persons and their beliefs is the most irrational action available to an otherwise rational persons.

If this is truly the case then in a struggle between good and evil, put your money on evil. I am not so pessimistic. I think that some forms of evil are self defeating which is why they don't last forever. Evil that has a logical contradiction at its root cannot persist. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed. It was not defeated in war, as was Nazi fascism. It fell from its own internal contradictions. The fate that the Marxists predicted for Capitalism befell the examplars of Marxism. The nation that was the most Marxist (China) survived by taking on the forms and practices of Capitalism. To be sure, China is a thugocracy, but it is no longer a Marxist thugocracy.

Bottom line, thorough collectivism will fail because it is contrary to human nature. It works for ants and bees. It fails for humans.

Unfortunately some forms of evil are evolutionarily stable. That means they do not contradict human survival. An example is Feudalism. The system would have persisted for ten thousand years if it were not for the Plague. A labor shortage made it untenable. Systems that recognize rights (as we understand them) are not necessary for human survival. Egypt and Babylon, neither of which recognized human rights lasted for thousands of years. As long as the ruling classes did not tax and seize every last bit of agricultural surplus, enough was left over for the farmers to reproduce their numbers and continue growing food for themselves and the rest of the community. In Egypt the tax rate hit a maximum of 20 percent, which ironically is less than the income tax rate in the United States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Preciseness is the mother of a fruitful discussion, so we will have to double check if we are on the same page when it comes to defining a term.

In an online dictionary, I looked up "subjective":

a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Agreed?

Edited to add: If you would also please answer the questions I asked of you in #161, TIA.

Xray,

Now we are getting somewhere.

The very first definition of subjective above is pretty good for how I use it. It says in the mind "rather than" in the external world. This insinuates that there is a cutoff point between "in here" and "out there." I'm cool with the existence of a cutoff point. But I'm not cool with the idea that it is total, that there is no connection whatsoever. And this is what gets insinuated with statements like "all values are subjective."

Obviously, mental life is, er... mental. So in that sense, mental life is subjective. But mental life is fed by the senses and it is made of the same stuff as "out there," so there is an interface. That interface makes "objective" become possible as an opposite to "subjective."

In the third definition of the online dictionary I believe you quoted (subjective), look at this:

3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

There is the problem with using one word with different meanings. There is a hell of a lot of difference between saying:

1. All objective values are chosen, but conceptual volition occurs only in the mind, and

2. All values are illusory.

As to your earlier questions:

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

You need to read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Give it time. You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time.

Basically, the concept "chair" stands for all chairs in all sizes, colors, materials, etc. Countless referents. You arrive at the concept "chair" initially from looking at a lot of stuff, noticing similarities and differences with other existents, then making a mental grouping and a category (called "concept").

As to your other questions in that post, all values are measured according to a standard. Even benefit. When you ask, "Of benefit to whom?" you are setting a standard of measurement (ordinal: i.e., more important for X than for Y, or even going into the negative numbers if benefit for one means loss to another).

Hopefully some of the other doubts are clearer now.

btw - You are not obligated to agree with any of this. I may hope you will on much of it, but you will have to decide that. I am delighted that you are now trying to correctly understand what all this is so you can make informed choices.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It's really painful to read all this absolutism of the subjective value party denying the reality of the objective value and vice versa. The position of both parties devolve into unuseable suppositions of no authority save anything goes to nothing goes except the "objective" says it goes. I find the first the most pernicious by far for the objective value is the dominant reality-referral value. The second, however, leads to dogmatic, tribal cults or worse. Regardless, denial of the subjective is reputiation of the act of valuing itself. Objectification is for reality congruence. Denial of that is like driving a car wearing a blindfold.

--Brant

[Xray]

It's really painful to read all this absolutism of the subjective value party denying the reality of the objective value and vice versa. The position of both parties devolve into unuseable suppositions of no authority save anything goes to nothing goes except the "objective" says it goes. I find the first the most pernicious by far for the objective value is the dominant reality-referral value. The second, however, leads to dogmatic, tribal cults or worse. Regardless, denial of the subjective is reputiation of the act of valuing itself. Objectification is for reality congruence. Denial of that is like driving a car wearing a blindfold.

Your post subjectively values the discussion of the question "Do objective values exist", a discussion which you say you find emotionally painful.

I have quoted many examples of so called values thought to be "objective" by people or groups, among them the more recent example of the human rights catalog. But this catalog is a collection of subjective values too - a collection the United Nations have agreed upon. One may highly value each item of the catalog, still it does not make them "objective".

Later times may come up with different subjective catalogs.

Just think about the value battle which for example raged about abortion in the late sixties/early seventies. Life in the womb was considered an unassailable, obejctive value (the catholic church still holds to the doctrine) and abortion was considered as a crime crime (at least here here in Germany it was - outlined in the "paragraph § 218").

Today, pregnant women in their late thirties or early forties get a disapproving frown from their gynecologist if they decide against prenatal diagnostics offering the possibility to end a pregancy in case of chromosome aberration being discovered.

What makes the discussion abut values so difficult is that the word "value" alone triggers emotions. For we all have our personal values and have the tendency to defend them againsst those who don't happen to share ours.

You have come so near the truth when you wrote:

"Objectively speaking we must value the subjectivity in value if we value

individualism and personal freedom.

So valuing individualism and personal freedom implies valuing the subjectivity in value.

From this I infer that handing others a laundry list of values they "ought to believe" is anti-individualism.

But then comes the shift from subjective individual identity (attributing value) to "obejctive values".

This does not mean that humans don't need objective values qua human

But 'objective' implies existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value.

Imo combining the term 'objective' with the term 'value' is a contradiction in terms.

"By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." (Rand)

"Exists for his own sake" appeals to natural self interest. It seems to be promoting "individualism."

But then comes the qualifier "highest moral purpose", which presupposes a "moral duty" to live by values not of

one's own making.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[UncleJim]

When the subjective does not violate the objective then it dose not exist - it is objective.

What? Huh???

I don't understand your confusion.

Again: If the subjective is not in violation of the objective; then, it cannot be subjective.

[UncleJim]

I see this as a very dangerous proposition. In my view it is why we are engaged in the war against terrorism. As Rand said; "in any conflict between the good and evil it is only the evil that can win." Meaning that whenever we permit the irrational persons are allowed to exist unchallenged they will gain strength and they will eventually hurt the rational persons. In a strange way being understanding of irrational persons and their beliefs is the most irrational action available to an otherwise rational persons.

If this is truly the case then in a struggle between good and evil, put your money on evil. I am not so pessimistic. I think that some forms of evil are self defeating which is why they don't last forever. Evil that has a logical contradiction at its root cannot persist. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed. It was not defeated in war, as was Nazi fascism. It fell from its own internal contradictions. The fate that the Marxists predicted for Capitalism befell the examplars of Marxism. The nation that was the most Marxist (China) survived by taking on the forms and practices of Capitalism. To be sure, China is a thugocracy, but it is no longer a Marxist thugocracy.

Bottom line, thorough collectivism will fail because it is contrary to human nature. It works for ants and bees. It fails for humans.

Unfortunately some forms of evil are evolutionarily stable. That means they do not contradict human survival. An example is Feudalism. The system would have persisted for ten thousand years if it were not for the Plague. A labor shortage made it untenable. Systems that recognize rights (as we understand them) are not necessary for human survival. Egypt and Babylon, neither of which recognized human rights lasted for thousands of years. As long as the ruling classes did not tax and seize every last bit of agricultural surplus, enough was left over for the farmers to reproduce their numbers and continue growing food for themselves and the rest of the community. In Egypt the tax rate hit a maximum of 20 percent, which ironically is less than the income tax rate in the United States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The good has nothing to gain from the evil.

The good must be good 100% of the time otherwise evil benefits (i.e., the evil wins and the good loses). On the other hand the evil need never be good to remain what it is - evil. The evil need never worry about becoming good.

[Xray]

The good has nothing to gain from the evil.

The good must be good 100% of the time otherwise evil benefits (i.e., the evil wins and the good loses). On the other hand the evil need never be good to remain what it is - evil. The evil need never worry about becoming good.

"Good" and "evil" - 100 per cent subjective value judgments again. Do some test runs and the truth about that will jump at you. Whether you accept or deny it, that is your of course your subjective choice again.

I suppose you think freedom of speech is good? So do I.

Not so for a dictator. For him, freedom of speech is not a good thing at all, since it threatens his self-interest to control others.

Governments who use a lot of oppression often topple (see Baals post) because they can't get ther systems to work anymore. The reasons for that are manifold. The more oppression, the more control is needed and the more resistance you will get.

The recent credit crunch is an example of the capitalist system receiving a severe blow, and future times may well see capitalism replaced with other systems.

I suppose virtually everyone here would condemn cheap child labor. But a capitalist businessman may tell you it is necessary to keep his business going in the market. He may even tell you if the children did not have the job in the sweat shop, they would starve and that he was doing a "good" thing by giving them jobs. 'Good' is subjectively attributed because it serves his self-interest.

Let' take a look at "evil". How many things been regarded as "evil" in past times! It was for example considered as "evil" to study the Bible for oneself which is why it it was forbidden. (Could lead to independent thinking, which was feared).

People who did not behave according to the ruling moral code (usually declared as objective) were condemned as "evil" too .

Again: If the subjective is not in violation of the objective; then, it cannot be subjective.

Okay. John likes ice-cream, Jane doesn't. Two subjective value judgements, right?

What is "the objective" they don't (or do) "violate"?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Good" and "evil" - 100 per cent subjective value judgments again.

Xray,

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

We all subjectively value all the time, but imo the idea of "obejctive" value is an illusion.

Imo the idea of there being objective values existing independently of a subjective mind attributing value, and which can be be "discovered" contradicts the very meaning of "value".

Of course it is possible that certain subjective values are being acceped by many. But this does not make them "objective", since having values without a valuer is not possible. And the valuer is ALWAYS an individual (or a group who has agreed on calling

something a value). There is no getting around this fact.

From your # 158 post:

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."

A biological progam where the prey tries to save its life by employing various methods has nothing to do with attributing value.

The program is survival, and the organism acts 100 per cent to achieve it. It can't "choose" death instead. So there is NO alternative. Humans do have this alternative.

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

And what IS a value?

Rand's defintion is clear as a bell:

"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)

This is an excellent defintion covering the issue.

But then Rand does an about-face, trying to squeeze the word "value" into a semantic drawer where it does not belong.

She says:

"A plant has no choice of action. The goals it pursues are automatic and determined. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it out to seek.

If Rand had used the correct phrase "means necessary for survival" instead of "values", she would have spared herself the semantic chaos she created by contradicting her very own definiton of "value".

As for her use of thr word "goals", one can observe the same about-face:

She clearly states:

Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.

Then again comes the about-face, where insentient plants (clearly having no alternative per her own words) still can seek "goals".

That she calls them "automatic" does not distract from it being a contradiction of her very own words, to quote her again:

"Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."

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).

The definition Rand gave did exactly that.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

"Good" and "evil" - 100 per cent subjective value judgments again.

Xray,

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

My perception of color is one hundred percent mine. But there is something out there whose color I am perceiving.

Good and Evil are judgments, not facts. In nature there is no good and no evil, there are only facts. It takes a human or a sentient at least to render the judgment whether something is good or evil. And that judgement is made from an individual viewpoint (hence subjective). A storm with much rain may save a farmer's crop (he thinks it good) but cause a dam to burst (many think that bad). The storm is the storm and it happened. Whether it is good or evil, that depends on who is making the judgment and why.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 7, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Xray]

In nature there is no good and no evil, there are only facts. It takes a human or a sentient at least to render the judgment whether something is good or evil. And that judgement is made from an individual viewpoint (hence subjective). A storm with much rain may save a farmer's crop (he thinks it good) but cause a dam to burst (many think that bad). The storm is the storm and it happened. Whether it is good or evil, that depends on who is making the judgment and why.

My thoughts exactly.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

A musing:

The conclusion as to whether x [which for this argument is defined as a natural event, e.g., a storm] is good or evil can only be made by a sentient valuer as to its effect on the valuer.

It seems that we all agree with the above statement.

The nature of a "storm" can have no volitional intent. Correct?

Therefore, according to your reasoning the storm is both good and evil depending on the valuer, the perspective and other valuer issues.

Therefore, the operative phrases good and evil cannot be employed as the storm has no consciousness.

The concepts of good and evil require a value system.

Does that seem to be a position we can all agree with?

Adam

[UncleJim]

Again: If the subjective is not in violation of the objective; then, it cannot be subjective.

Okay. John likes ice-cream, Jane doesn't. Two subjective value judgements, right?

What is "the objective" they don't (or do) "violate"?

This has nothing at all to do with value or valuing.

[UncleJim]

My perception of color is one hundred percent mine. But there is something out there whose color I am perceiving.

It's called reality. If reality did not exist there would be nothing to know about. And knowing nothing is called an absurdity.

It takes a human or a sentient at least to render the judgment whether something is good or evil. And that judgement is made from an individual viewpoint (hence subjective).

I agree. Whenever a conclusion is based on human whim it is subjective.

A storm with much rain may save a farmer's crop (he thinks it good) but cause a dam to burst (many think that bad). The storm is the storm and it happened. Whether it is good or evil, that depends on who is making the judgment and why.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Again; any time a conclusion is subject to human whim it is a subjective conclusion.

Edited May 7, 2009 by UncleJim

[UncleJim]

A musing:

The conclusion as to whether x [which for this argument is defined as a natural event, e.g., a storm] is good or evil can only be made by a sentient valuer as to its effect on the valuer.

It seems that we all agree with the above statement.

The nature of a "storm" can have no volitional intent. Correct?

Therefore, according to your reasoning the storm is both good and evil depending on the valuer, the perspective and other valuer issues.

Therefore, the operative phrases good and evil cannot be employed as the storm has no consciousness.

The concepts of good and evil require a value system.

Does that seem to be a position we can all agree with?

Adam

I will say the concepts of good and evil require a standard of value. And I will further say that that standard is the existence of life. Not life itself but its existence. Not just any life, human life - and not just any human life, ones own. Whenever the existence of ones life benefits that ALONE is the identification value.

Note that the existence of ones life, the existence of another's life, the existence of all animal and all plant life is the same existence. Therefore my values and yours and their values are the same. Value is that which life needs to remain what it is. When ther needs of life is translated into conceptual human intelligence it becomes the concept - value.

[BaalChatzaf]

Note that the existence of ones life, the existence of another's life, the existence of all animal and all plant life is the same existence. Therefore my values and yours and their values are the same. Value is that which life needs to remain what it is. When ther needs of life is translated into conceptual human intelligence it becomes the concept - value.

Not so. My life can exist and yours not. Or your life can exist and mine not. So they can't be the same.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

Note that the existence of ones life, the existence of another's life, the existence of all animal and all plant life is the same existence. Therefore my values and yours and their values are the same. Value is that which life needs to remain what it is. When ther needs of life is translated into conceptual human intelligence it becomes the concept - value.

Not so. My life can exist and yours not. Or your life can exist and mine not. So they can't be the same.

Ba'al Chatzaf

When we speak about the existence of life we are not speaking about the existence of something else. When I say life I am speaking about life. It matters not whether I'm speaking about my life, your life, or any other occurrence of life.

From this position when I say life is the "standard of value" this applies equally well to whatever living organism we may be discussing. Absent life value has no meaning or application. Life must exist prior to any discussion about the existence of value. This is because life has specific needs. It is the needs of life that when conceptualized become known as human values.

Edited May 7, 2009 by UncleJim