Rand's gender hierarchy

[jeffrey smith]

How does causation apply to something like honesty?

Jeff,

That's easy. If you accept the human entity (thus human nature) as a cause generating force, you look at how honesty impacts it. Honesty by itself is too broad to be useful, though. Honesty to whom should be the starting point.

Honesty to yourself is a good thing in almost all contexts. When you lie to yourself, you sabotage your mind.

As to honesty to others, the traditional Objectivist view is that it depends on the evaluation you have of the intention of the other. One example often cited is that it is no virtue to tell a robber that there are jewels hidden in a safe, but it is a virtue to lie to him and say there are no jewels (if you can get away with it). The reasoning is that dealing with others honestly is a trade. If someone starts by using force or fraud against you, you have no moral obligation to hold to a contextless principle (i.e., there is no metaphysical value in blanking out context since you eliminate part of reality—i.e., a fact-based value cannot come with random chunks of reality chopped off and still be fact-based).

[digression on ARIan* cogitations deleted]

. Notice that honesty does not occur isolated from everything else in life. There are other values to be weighed and prioritized according to standards at the time honesty is practiced. That's just life.

For instance, would you lie to an honest person if that were the only way to save your daughter's life? I would without even blinking. I would clean up the mess later if that were possible since I value the honest person, too, but I would not have any moral meltdown about such a lie. On the contrary, I would feel pride at acting to save my daughter's life.

Because so many values are simultaneously involved in living, I do see how it can appear that a value is considered as subjective only. But that throws out all measurements and standards. The only way to navigate the complexity of living with any degree of effectiveness (and I mean effectiveness that applies to anyone who practices it) is to know the hows and whys and what fors of your values and prioritize them accordingly, i.e., to hold objective values.

There is another part of causality and human nature that governs honesty. If you lie too much to people, you will have no credibility with them when you tell the truth.

Michael

I don't think of the value principle of honesty being a causal agent in the way you seem to, unless you elevate "being one of the motivating factors" to the status of actual causation. The human being who acts is the causal agent: he or she acts, "honesty" doesn't.

But to my mind you've provided a good illustration of how values must be subjective. They are judgments, and have to be prioritized. If honesty were really an objective value, than there would never be a context in which dishonesty was morally correct. You could never prioritize it in relation to some other value principle.

However, when you say this:

Honesty to yourself is a good thing in almost all contexts. When you lie to yourself, you sabotage your mind.

I'm inclined to say you may have hit on the one possible value principle that is objective: accepting reality as reality. I can't think of any context in which being dishonest to yourself might be a good thing.

But, unfortunately, it's not really possible to deduce any other value principles from that which are universally valid--meaning there is no context in which they should not be practiced. And the judging of contexts to decide when a value principle should or should not be brought to bear is part of what makes the value principle subjective.

*Anyone ever comment on the fact that seventeen hundred years ago it was the Arians who were the heretics?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think of the value principle of honesty being a causal agent in the way you seem to, unless you elevate "being one of the motivating factors" to the status of actual causation. The human being who acts is the causal agent: he or she acts, "honesty" doesn't.

Jeff,

We agree on this. I have no idea how you derived what you attributed to me (that honesty is a causal agent) from my words.

My words were "if you accept the human entity (thus human nature) as a cause generating force, you look at how honesty impacts it."

I admit that was not my finest moment of clarity, but it certainly does not say that honesty is a cause generating force. I basically meant that honesty has to be considered in relation to human beings, not human beings in relation to honesty. And human beings are vastly more complex than a principle without context.

For the record, I do not agree that values have to be subjective. Some are and some are objective. Imagining one without the other is like having a top without a bottom. I do agree that my use of value is broader than yours. Mine is more fundamental root-wise. In fact, if you look at the roots, you might even rethink some of the values you now consider to be subjective. But it's a different perspective than what you are looking from.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Freedom is either a value or it isn't. The question of whether it is an objective or subjective value is different.

I wanted to know if freedom was a value (to Xray). It seems I should have included "to Xray" in my queston.

So Xray, is freedom a value to you?

--Brant

pulling teeth

By adding the qualifier "to you", you have linked it to me as an individual entiy subjectively attributing value (or not) to something.

Even then I have to ask you for specifics before replying. For it is always "freedom from what"; "freedom to do what".

But in case your question is directed at freedom of mind (as I suppose it is), yes it is value to me. One of the the values I hold highest.

Bur not everyone values a free mind. Dictators loathe people with free minds, which means they don't consider the desire for feedom a value at all. The same is true for many ideolgists.

Many people prefer following a leader figure over their freedom; just think of the Jim Jones tragedy or the collective hysteria of the Third Reich. "Führer, wir folgen dir!" ("Leader, we follow you!") they cried, blindly following him into the abyss of total destruction. Freedom was (and is) willingly relinquished by many in order to let others guide them.

In short, freedom is a value to many, Brant, but by no means to all.

When you attentively read the recent interesting discussion between Michael and Jeffrey, again it becomes clear that values can't be anything but subjective.

Come, come, come. The Jews, just before they were gassed, had "freedom of mind."

You are just as helpless, and not even in a death/concentration camp.

--Brant

knows freedom

[Brant Gaede]

To have freedom you have to fight for it. You have to fight the enemies of freedom for your freedom.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Above all to have freedom you have to know freedom and value a philosophy of freedom and do this as objectively as you can. A philosophy of freedom is a philosophy of individualism is a philosophy of self-interest is a philosophy of reason is a philosophy for reality looking backward to the goo we came out of.

--Brant

[Selene]

Above all to have freedom you have to know freedom and value a philosophy of freedom and do this as objectively as you can. A philosophy of freedom is a philosophy of individualism is a philosophy of self-interest is a philosophy of reason is a philosophy for reality looking backward to the goo we came out of.

--Brant

Brant:

Well said. Have you listened or seen the Big and Rich performance on Imus of The 8th of November?

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns, for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot. Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands.

You are lecturing a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran about firearms and fighting.

--Brant

I was not lecturing you about firearms, but pointing out that not every "layperson" carrying a gun may be able to handle them as intended in an emergency.

Now you are saying water is wet. That is not what you said before.

Yes it was. It was obvious that she was not talking about a United States Army Special Forces combat veteran, but about the average person with no experience with firearms. You shouldn't jump to unwarranted conclusions in a knee-jerk reflex.

DF, what she talked about was complete self-defense ignorance. There are thousands of people qualified to lecture me about firearms and fighting and self defense in spite of all I know from training and experience. She is not qualified to tell anyone about anything in this area, revealed by what she said. I am expert enough to evaluate any expert in this area and anybody else; that's saying a lot. It's enough to make me think that everything else she has been saying might be complete BS, but I haven't come to that conclusion yet and I won't just from that.

--Brant

Edited August 18, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Brant:

I am glad it rang as "off" to you as it did for me. Even taking into account the "language" issue.

"Even if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, and with shotgun training, I would feel extremely uncomfortable walking around with a loaded gun.

I would be constantly afraid it might go off, and suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns,

for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot.

Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands."

Shotgun training????? What an hour on a skeet range?

"Walking around with a loaded gun"?<<<<<<<<<<<<no one would even conceive of that phrase as a gun is always loaded - ALWAYS -

"...afraid it might go off,..."??????????????sorry - bull shit.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

I am glad it rang as "off" to you as it did for me. Even taking into account the "language" issue.

"Even if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, and with shotgun training, I would feel extremely uncomfortable walking around with a loaded gun.

I would be constantly afraid it might go off, and suppose one is being attacked, the situation is by no means like in gangster movies or westerns,

for in real life one often does not have the time to react fast enough to pull the gun, let alone the presence of mind to fire off an effective shot.

Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands."

Shotgun training????? What an hour on a skeet range?

"Walking around with a loaded gun"?<<<<<<<<<<<<no one would even conceive of that phrase as a gun is always loaded - ALWAYS -

"...afraid it might go off,..."??????????????sorry - bull shit.

Adam

Well, Adam, I'd be extremely concerned too if she were walking around with a loaded shotgun.

--Brant

Edited August 18, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Your statement on freedom indicates how much it is an objective value. If you do not choose it, others will take what freedom you have from you and never let you have it back.

Reality does not forgive subjectivity in matters like freedom.

Michael

[Xray]

"Walking around with a loaded gun"?<<<<<<<<<<<<no one would even conceive of that phrase as a gun is always loaded - ALWAYS -

"...afraid it might go off,..."??????????????sorry - bull shit.

Adam

It is a quite common phrase.

Yes, "afraid it might go off" is training rule number one. The correct training is to treat a gun of whatever type as if it is always loaded. I have this info from a person having experience with weapons.

Even with a weapon "on safety" (is that the English term for German, "gesichert"?), I still would be afraid. That's just the way it is when it comes to my layperson's inexperienced attitude toward weapons.

If one feels as uncomfortable in handling a weapon as I would, the chances are slim to none that one would be able to use it effectively in an emergency.

Just think of the many accidents laypeople have had with guns. Even to pros it can happen.

The person I mentioned told me he has had a gun (shotgun) go off when not intended. The safety jammed and when he released the safety, the gun went off without his finger on the trigger. It didn't do any harm because of his shotgun training, he had it pointed away from doing any harm. That is why a responsible gun handler is always careful about where the gun is pointing.

I wrote:

"Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands."

Why does that seem so unlikely to you? Suppose someone is assaulted from behind, he/she may not even have the time to get at their weapon.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Dayaamm! I don't know what is wrong with me. I know this is going to be a mistake, but here goes.

Objectivity is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness.

No, no, no, no, and, if you are in doubt, no.

That is not objectivity. You left out the other half.

This copy/paste fishing habit of yours makes you clever at times, but it would bode you much, much better to think through the concepts.

Reality does exist independently of any perceiver's consciousness. You got that part right, but that's not the whole story. Here's the part you leave out. Man's mind is made so he can accurately perceive reality (and organize it) and even know how he does that. He aligns knowledge of how his mind works with perception of what exists outside his mind. And he can verify (by observing) the same results as he gets in other healthy human beings.

That is objectivity. And that is in my own words, without any copy/paste or jargon or fishing.

And that is precisely what "recognition" of the fact implies: a mind capable of doing the 'recognizing'.

So there's no contradiction at all between what was defined in the quote and your expanding on it.

(I put words to the concept. I don't derive the concept from fishing for words as I observe you do.)

You merely elaborated on what kind of mind is needed to recognize the fact that reality exists independently of any perceiver's consciousness, i. e. with epistemology and the mental dealing of what is believed to exist.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

When you attentively read the recent interesting discussion between Michael and Jeffrey, again it becomes clear that values can't be anything but subjective.

Xray,

Absolutely wrong. Our discussion actually made it clear that values (including freedom) do not exist in a vacuum where no other values exist. Values coexist with other values and contexts. That is what our discussion made clear.

You pretend freedom (or any other value) does exist isolated from everything else in order to call it subjective. That is your conceptual flaw.

Michael

But Michael, how can you so completely misunderstand my position? I have time and again pointed out the exact opposite, like in one of my past posts to Brant where I wrote: (he had asked me if freedom is a value to me).

Xray:

"By adding the qualifier "to you", you have linked it to me as an individual entiy subjectively attributing value (or not) to something.

Even then I have to ask you for specifics before replying. For it is always "Whose freedom from what?"; "Whose freedom to do what?". (end quote)

So it is precisely the opposite of any 'vacuum' in which the term "freedom" floats around isolated and unanchored to anything.

That's why I asked for specifics to connect the term to entity identity.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"Walking around with a loaded gun"?<<<<<<<<<<<<no one would even conceive of that phrase as a gun is always loaded - ALWAYS -

"...afraid it might go off,..."??????????????sorry - bull shit.

Adam

Even with a weapon "on safety" (is that the English term for German, "gesichert"?), I still would be afraid. That's just the way it is. If one feels as uncomfortable in handling a weapon as I would, the chances are slim to none that one would be able to use it effectively in an emergency.

Just think of the many accdidents laypersons have had with guns. Even to pros it can happen.

I wrote:

"Also, in a fight, a physically stronger assailant could easily wrestle the gun from one's hands."

Why does that seem so unlikely to you? Suppose someone is assaulted from behind, he/she may not even have the time to get at their weapon.

If you had a need to carry a gun and decided you would, you would of course get proper training and instruction. You would do the same if you had a need to drive a car but didn't know how. I don't know Germany and don't know what Germans should or might properly do, urban and rural, apropos to what risks. In Great Britain and Australia they need citizens carrying concealed weapons and a better understanding and appreciation of the right to self defense. I couldn't stand living in GB or Australia. Too much crime. Too much pussification. A disarmed citizenry--except for the criminals--is a bunch of Eloi.

I would not want to wrestle a 100 lb woman with a gun for that gun, assuming she'd let me. As a criminal I'd much rather attack a 100 lb woman who had no gun. There is much more to firearms' training than the firearm and how to use it. There is learning how not to get into a wrestling match over the gun in the first place. One way is you have to be willing to pull the trigger and kill somebody. Pull it twice. Even a heavy caliber pistol will not knock someone down so the assailant will still be standing after you put a bullet into his chest. After two shots self defense becomes more problematic.

As for carrying a shotgun, I'd actually not take one off my property. The neighbors would freak out, even around here. At this time I don't even want a shotgun in my home for safety reasons. If I lived alone I might get one. I have other tricks up my sleeve and a dog that barks. It all has to do with relative risk assesment.

--Brant

safe to live with

Edited August 18, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Xray,

I was going to let you think through the conclusion, but I don't want to have this go off into another of your long-winded dogma-fests without having the conclusion near. (This is for the benefit of other readers, not you, although you are most welcome to ponder it.)

The moment you realize that the mind can know its own nature, since the nature of the mind is part of reality, then you realize that the mind can know the values that its nature requires to allow it to work correctly.

That knowledge makes such values objective.

Michael

The flaw in your argument is this:

The mind can not know the "values" its nature requires to allow it work correctly.

It can only know the facts which allow it to work correctly. That's because it is impossible for a "value" to be objective: if it is objective, it is not a "value", but a fact.

That's right. "Fact" ist the correct term here. Rand would have eliminated a lot of confusion if she had not used the term "values" so profusely.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeff,

Before we get to society, we have to deal with human nature. My recent posts have been within this context.

What values are needed by a mind in order for it to work properly? There are many, but the most important I have found in my life is an abstract value, but an objective value nonetheless: balance.

When my mental processes are out of balance, I tend to fall off into gross exaggeration. Whereas 2 of something will ring anyone's ding-a-ling, I tend to go for 10.

That doesn't mean only middle though. The value of balance can include sporadic excesses—after all, we are not robots—but it cannot include the binges I used to go on. When I binge, my mind is no longer very reliable. That goes for binging on drugs, alcohol or even reading, eating or letting a strong emotion take over my thoughts for days at a time.

I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value.

The only exception I currently allow for myself is super-focus when I write or study. Even then, I do not let it consume me days at a time like I used to do until I collapse from exhaustion. I have found that rest makes my mind work better. (Discipline is the cousin to balance.)

Due to my experiences in life, I know for a fact that mental balance is an objective value. It is always available and it always works the same way when I choose it. As icing on that cake, when I choose it, my mind chooses other stuff with far more wisdom than when I am binging.

These are facts. Not subjective opinions.

Michael

EDIT: btw - Values are facts. The laws of identity and causality apply to them.

Jeffrey:

But to use your illustration--balance helps clear thinking. That is a fact. That you choose to make use of that fact is a value principle that derives from another value principle--the idea that clear thinking is a good thing.

It's derived from your judgments about the worth of clear thinking and the subsidiary worth of balance. But balance is not a value. The actual value principle involved is the desire to be in a state of balance.

Correct. Michael's subjectively chosen goal is to stay in mental balance, and he chooses not going on binges as the means he believes appropriate to achieve his individually desired goal.

MSK: I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value.

You can choose your subjective values.

MSK:

EDIT: btw - Values are facts. The laws of identity and causality apply to them.

You can phrase it like that: it is a fact that people have values.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The problem is that it is difficult to argue intellectually with an individual who makes claims without premises. Remember, if everything is subjective, there can be no system upon which any claims are meaningful.

Did anyone say here that everything is subjective?

I too would like Christopher to quote the post where I said "everything is subjective". (??)

Xray, on 15 August 2009 - 07:24 AM, said:

Since human life is no "value system" but a biological phenomenon (to which

one can attribute value or not), the premise does not conform to reality.

Christopher:

"What system in the universe upholds the assertion that all values are

subjective? If no system can be defined, then the assertion is arbitrary."

The mental system of each individual with the natural characteristic of attributing value.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Jeff,

Before we get to society, we have to deal with human nature. My recent posts have been within this context.

What values are needed by a mind in order for it to work properly? There are many, but the most important I have found in my life is an abstract value, but an objective value nonetheless: balance.

When my mental processes are out of balance, I tend to fall off into gross exaggeration. Whereas 2 of something will ring anyone's ding-a-ling, I tend to go for 10.

That doesn't mean only middle though. The value of balance can include sporadic excesses—after all, we are not robots—but it cannot include the binges I used to go on. When I binge, my mind is no longer very reliable. That goes for binging on drugs, alcohol or even reading, eating or letting a strong emotion take over my thoughts for days at a time.

I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value.

The only exception I currently allow for myself is super-focus when I write or study. Even then, I do not let it consume me days at a time like I used to do until I collapse from exhaustion. I have found that rest makes my mind work better. (Discipline is the cousin to balance.)

Due to my experiences in life, I know for a fact that mental balance is an objective value. It is always available and it always works the same way when I choose it. As icing on that cake, when I choose it, my mind chooses other stuff with far more wisdom than when I am binging.

These are facts. Not subjective opinions.

Michael

EDIT: btw - Values are facts. The laws of identity and causality apply to them.

Jeffrey:

But to use your illustration--balance helps clear thinking. That is a fact. That you choose to make use of that fact is a value principle that derives from another value principle--the idea that clear thinking is a good thing.

It's derived from your judgments about the worth of clear thinking and the subsidiary worth of balance. But balance is not a value. The actual value principle involved is the desire to be in a state of balance.

Correct. Michael's subjectively chosen goal is to stay in mental balance, and chooses going on binges as the means to achieve the individually desired goal.

MSK: I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value.

You can choose your subjective values.

MSK:

EDIT: btw - Values are facts. The laws of identity and causality apply to them.

You can phrase it like that: it is a fact that people have values.

xray:

"MSK: I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value."

Your response:

"You can choose your subjective values."

Here is a new concept. Step out of your instinct to use the phrase "subjective values" somewhere in any statement.

Try to respond to the volitional choice of one course of action rather than another. Choice 1) binges will lead to a host of negatives for the volitional organism, possibly the end of it's existence, e.g., MSK and Choice 2) will lead to a host of positives for the volitional organism, possibly a long, happy and successful life.

Can you entertain the concept that choosing the second option is clearly an objective - independent of the participant and a value that which one strives to obtain for it's objective self interest.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

See what I mean about spamming dogma instead of trying to understand what the posters are writing?

It's a matter of Xray speaking only in Xray-speak and trying to win arguments that are in English. I do not detect a sincere wish to discover truth in her.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fundamental values are not spaghetti sauce.

Here is an excellent TED video on subjective values by the bestselling behavior pathfinder, Malcolm Gladwell. (You have to forgive his hair. )

Malcolm Gladwell on spaghetti sauce

<object width="334" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param'>http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/MalcolmGladwell_2004-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/MalcolmGladwell-2004.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=320&vh=240&ap=0&ti=20" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="334" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/MalcolmGladwell_2004-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/MalcolmGladwell-2004.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=320&vh=240&ap=0&ti=20"></embed></object>

Notice that even when subjective values are studied and categorized, the people holding them come in clusters, not isolated individuals. That says something about the extent of variety in human nature.

Notice also that to hold subjective values (or objective ones for that matter), a person has to be alive. That is the objective standard and fundamental value ("end in itself"). One lives to live and that's as far as it goes on the deepest level. Choosing to continue to be alive is objective—the objective root of all values, both objective and subjective—because without being alive, there are no values at all. Choosing death is not a value. It is giving up on values.

Michael

[Xray]

xray:

"MSK: I can choose balance. Or I can choose binging. I cannot have both. That makes this a value."

Your response:

"You can choose your subjective values."

Here is a new concept. Step out of your instinct to use the phrase "subjective values" somewhere in any statement.

Try to respond to the volitional choice of one course of action rather than another. Choice 1) binges will lead to a host of negatives for the volitional organism, possibly the end of it's existence, e.g., MSK and Choice 2) will lead to a host of positives for the volitional organism, possibly a long, happy and successful life.

Can you entertain the concept that choosing the second option is clearly an objective - independent of the participant and a value that which one strives to obtain for it's objective self interest.

Adam

Here is a new concept. Step out of your instinct to use the phrase "subjective values" somewhere in any statement.

Selene,

"Values" are always a matter of personal choice, hence subjective. Therefore it is no matter of "instinct" to call them what they are, but a matter of clarity. Since the contention was that values are objective, I used 'subjective' with value to emphasize that the contrary is the case.

We might as well call them merely 'values' since "subjective" in subjective value is as redundant as "objective" in objective fact.

Try to respond to the volitional choice of one course of action rather than another

Volitional choice of one course of action over another is an excellent way of putting it, Selene

(Although strictly speaking, volitional in choice is redundant too since choice implies volition, but volitional can be used for emphasis here, indicating a volitional entitiy attributing value).

Choice 1) binges will lead to a host of negatives for the volitional organism, possibly the end of it's existence, e.g., MSK and Choice 2) will lead to a host of positives for the volitional organism, possibly a long, happy and successful life.

You try to describe the physical effects of a choice, but your description is laced with value judgements on your part.

For an individual may still value "binges" higher, regardless of the effects it has on the organism.

Can you entertain the concept that choosing the second option is clearly an objective - independent of the participant and a value that which one strives to obtain for it's objective self interest.

"Objective" as a noun means "goal". ("Susan's objective was to recruit new members for her church").

A choice is always goal-directed, and self-interest is the motive in EVERY choice we make.

That is, a teetotaler is driven by self-interest as much as a person at the opposite of the spectrum.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

(Michael) "Here is a thought for you. Xray and sympathizers consider the statement, "man is an end in himself," to be a value judgment, thus subjective (to them)."

I consider it a statement that makes no sense.

Each individual may be an end desired for the person who sired, or the person who gave birth to said individual. The individual could be an end desired for grandparents or friends as well, or even an end desired by persons wanting to build a larger group for whatever reason. But, an individual as an "end in itself" jumps the reality fence and dodges the question, an end desired by whom?

One may espouse a philosophy of self-ownership; meaning that one individual is not to be considered property of another to be used as means to the end(s) goals) of another individual.

But the words, "Man", or individual, as an end in itself just won't compute. Where and what are the means to this "end in itself?" I presume if ("man", or individual) is an "end in itself", no means are required. Thus do we arrive at the absurdity of an end (goal)without a seeker along with no means utilized to achieve the end. Oh, I forgot, this "end" ("value judgement") exists in "man's nature" independent of choice, yet the advocates would have us choose? I think we shall require a new kind of calculus to figure this out.

MSK: "Yet they consider, "all values are subjective," to not be a value judgment, thus fact (to them)."

Of course, all values are subjective.

This is not a value judgment any more than saying an individual is volitional, or water is wet. Volition is an inherent characteristic whether you, I or anyone else likes it of not. The same is true of attributing value. Attributing value is a mental action; a mental action that is exercised in correlation with individual personal preference whether you, I or anyone else like this natural characteristic or not. Recognition of what is, is independent of any value judgment.

You may not like a particular personal preference, but like or dislike does not alter the natural law of individual choice.

MSK: "Can you discern the standard they used to arrive at this conclusion? I can't. It's a double standard used at rhetorical convenience."

What double standard, what standard at all for that matter? The "standard" is entity identity epistemology with the identification of each individual with the natural characteristic of attributing value. If you don't like the word, subjective, then choose another. It won't change individual identity and natural law. It won't create "objective value" in contradiction of identity.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

Thank you for answering my prior post.

Now, if you would be so kind, what political structure would be supported by a citizenry that accepted that all values are subjective?

Yes, it's time for final jeopardy.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What double standard, what standard at all for that matter?

Heh.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Above all to have freedom you have to know freedom and value a philosophy of freedom and do this as objectively as you can. A philosophy of freedom is a philosophy of individualism is a philosophy of self-interest is a philosophy of reason is a philosophy for reality looking backward to the goo we came out of.

--Brant

Brant:

Well said. Have you listened or seen the Big and Rich performance on Imus of The 8th of November?

Adam

No.

--Brant