Rand's gender hierarchy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rest assured, Michael, I read every single one of your posts in the thread discussions I'm actively involved in, often several times.

Xray,

That's worse. In this case, when you ask for quotes, just like you did, as if you do not know what we are talking about, that can only mean 2 things:

1. You are stupid because you did not understand what you read, or

2. You are playing games.

In either case, this kind of behavior is not something I like to have around me. I'll even tolerate the stupid part up to a long point (if that is the case, which I do not believe), but the game playing (which I do believe) is getting old.

(quoting Webster)..."without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

This means what "objective" isn't, which is what I have said you present as a meaning for objective all along. I thought you were intelligent enough to know that.

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

Even you know better than that. You do not define "objective" by saying you do it objectively and call that saying something. But thank you for reminding me. I am going to add that to my list of your meanings for objective. And the phrase "regardless of what one prefers" once again is saying what "objective" isn't.

Your reply was (# 154)(bolding mine):

View PostXray, on May 4 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

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

[Your reply]:

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.

So you AGREED.

Great, I thought, there's a common ground so we can finally get started.

But lo and behold, what happened now? You suddenly flooded me with a torrent of posts: "Define objective", "Define subjective"!

Apparently you have a reading problem because you keep coming back to this as if agreeing with a partial meaning is agreeing with the whole shebang. And I have said all this stuff before. I do agree (fully) with the dictionaries you copied/pasted when they say what objective isn't. I was clear about that. So? That is not a full meaning for objective, and it is especially not enough meaning to declare that "no values are objective" and be logically valid.

For that statement to be valid, you have to know what in hell you are talking about. So far, you have not shown it because you have no real meaning for objective.

Again: 'Independent of mind' does not mean that no mind is involved in this knowledge.

OK. Then please explain, what mind is involved? The minds of the experts in your consensus of them? What happens when one expert disagrees with another. Does his or her mind not count? And how do you choose sides?

More importantly, how is such a mind "involved in knowledge" that is "independent of mind"?

As above, inquiring minds seek enlightenment. Unfortunately I have to use my mind. I accept that metaphysical restriction. I am unable to think without it.

By the way, do you have a meaning for objective that is not (according to your own words):

1. What it isn't,

2. A consensus of experts,

3. Knowledge miraculously outside of human minds, which somehow also doesn't mean "no mind," or

4. Something that is done objectively?

It just gets worser and worser...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I neither blanked it out nor did DF brush anything aside. He pointed out the absurdity of a thinking model as such in which everybody does the same thing.

Xray,

You sure did. Saying differently does not make it so. And it is not absurd at all. Everybody takes nourishment, for example. The ones who do not no longer remain human beings after a relatively short amount of time. So yes, this is something everybody does. How is that absurd?

You are now brushing this aside (thus are wrong). Before you blanked it out.

Human beings have many things in common. That's where the standard for universal values (objective values) come from.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, "objective facts" is a redundancy because all facts are objective. If you know what a fact is you know what objective is.

Values are primarily objective simply because they exist. "Objective values" is a redundancy but justified by the derivative objective/subjective context. Thus when we say "objective values" we are stating we are in that derivative context and where we are in it. If we just say "values" no particular context is being referenced.

Your vain attempts to keep ramming your classification scheme down our throats is rude. We don't need it. We have no use for it. This site is not titled "Subjectivist Living." Start your own site with that and see who comes. Not me. If I did it wouldn't be to argue the superiority of my classifications to yours though I would indicate the difference.

Your subjectivism is by your own arguments just your own personal "objectivism." If you get enough people to agree with your formulation you might raise an army and lay waste to Objectivism. Good luck!

--Brant

Edited July 26, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Just because values like all concepts exist in our heads doesn't make them subjective necessarily. That's like saying concepts are subjective, hence all human (conceptual) knowledge. This is the necessary consequence of Xray's attacks on objective morality and values. She's chewing on science itself. Goodbye Western civilization!

--Brant

[Xray]

Xray, "objective facts" is a redundancy because all facts are objective. If you know what a fact is you know what objective is.

I know that, and in case you have missed it, have commented on it in past posts, pointing out that "objective" in "objective fact" is a pleonasm used for mere stylistic emphasis, since the discussion was explicitly about the word "objective". Since facts can't be anything but objective, I could as well have written "facts".

Values are primarily objective simply because they exist.

It is a fact that values exist, sure.

John Doe values Communism, Jane Doe is a Christian.

So according to this reasoning, one gets that e. g. being a Christian and Communist are both objective values. And every single other value is objective too.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

Values are primarily objective simply because they exist.

It is a fact that values exist, sure.

John Doe values Communism, Jane Doe is a Christiian.

So according to this reasoning, one gets that being a Christian and Communist are both objective values. And every single other value is objective too?

You hit the nail on the head.

[Xray]

My heavens xray! Such an emotional outburst for you, as if what I said has any meaning whatsoever.

Relax,...it's all subjective.

You're confusing subjectiveness with indifference, in other words, either your morality is objective or you don't give a damn, which is a false dichotomy. It's the same kind of argument that some religionists use to suggest that atheists are not entitled to speak about moral issues because they don't accept the authority of the bible and they must therefore be immoral.

So true.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Values are primarily objective simply because they exist.

It is a fact that values exist, sure.

John Doe values Communism, Jane Doe is a Christiian.

So according to this reasoning, one gets that being a Christian and Communist are both objective values. And every single other value is objective too?

Xray,

Absolutely wrong. Leaving aside Brant's momentary sloppy expression (which indicates a completeness that I seriously doubt he means), try to understand what he was saying. There is no evidence to support the existence of God, so any value derived from the existence of God suffers the same restriction. That is a value that does not exist, but one may hold it.

Changing human nature by dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist. So any value derived from the existence of human beings who can change the nature of the human race by being slaves suffers the same restriction. That is a value that does not exist, but one may hold it.

So being a Christian and being a Communist are not objective values. ("Being" is not a value, anyway, but I am wading through all this gawd-awful sloppiness because I wish to punish myself for something I screwed up.) Christianity and Communism are based on subjective premises, thus they are mostly subjective values.

The values Brant was talking about do exist. They are objective because we can know them and their causality through conceptual identification. And we can repeat results.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, "objective facts" is a redundancy because all facts are objective. If you know what a fact is you know what objective is.

I know that, and in case you have missed it, have commented on it in past posts, pointing out that "objective" in "objective fact" is a pleonasm used for mere stylistic emphasis, since the discussion was explicitly abut the word "objective". Since facts can't be anything ut objective, I could as well have written "facts".

Values are primarily objective simply because they exist.

It is a fact that values exist, sure.

John Doe values Communism, Jane Doe is a Christian.

So according to this reasoning, one gets that e. g. being a Christian and Communist are both objective values. And every single other value is objective too.

No, you are mixing up the primary with the secondary contexts.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Michael wrote:

So being a Christian and being a Communist are not objective values. ("Being" is not a value, anyway, but I am wading through all this gawd-awful sloppiness because I wish to punish myself for something I screwed up.) Christianity and Communism are based on subjective premises, thus they are mostly subjective values.

The values Brant was talking about do exist. They are objective because we can know them and their causality through conceptual identification. And we can repeat results.

In which case they would be, not values, but facts. Perhaps you should just claim them to be facts and be done with.

But Objectivism is just as arbitrary as Christianity or Communism. "man qua man" and "man's life as the standard of value" are not logical deductions from reality, nor encapsulations of facts, but subjective valuations. There is nothing in reality that says those can be the only standards (assuming they can be turned into actual definable concepts, which I'm not sure of, especially in the case of "man's life is the standard of value") by which we must evaluate matters. Picking them was simply an act by which Objectivism asserts its values. It picked a foundational value, and derived the others from there; but that was a subjective choice, and not one ineluctably forced on anyone by reality.

Edited July 27, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeffery,

If you do not do certain things like eat, you will die. That is not a fact?

In Objectivism, all good values are based on facts. (That's what the epistemological process is supposed to be, anyway.)

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Jeffery,

If you do not do certain things like eat, you will die. That is not a fact?

Which is why we call eating a necessity. But sometimes not eating is necessary in the support of our health and welfare, and sometimes we eat when eating is not needed. Every individual decides for themselves subjectively on those questions, sometimes with input from a doctor.

But I don't know of any moral philosophy that deems eating to be a morally mandated thing. Grandmothers, yes. Moral philosophies, no. Food may be valued, or different sorts of food in comparison with other sorts, but eating is not a moral value; it's not up there with truth, justice, and the American way of life, or whatever list of virtues populates your moral code. And it's how to reach those more abstract virtues (truth, justice, etc.) that is really the ones at issue here.

In Objectivism, all good values are based on facts. (That's what the epistemological process is supposed to be, anyway.)

Michael

But Objectivist values are not based on facts: they are based on a particular anthropology which might conform to facts, but does not necessarily do so. I don't have to pick "rational animal" as the basis of my anthropology: I could use "political animal" or "social animal" (per the Peripatetic usage), and that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. I could make a reasonable argument from biology that it's the good of the species, or at least the community, which should be our standard; I could make an argument from psychology that emotional fulfillment or psychological integration should be our standard. It runs in the other direction too: I can derive almost all of Objectivist morality (including its condemnation of altruism) from the premise that God exists.

Nor does it help matters that when you actually parse out "man's life is the standard of value", the meaning of "man's life" can only be determined by acts of subjective valuation. And settling on that as the foundation of morality is merely a choice among other valid possibilities; it's a subjective choice, as arbitrary as any religious claim.

Side note: I've noticed that some people schooled in Objectivism refer to actual objects as "values", especially those which are produced by human beings--I assume because those objects are items of economic value (and possibly other sorts of value, artistic, technological, etc.). I'm assuming you aren't following that usage here.

Edited July 27, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Matus1976]

You just don't get it, Matus. "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality (i. e. the claim that objective morality exists) is a simple fallacy, regardless of whether people believe it to be dictated by god or dictated by what they conceive as "reason". (which one could call the Objecivists' "god" ) . It's that simple.

You just don't get it, XRay, "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality is simply the same as "Objective" in the context of any analysis of reason. You must use a different definition in order for your twisted point to be valid, as any elementary listing of your actual logical argument would prove.

The discussion is not about properties of matter (an entirely different subject), but about "morality", i. e. ethical values. If you run off on a tangent, it will only take the focus away from the real issue.

This discussion is exactly about the properties of matter, the properties of matter that make up things which live, and the rules of existence which govern those things which live. Those rules say that unless those things which live behave in a manner which makes them continue to live, they will die. Morality, which is the question about how living things ought to behave, is a question about matter, reality, and existence, because living things exist in reality made of matter.

Please provdide a definition for "objective" which is equally applicable to the thing you think "Objective" in morality is not, AND the thing which you think "Objectivity" in Science is.

i.e. "Objective" is something a religious mystic declares is true.

Therefore

"Objective" Morality is a prescription for behavior that some mystic declares is true.

"Objective" Science is a declaration about a property of matter that someone, anyone, declares to be true, merely because he declares it to be true. (WRONG) Obviously this is not true

or

"Objective" is an aspect of reality that can be determined by any mind and is unaffected by bias, preference, or values.

Therefore

"Objective" In science is a statement about the nature of a property of matter, such as the mass of an electron, that exists independantly of any one's opinions, preferences, or biases.

"Objective" in Morality is the observation of the reality that for living entities to continue to live, they must behave according to the laws of reality demanded in order to ensure their survival - laws that are not effected by opnions, values, or preferences.

The *only* definition of "Objective" which can be rationally applied to "Morality" and "science" is the latter, so unless you are making up an entirely different definition - which invalidates your argument - then you have no argument to make

[Matus]:

Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is the objective standard of morality, but only one thing is, because everything else destroys life.

Sorry to burst your bubble again, but there have existed (and still exist) enough systems of morality which accept destroying life.

You're not bursting my bubble, you're instead re-enforcing how much of a stagnant close minded idiot you are in repeating over and over again irrelevant things. It doesnt matter if someone 'chooses' something that 'destroys live' as their OBJECTIVE standard of morality, OBJECTIVE means it is NOT subjected to CHOICE, these thigns are not an "OBJECTIVE" standard for morality because they lead to death, and MORALITY pertains ONLY to the QUESTION OF HOW LIVING BEINGS OUGHT TO LIVE. For Living Beings to continue to live, they must behave according to the laws of physics, otherwise they die.

Which planet do you live on, Matus?

I live on earth, where existence exists, where words have meanings, and where actions have consequences.

In short, the term "morality" is merely an empty container people fill with the subjective ethical values suiting their purposes.

Ok, so the definition of MORALITY which you CHOOSE, has SUBJECTIVE contained within the VERY definition, HA. Ok, so to the definition of morality might as well be

MORALITY Xray1) Something which absolute can not be objective, because I say so.

And.. you are somebody important? do you officially declare the definitions of words? ha. Funny none of the definitions of Morality I looked up actually say "an empty container people fill with subjective ethical values"

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson

a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b

plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct4: moral conduct : virtue

Again, over and over and over again, it must be repeated to you, OBJECTIVE has nothing to do with CHOICE. Something is not OBJECTIVE merely because someone is unable to CHOOSE otherwise. It doesnt matter than a million different 'standards' of morality are considered 'objective', because objective MEANS *SPECIFICALLY* not dependant upon choice, opinions, or mystical divination. It means it is available, rationally, to anyone.

People can CHOOSE whatever subjective standard for values they want, but all of them will lead to DEATH, unless the standard is life, and that is the absolute OBJECTIVE unavoidable consequence of reality.

[Matus1976]

Dragonfly

I agree. However, in the case of the physical properties the use of the scientific method will ensure that different people will ultimately get the same result, therefore there is for example a general consensus among people who use the scientific method about the mass of the proton. No such consensus exists about moral principles however,

Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective" But this 'lack of consenses' anyway - is because those people, and you, and X-Ray, continue to insist that "OBJECTIVE" *ONLY* in the context of morality means it must be accepted by everyone and nothing other than that ever believed.

If there is an "OBJECTIVE" Standard of morality, the rationality, logic, and science will answer in the affirmative or negative. Only one definition of Morality is not irrational, the standard by which living beings choose to live.

Define morality in a manner that is not irrational and self refuting, e.g. Morality can not be a series of behaviors, because morality is a subset of types of behaviors that a entity capable of behaving performs - not just all behaviors, because no question would be necessary. Now define OBJECTIVE in a manner that is applicable to the SCIENTIFIC use of the term, and using those definitions, ask yourself what is the objective standard for morality. Please, as an excercise, go ahead and write out your definitions and statement.

[Brant Gaede]

We have yet to hear one little word from Xray about what her morality is, her values are, her philosophy is. She has eschewed reason yet she tries(?) to reason(?) with us. I have to admit that no matter how much we use her to mop the floor she keeps asking for more and more.

Okay Xray, you win, all values, everlasting even if changing values, are subjective: now what? We are left empty vessels--fill us.

If you mean we are already full but we've mislabeled the contents, isn't that rather trite considering your fanatical efforts here?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeffery,

I don't understand your understanding of Objectivism.

For example, necessity to act on pain of death is seeking a value, and even more so when you have volition and can act differently. Eating isn't a value, it's a biological process. But food is a value.

That's just for starters.

What have you read of Rand?

Michael

[Xray]

(quoting Webster)..."without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

This means what "objective" isn't, which is what I have said you present as a meaning for objective all along. I thought you were intelligent enough to know that.

You cut out the first part:

"expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived"

So it has also been stated what objective is: "expressing or dealing with FACTS or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

Aside from that, it is not at all unusual for a definition to also be emphasized and clarified by contrasts and/or

application examples. The dictionary definition of the term, objective, is a classic example.

You do not define "objective" by saying you do it objectively and call that saying something.

But thank you for reminding me. I am going to add that to my list of your meanings

for objective. And the phrase "regardless of what one prefers" once again is

saying what "objective" isn't.

"

You can leave out the redundant "objective" here and just say say "facts".

So we get: To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on facts regardless of what one prefers.

You btw agreed that you use the term objective in the same way even when the redundant word was still in the phrase.

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

Everything obviously was so clear to you back then, and we could long since have gotten started.

Here's another good definition offered by Matus (who quoted Gaukroger):

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the

object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the

particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense,

impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it

does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular

subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be

contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785)[Matus]

Do you think is is valid epistemology with a 100% application?

If not, why not?

Since I endorse this epistemological criteria as well, perhaps, it can serve

as a common frame of reference in further discussion. However, given the

importance of this issue, I deem it prudent to break it down in examination

to see if we really are on the same page.

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the

object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the

particular subject who studies it."

The way I see it, "does not depend on any features of the particular subject

who studies it" means that the account is completely void of an personal

valuations by the observer. It is the identification of what exists

independently of any value judgment.

Agree? If not, why not?

"An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally

be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions,

prejudices, or values of particular subjects.'

This is merely a repeat of the above in different terms. "ideally be

accepted by any subject", referring to subject as observer, means acceptance

is possible to all observers due to the fact that what is observed is what

it is absent of any distortion by personal preference or wishes.

Agree? If not, why not?

"This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to

the object studied."

This logically follows the foregoing. "disputes can be contained to the

object studied" means the object studied is independent of any personal

value judgment, hence, serves as a common frame of reference in resolving

disagreement about the object studied.

In the early stages of inquiry of specific objects, there is often

disagreeing conclusions. However, since the object of study is a common

objective referent, further examination and testing can serve to resolve the

disputes.

For instance, in the early era of science, there may well have

been disagreement as to the composition of an electron. By testing, these

disagreements were resolved. The agreement did not make the electron what it

is, but what it is did make it observable and amenable to testing with

subsequent results seen and agreed upon by the observers.

The elements of the Gaukroger objective account all converge upon a very

direct and simple definition: objective account is an identification and

description of that which exists independently of mind, without contamination

or revision by wishes, personal preference, or preferred beliefs;

not directly nor indirectly influenced by subjective value

judgments.

If we are in agreement on this criteria of epistemology, we can proceed with

discussion with said criteria the constant reference. If there is some

disagreement, please state what and why to be addressed in seeking resolution.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly

I agree. However, in the case of the physical properties the use of the scientific method will ensure that different people will ultimately get the same result, therefore there is for example a general consensus among people who use the scientific method about the mass of the proton. No such consensus exists about moral principles however,

Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective"

You ignore the essential part in my quote, namely the scientific method. If you think that this is the same as 'popular vote', then you have no idea what science entails, as this is the crucial difference between objective and subjective arguments, it guarantees that the results of different persons will converge, independently of the person who uses this method (which does not mean that it is infallible, new data and new insights may change the result).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So it has also been stated what objective is: "expressing or dealing with FACTS or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

Xray,

You are getting warm.

But still this is not a full logical meaning for objective and we still only have copy/paste Xray-speak.

Here is what I mean. Can you tell me when perception of a fact or condition actually is objective as opposed to arbitrary (or subjective)? For instance, you see an optical illusion. Is your perception of that fact objective? Which part do you call the fact, anyway? The thing you perceive or the illusion which distorts it?

Another thing, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. How do you know when your perception is working correctly?

Michael

[tjohnson]

There is no evidence to support the existence of God, so any value derived from the existence of God suffers the same restriction. That is a value that does not exist, but one may hold it.

The fact that there is currently no evidence that God exists does not mean God doesn't exist. If I choose to believe in God then that value exists for me

[Selene]

There is no evidence to support the existence of God, so any value derived from the existence of God suffers the same restriction. That is a value that does not exist, but one may hold it.

The fact that there is currently no evidence that God exists does not mean God doesn't exist. If I choose to believe in God then that value exists for me

Interesting because the Dalai dude explains the principle of the scope of negation" which states that:

"there is a fundamental difference between that which is 'not found' and that which is 'found not to exist.'

If I look for something, and fail to find it, this does not mean the same as seeing its non-existence."

He explains that this principle of Buddhism resonates with Popper's falsifiability thesis. He was an admirer of Popper, who expressed to the Dalai

that he was much more terrified of Communism than fascism.

Adam

Edited July 28, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

So it has also been stated what objective is: "expressing or dealing with FACTS or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

Xray,

You are getting warm.

But still this is not a full logical meaning for objective and we still only have copy/paste Xray-speak.

The "copy/paste Xray-speak" is the definition offered by Webster's and Gaukroger.

It most certainly is a "full logical meaning" with said meaning clearly defined and emphasized by contrast:

"expressing or dealing with FACTS or conditions as perceived

without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." The statement of exclusions are

exclusions of elements that would contradict the definition.

Here is what I mean. Can you tell me when perception of a fact or condition actually is objective as opposed to arbitrary (or subjective)? For instance, you see an optical illusion. Is your perception of that fact objective? Which part do you call the fact, anyway? The thing you perceive or the illusion which distorts it?

In that case, the object studied (for example in an optical illusion two lines on paper, one of which appearing to be considerably longer than the other) is the objective referent, offering the common frame of reference for the subjects looking at it.

The lines exist independently of any personal value judgements, wishes, preferences by the subjects looking at it, i. e. can be objectively observed.

Then the data are collected, i. e. the observers state which line they think is longer. In optical illusiuons, the observations will converge, that is, virtually everybody will say one line is (or appears to be) longer.

Then the test is perfomed by actually measuring the lines, proving the perceptions to have been misleading. How the misleading occurs can be another object of study focusing on how images are being processed in our brain.

The proof by measuring again has the subjects as observers, and acceptance is possible to all observers due to the fact that what is observed is absent of any distortion by personal preference or wishes.

Since the object of study is a common objective referent, further examination and testing can serve to resolve the error.

Which part do you call the fact, anyway? The thing you perceive or the illusion which distorts it?

The facts are multiple: The thing perceived is a fact, the act of perception itself is a fact, the processing in the brain (generating an illusionary image in that case) is a fact as well. The measuring is another fact.

It is therefore a fact that humans can be subject to optical illusions. This is an objective statement (i. e. not disorted by personal feelings, value judgements etc).

Edited July 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeffery,

I don't understand your understanding of Objectivism.

For example, necessity to act on pain of death is seeking a value, and even more so when you have volition and can act differently. Eating isn't a value, it's a biological process. But food is a value.

That's just for starters.

What have you read of Rand?

Michael

In # 154, JS already said what he has read of Rand.

Biological necessities and values are not the same. People can also decide to go against biological necessities, for example a drug addict choosing the drug over his health.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Jeffery,

I don't understand your understanding of Objectivism.

For example, necessity to act on pain of death is seeking a value, and even more so when you have volition and can act differently. Eating isn't a value, it's a biological process. But food is a value.

That's just for starters.

What have you read of Rand?

Michael

What I am saying boils down to this: saying that man's life is the standard of value is itself a subjective choice of values. To say that morality consists in obeying reality for the sake of continuing one's existence is not an objective statement of facts logically deduced from reality: it is merely the expression of one's own values, a primary value--the preference for continuance of material life--to which all other values are subordinated. It's not the only possible morality which can coexist safely with the facts of reality: psychological wholeness, the wellbeing of one's community or species, selfless love (what Christianity calls agape), pure hedonism (in as much as it actually differs from Objectivism) being the principle non religious alternatives, all of them being subjective choices expressive of one's primary values.

I don't have a problem with Objectivism claiming that the best way for a human being to live is to fulfill the Objectivist moral code; but I do object to it claiming an objective basis in fact that it does not in fact have.

There's also the fact that "man's life" is itself a fairly content free phrase, and choosing what you mean by it is another expression of one's primary values, not something logically deduced from the facts of reality. It can mean something that is merely the continuation of one's existence--which is why pure hedonism does not necessarily differ Objectivism; or it can mean something more idealistic. Objectivism apparently wants it to mean something more idealistic, but it's not very clear to me how much more idealistic, or indeed what that higher ideal actually is: the meaning tends to dissipate like a fog being grasped by a human hand.

As to your question about what I've read by Rand--I gave that answer in greater detail somewhere upthread; but to save you and me time--what I've read by her that is pertinent to this discussion is Virtue of Selfishness and Intro to Objectivist Ethics, and scattered other essays; and ancillary to that Piekoff's primer on Objectivism.

[Selene]

Jeff:

Quick question, is there an objectively "...best way for a human being to live..."?

Adam