New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Jonathan]

A queen is not a "great value" in chess if sacrificing it leads to a forced mate. The "great value" lies in the sacrifice itself. The same is true with the sacrifice of any lesser piece, such as a rook or even a pawn. That a queen is worth 9 points, a rook 5, and a pawn 1 -- all such valuations are irrelevant to the example.

Is the queen's value "9 points," or is her mobility her great value?

As for my swap meet example, it can easily be adjusted to meet your criterion. To pay $5000 for a painting that one knows to be worth $50,000, or to pay $50,000 for a painting worth $5,000,000, is no more of a "sacrifice" than to pay $5 for a $5000 item. The amounts are irrelevant.

I think the problem with your examples is that they are based in using the fungibility of money to nullify the non-fungibility of rare or unique things like antiques and paintings. In the above, you seem to be treating the antique or painting in question as cash. In other words, your purpose seems to be to eliminate the antique or painting (the actual valuable entity) from consideration, and consider only the medium of exchange -- money -- as valuable.

But that's not what happens in a "sacrifice." If one purchases a painting for $50,000, and then does not turn around and sell it for $5,000,000, one has had to give up all of the other potential values that the $50,000 could have purchased. That would be a sacrifice. In contrast, paying $50,000 for a painting, then turning around and selling it for $5,000,000 -- exchanging a comparatively small amount of cash for a comparatively massive amount of cash -- would not be the act of giving up all of the other potential values that the $50,000 could purchase, and therefore would not be a sacrifice by the common meaning of the word.

J

Edited November 3, 2010 by Jonathan

[kiaer.ts]

Oh, Jesus Christ.

[George H. Smith]

A queen is not a "great value" in chess if sacrificing it leads to a forced mate. The "great value" lies in the sacrifice itself. The same is true with the sacrifice of any lesser piece, such as a rook or even a pawn. That a queen is worth 9 points, a rook 5, and a pawn 1 -- all such valuations are irrelevant to the example.

Is the queen's value "9 points," or is her mobility her great value?

The point system is just another way of expressing the relative value of pieces.

As for my swap meet example, it can easily be adjusted to meet your criterion. To pay $5000 for a painting that one knows to be worth $50,000, or to pay $50,000 for a painting worth $5,000,000, is no more of a "sacrifice" than to pay $5 for a $5000 item. The amounts are irrelevant.

I think the problem with your examples is that they are based in using the fungibility of money to nullify the non-fungibility of rare or unique things like antiques and paintings. In the above, you seem to be treating the antique or painting in question as cash. In other words, your purpose seems to be to eliminate the antique or painting (the actual valuable entity) from consideration, and consider only the medium of exchange -- money -- as valuable.

But that's not what happens in a "sacrifice." If one purchases a painting for $50,000, and then does not turn around and sell it for $5,000,000, one has had to give up all of the other potential values that the $50,000 could have purchased. That would be a sacrifice. In contrast, paying $50,000 for a painting, then turning around and selling it for $5,000,000 -- exchanging a comparatively small amount of cash for a comparatively massive amount of cash -- would not be the act of giving up all of the other potential values that the $50,000 could purchase, and therefore would not be a sacrifice by the common meaning of the word.

J

You appear to be speaking of what economists call opportunity costs. Every exchange -- indeed, every human action -- has opportunity costs, i.e., the next highest marginal value that one forgoes in making an exchange. The monetary values involved in an exchange, whether high or low, have nothing to do with this. Nor is it relevant whether or not I can quickly resell the item I purchase for a profit. Opportunity costs still apply.

If I purchase an antique for $5, then my opportunity cost is the next most highly valued good that I would have purchased with that $5, say, a hamburger. Again, this notion applies to every exchange. I suppose one could call opportunity costs "sacrifices," if one is clear what is meant by this, but better terms are available. What I don't like is translating voluntary exchanges, wherein both parties benefit, into the language of mutual sacrifices. To say that both parties "sacrifice" in a voluntary exchange makes it sound as if both parties lose from the exchange, which is the opposite of the truth.

Ghs

[PDS]

Nor does she brook dissent on her site very well, as is evidenced by the number of (non-conforming) comments deleted with what Campbell once called "Javertian zeal". It's really quite embarrassing, especially in light of "weird dogmatism" phrase you highlight above.

I have put up several comments on Noodlefood threads concerning the McCaskey/Harriman/Biddle whoopup . . . and none have been deleted. This is surprising, since she had earlier consigned me to the Inner Circle Of Heck because of my satirical comments back when she got snuggly with Perigo.**

I believe Diana has moved on somewhat since her titanic 14,000 word denunciation of Chris Sciabarra. If you watch/listen to her inaugural Videoblog, she seems to be honestly reaching for a durable set of principles by which Objectivists can wisely manage disagreements. I guess it is because the present whoopup simply cannot be contained, cannot be curbed, cannot be stifled -- and she very much wants to SAY SOMETHING STRONG (have a listen to the concluding remarks concerning the whoopup at around 47:30).

++++++++++++++++++

** "At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rand's 1968 bed for stains of evil.

La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All.

I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people.

As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy."

I just tried to slog through that 14,000 word piece and had to give up, after about 1-2,000 words. All I could think of was, "you've gotta be shitting me..."

Imagine today's 16 year old encountering Howard Roark on the pages of The Fountainhead for the first time and subsequently finding out that the philosophy of Roark leads to the likes of that...therein is the damage done by the likes of Peikoff back in the mid-80's. Instead of a united philosophical movement driven by achievement, reason and benevolence, Objectivism has become one big bitchfest, or perhaps just as bad, the equivalent of a query about how many angels can dance on the head of someone's theory of induction, as if a real life Producer could actually give a crap about such things.

In 1982, Rand died with the Objectivist ball on the five yard line, 1st and goal and the stadium pretty full. Since then, the "Objectivists" have managed lose the playbook, penalize themselves back to midfield, and, worst of all, hardly anybody cares to watch.

One more time: what a shame. Ayn Rand deserves better.

[william.scherk]

The Ayn Rand Lexicon is clear on sacrifice. It is bad. "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue."

This makes sense when one reads of the sacrifices detailed in the holy books: the point of a sacrifice ostensibly to gain a benefit from gawd -- "burn up your calf or son or fruit platter on the altar, and I will smile on you and yours. Destroy one valuable thing and I, Lord of the Universe, will reward you with another thing."

In Randian terms the killing and burning is a sacrifice only when gawd's favour is actually less valuable than that of the destroyed thing.

An atheist like me might say, Holy Shit, you burned your child or goat for a promise that will not and cannot be delivered. You fool !!

But that's me, and apparently I miss the point of looking at the situation in the Randian manner.

If old Jahoshiwashy stakes out the calf and pomelos and burns it all up, and gets fuck all in return -- knowing in his heart that he will get fuck all in return, then yes, he has sacrificed.

If, however, the torching of value actually did propitiate the Master and deliver a fabulous enduring bounty to Jahoshiwashy, then the action can't be said to be sacrifice at all . . . the charred and stinking bits of rind and fat and bone and muck on the altar are not in themselves stand-alone evidence of a sacrifice in the Randian sense. The destruction of value may or may not entail a sacrifice. It's all in the details of the deal and the implicated personal valuations.

By a bit of the old switcheroo, of course, a situation somewhat similar on the surface can also be generally accepted as a sacrifice, yet by Randian lights be nothing of the sort.

A mother decides to buy hats or gewgaws from QVC rather than fried chicken and coleslaw and chocolate milkshakes to feed her hungry child.

Sacrifice? Did the mother sacrifice the health of her child?

Nope, or rather, not necessarily -- not if the mother actually values her child less than hats.

The child squawls, withers, expires or gets taken by The Wet Nurse, the hats are laid out on their stands, yet no one ought label this a sacrifice, unless and only if this mother did not give up a greater thing (by her own set of values).

If QVC hat lady figured, Fuck it. My brat is obviously not as important as the fake suede ladies homburg and matching keyfob -- then she will obviously not be sacrificing young Whiny Starvy-face. She has given up a lesser value for a greater.

No sacrifice in the Randian sense.

It seem to me that this essence is all a thoughtful Randian need to grasp. The ramifications of this essential formula follow and all a good Randian can do is follow them where they ramify.

Mind you . . .

"For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil."

Which might let Objectivish folk assess the valuation of the monster mom as a gruesomely irrational act, something which no man of moral stature would do.

But to use labels properly, to wield words in the proper Objectivish manner, we still should not name monster mom's actions as sacrifice.

I hope against hope that I have got this all wrong.

Edited November 3, 2010 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

In Randian terms the killing and burning is a sacrifice only when gawd's favour is actually less valuable than that of the destroyed thing.

This does bring out a problem I have with some O’ist commentators, I know Yaron Brook has been guilty of this in interviews I’ve seen. They’ll claim that religion is morally altruistic, ignoring the fact that when sacrificing for/to the gods you’re in effect paying your after-life insurance premium. The problem with that is that it’s irrational, not altruistically motivated. I can't think of a case where Rand got that wrong, does it originate with Peikoff?

[Starbuckle]

William Scherk writes: "I believe Diana has moved on somewhat since her titanic 14,000 word denunciation of Chris Sciabarra."

No. She hasn't. Not anywhat. She has never apologized for that vicious, stupid and puerile attack on a very good guy who had never hurt her in any way, but only given her opportunities; and at least twice on her site has _adamantly_ affirmed that she stands by that vomitous sludge. What is the evidence that she now regrets her nasty and gratuitous attack on Sciabarra? Not that it would be forgiveable in any case. Of course, by contrast, her apologies and apologia for having ever had anything to do with the Institute for Objectivist Studies were endless, as if attending lectures and so forth were akin to axe murdering.

Nor is there a new, open and refreshing, Enlightenment-value-inspired, pro-discourse comment policy at Noodlebrain. Does anyone suppose that Branden, Campbell, Kelley et al. would be able to post on Hshyster's site under their own names, no matter how cogent and illuminating their remarks might be?

The Betsys and Dianas of the world are confounded by the current brouhaha because Peikoff is being too obviously irrational. As Campbell correctly notes, Hshyster is walking a tightrope, nervously with her finger to the wind.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Rich Engle]

George,

Maybe the chess example was misleading, in one sense. I started that one up a while ago. Looking at it, I should have thought it through more completely. Where I was going with it stemmed from my annoyance at the endless use of code words in O-land. It does get ridiculous, you know. You can use one of the words from the O-lexicon in a completely different context, different subject, all that, and get a knee-jerk: you can get gone after for merely invoking one of those words in a place where it serves a positive purpose, meaning. Bottom line for me is I just get sick of the rap--it gets used indiscriminately. Nearly as annoying as certain urban types I know who punctuate every thing with "see what I'm sayin?" It's that boring, plus snottier. That's all.

[william.scherk]

William Scherk writes: "I believe Diana has moved on somewhat since her titanic 14,000 word denunciation of Chris Sciabarra."

No. She hasn't. Not anywhat. She has never apologized for that vicious, stupid and puerile attack on a very good guy who had never hurt her in any way, but only gave her opportunities; and at least twice on her site has _adamantly_ affirmed that she stands by that vomitous sludge.

I understand what you are saying. Of course she hasn't apologized for her lengthy kookrant. I contrast that unbalanced and near-demented tirade with her now more measured allowance for dissent. I see a difference in tone and accomodation of 'differing angles,' but you are right to critique the idea that she has gone soft on her earlier enemies. In her comments on the Atlas Shrugged movie it is obvious that she finds no reason to take back one word of her TAS/TOC jeremiads.

You and Robert Campbell make clear why she is not sounding unbalanced now in the context of the McCaskey whoopup: it is a messy semi-public controversy involving only those she considers to be on her side of the chasm. She still loathes the opposition, and is unlikely to concede that what opened the chasm initially was authoritarian crazypants attitudes on the ARI side. She is unlikely then to revisit in her own mind the Reisman debacle or any other of the old irrational demands for obedience from her own grouping. Indeed she seems to be remarkably slow in getting her own shit together in the form of a response to the current demands for silence and/or obedience.

What is the evidence that she now regrets her nasty and gratuitous attack on Sciabarra?

None.

Nor is there a new, open and refreshing, Enlightenment-value-inspired, pro-discourse comment policy at Noodlebrain. Does anyone suppose that Branden, Campbell, Kelley et al. would be able to post on Hshyster's site under their own names, no matter how cogent and illuminating their remarks might be?

Nope. Not a chance. She opens 'civil and respectful' discussion of recent events, but she carefully prunes anything that gets up her nose. What surprised me was that what I wrote did not get up her nose.

The Betsys and Dianas of the world are confounded by the current brouhaha because Peikoff is being too obviously irrational. As Campbell correctly notes, Hshyster is walking a tightrope, nervously with her finger to the wind.

I agree. Beyond laying out what facts she and her husband think are in evidence, she hasn't yet weighed in with any strong words, let alone a denunciation of Uncle Crazypants.

What is odd and seemingly discordant about Betsy's most recent commentary is that she supports Biddle, but can't get let her own opinions out of the bag.

Fear of the consequences? Fear of losing favour, of being found on the wrong (anti-Crazypants) side?

[George H. Smith]

The Ayn Rand Lexicon is clear on sacrifice. It is bad. "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue."

Some months ago on another thread I wrote some fairly extensive posts on this topic. But I have no idea where to find them, so I will need to repeat myself, if in a summary manner.

Let me begin with this passage from ATCAG, where I summarize the distinction between objective and subjective values:

We thus see that the concept of value applies to man in two different respects. First, there is the objective sense of "value," in which things are of value to man -- i.e., conducive to his welfare -- whether he chooses to recognize them or not. Second, there is the subjective sense of "value," in which "value" designates the result of an evaluative process; and a man's values, in this case, represent his personal preferences. It is possible, therefore, for a man to value thing (in a subjective sense) that are not in fact of value to him (in an objective sense). Man can pursue self-destructive courses of action; he can pursue goals that are detrimental to his welfare. Nature does not provide him with an automatic means of survival.

Now, when Rand speaks of sacrifice as "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue," the key question is: Does she mean "value" in the objective sense or in the subjective sense?

I think it is clear that she is here speaking of objective values. Note that she does not speak of surrendering something that one values more for something one values less. She uses "value" as a noun, not as a verb; and if she intended to refer to subjective values (i.e., our preferences), the verb form would have been the natural way of expressing herself.

Also note that Rand mentions a "nonvalue." To speak of surrendering a greater value for a nonvalue amounts to gibberish if we construe "value" in the subjective sense. Subjectively speaking, a "nonvalue" is something we do not value at all; it is something we have no interest in whatsoever, and there is no way we can prefer something that we don't value; this would be tantamount to saying that we value something that we don't value at all. There are, however, objective nonvalues, i.e., things that are indifferent to human welfare.

In previous posts I made it clear that I don't want to be put in the position of defending Rand's comments about "sacrifice" in every detail. Her definition of "value" ("that which one acts to gain and/or keep) has serious problems, for this is essentially a subjective conception of value. (I have always preferred NB's discussion of "value" in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) In addition, Rand's examples sometimes serve to confuse rather than clarify the essential points.

Nevertheless, I think it is reasonably clear that Rand uses "sacrifice" in the context of objective values. There are a number of indications of this in her writings. Consider this passage from "The Objectivist Ethics":

And if the frustration of any desire constitutes a sacrifice, then a man who owns an automobile and is robbed of it, is being sacrificed, but so is the man who wants or "aspires to" an automobile which the owner refuses to give him—and these two "sacrifices" have equal ethical status.

The criticism that you and others have expressed assumes that when Rand speaks of surrendering a greater value for the sake of lesser value, she is speaking of subjective values. And this interpretation does indeed make nonsense out of Rand's notion of sacrifice, for it would mean that we can somehow prefer something that we prefer less over something we prefer more -- a veritable contradiction in terms.

I may have more to say about this later. The problem is that we have strayed way off topic, so if Michael sees fit to transfer the relevant posts to a new thread, that would be fine with me.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

Some months ago on another thread I wrote some fairly extensive posts on this topic. But I have no idea where to find them, so I will need to repeat myself, if in a summary manner.

Thanks for both the summary and the indication of those previous threads. To review all the posts in which you wrote about sacrifice, I used the OL advanced search function, seeking posts by George H Smith with the keyword 'sacrifice.' Here's a link to those results. Interesting, involved, thoughtful posts. We may be in agreement that some of the examples Rand used (and which I cited above) can be confusing.

I took away from your varied posts a signal lesson, from Rand: do not mask your best actions under the cover of 'sacrifice.'

Seems a good bit of advice. "I sacrificed the best years of my life to you damned kids !!" "I didn't sacrifice my marriage for you to spurn me, you lying fraud !!" "I sacrificed my health and the use of my legs fighting your damned war !! -- don't dump me out on the back ward of Walter Reed."

Edited November 4, 2010 by william.scherk

[Starbuckle]

William Scherk: "[Agrees with this, that and the other.]"

I agree with your agreements with me. Can't we all get along?

William Scherk: "What is odd and seemingly discordant about Betsy's most recent commentary is that she supports Biddle, but can't get let her own opinions out of the bag."

Back to me: Yes, she even specifically praises Biddle for being willing to go public with his views despite the criticism it might provoke and strain it might cause in relationships... But if her semi-privately published memo is even 40% correct, that is the wrong thing to do if we are to save the future of Objectivism.... Hello....

I've seen all this a bit closer-up in another context. My brother as a young man was a Jehovah's Witness, and got caught up in their tight social network and mores. When I came back from college, I had more success than I thought at the time persuading him of certain problems with his religious views. (One of the items he said had an effect was a tape I lent him of Peikoff and Ridpath debating socialists in Canada--not because of the subject matter but mostly I think because of Peikoff's forceful thinking-on-his-feet logic, showing a different potential than my brother was seeing in the Bible studies. Irony.) In any case, my brother took a second look at various disturbing things he had witnessed in the conduct of others in the church and began to voice some of his questions. The JWs don't brook many doubts from persons who had been true believers, and ostracism is the ultimate method of dealing with those who stray irremediably. Within a very brief period, my brother lost all his "friends" and associates, who would not even acknowledge him on the street. Whatever. He returned to school in another town, made new friends, and is now making bucks as a software jock in Silicon Valley.

I don't question the fact that when people get involved in self-immuring religious social sects, escaping them can be somewhat traumatic and difficult. But my brother's crisis lasted several weeks or a few months, after several years of involvement. A lot of these guys in the ARI orbit or orbiting the orbiters have been witness to the dogmatism and religiosity for two to four decades now. I would tell them: Whether you're thirty or seventy, if you really believe in independence, practice it. If being honest and just means you're likely to get shunned by someone whose respect and friendship you would prefer to have, do it anyway. Certainly don't be afraid to call a spade a spade because it would "give fuel to the enemies of Objectivism," whatever that means. By doing the right and honorable thing, you'll inspire others to be honorable. That's a net plus.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Starbuckle]

Re the GHS and WS discussion of objective and subjective value, some years ago a speaker at IOS proposed a neat taxonomy of the concept of value as used in different contexts. I thought it was a great parsing. (Yes, turns out that even if you subjectively value a cup of poison, it's still objectively bad for you. Because, well, then you're dead.) I either lost the binder in which I had all the flyers for that lecture, or it's buried in a box. It's a rotten shame that the lectures at IOS and some other places haven't been embalmed in journals and other permanent archives as a matter of course. One reason I remember being given is that the speakers' thinking was often regarded by themselves as preliminary. But even if a fruitful paper is only half-right, why not make it available to the world? Just tell the conference speakers to make sure to do a spell-check before their drafts get posted.

Mises.org has the right idea--they've got a billion papers, journals, books available now in pdf or ebook form for free download, as well as scads of video and audio. They must be doing okay fundraisingwise if they're able to give all that stuff away.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Starbuckle

[George H. Smith]

Some months ago on another thread I wrote some fairly extensive posts on this topic. But I have no idea where to find them, so I will need to repeat myself, if in a summary manner.

Thanks for both the summary and the indication of those previous threads. To review all the posts in which you wrote about sacrifice, I used the OL advanced search function, seeking posts by George H Smith with the keyword 'sacrifice.' Here's a link to those results. Interesting, involved, thoughtful posts. We may be in agreement that some of the examples Rand used (and which I cited above) can be confusing.

When I click on this link, I get a notice indicating 7 posts, but no actual posts are listed.

I have never had much luck with the regular search bar. How does one access the advanced search function?

Ghs

[merjet]

I have never had much luck with the regular search bar. How does one access the advanced search function?

Click the icon to the right of the search textbox, which looks like a gear or snowflake. Make sure Forums is highlighted; the default seems to be Help Files. Then use "display results as posts"; "display results as a topic list" isn't very helpful.

[George H. Smith]

I have never had much luck with the regular search bar. How does one access the advanced search function?

Click the icon to the right of the search textbox, which looks like a gear or snowflake. Make sure Forums is highlighted; the default seems to be Help Files. Then use "display results as posts"; "display results as a topic list" isn't very helpful.

Thanks.

This is great. I have been able to find all kinds of old posts that I couldn't locate by using the "My Contents" page.

[Xray]

The chess players that I know are a lot smarter than Xray.

And from the George H. Smith that I know from his writings, I have read a lot of smarter posts than the one I'm replying to here, where he has to concede that no individual sacrifices anything because they expect to get a lower value (from their subjective perspective)in return, while at the same time trying to dilute the issue with comments like the following:

They understand that the use of a specialized word in chess does not necessarily indicate how that word is, or should be, used in other contexts. For example, they understand that the phrase "in passing" (the French en passant is used in chess) does not always or necessarily refer to "a move in chess in which a pawn that has just completed an initial advance to its fourth rank is captured by an opponent pawn as if it had only moved to its third rank." They understand that "in passing," when used in other contexts, can mean "by the way" or "incidentally." (American Heritage Dictionary.)

It is irrelevant here what en passant or other phrases mean in chess. We were talking about "sacrifice", and the sacrifice in chess is such an excellent example because it so clearly shows the basic element in all acts of sacrifice: Every sacrificer hopes to gain by the act, not to lose.

So whether you put two dollars in your church collections basket, or empty your savings account because you absolutely must have that new Porsche model - the principle is the same: personally gaining from the act.

The German word for "sacrifice" is "Opfer" btw, which is related to the English "offer", and the container standing in Catholic churches is called "Opferstock" ('offertory box'). So what you give as an 'offer', as a 'sacrifice', need not necessarily be much - the constant always present is the motive of gaining the giver has in mind through the act of giving.

So even if John Doe sells his car "at a sacrifice", his decision in favor of selling indicates that John's decision to sell (despite not getting what he bargained for), is a value decision indicating that he, regardless of the financial loss, still expects to gain more from selling the car than from not not selling it. For if that were not the case, John would not engage in the transaction.

Every sacrifice is a form of trade where person P gives value X in order to get a (subjectively) more highly ranked value Y in return. As in every trade, this does not mean you always get what you bargained for. Therefore in hindsight, one may hear laments by people that they "sacrificed" this or that without getting rewarded, like in e. g. "I sacrificed the best years of my life to that squanderbug of a husband, who ruined the family's finances by carrying our money to he gambling hall."

To say that a person will not act unless he desires a more satisfactory state of affairs, i.e., unless he subjectively values what he hopes to gain more than his present condition, is largely irrelevant to ethics.

On the contrary, it is extremely relevant for those dealing with ethical questions to sufficiently reflect (instead of simply taking it into account as a given) on this basic human motivation. For it plays a huge role in ethical issues like e. g. why a prosecutor gives kid glove treatment to rich and influential people who got into trouble with the law because he fears personal disadvantage if he goes after them. It explains why many people "look away" when someone is being attacked in the street, not even taking the trouble to call the police because they don't want to get involved at all.

These are just two examples to show you why it is so relevant to ethics.

Rand certainly didn't disagree with this observation. When she speaks of sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, she is speaking of objective values, not of subjective motivations.

What she believed were "objective" values. And all those who didn't happen to share that code were regarded as immoral. This is the key problem with "objective valuists": that they tend to be intolerant of those whose code of ethics does not match their own. Her "objective value" attitude for example led Rand to state that e. g. family and friends are not primary in a person's life.

But where do the 'objective valuists' take the right to tell others how others how the ought to live their lives?

My philosophical position on the value question is a radical one and its radicalness is based on the epistemological conclusion that there exists no ought from is.

This is where I stand, and if you want to debate this point, we can continue the discussion we were having on the "Moral Certainty" thread a while ago:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8291&st=360

(Still waiting for you btw to make your case in proving that objective moral values exist. If I recall correctly, you had only gotten as far as listing instrumental values, like the 'good' knife (good = "suited to purpose"), but then conceded that instrumental values are not relevant to ethics).

We have discussed the problems of psychological egoism before -- NB covers them quite well in his article "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" -- and I am not going to repeat the objections for Xray's benefit. Xray is constitutionally unable to grasp crucial philosophical distinctions.

Rest assured, I do grasp them. Which does not mean I have to agree with a philosophical position based on the premise of "objective morality".

When she speaks of sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, she is speaking of objective values, not of subjective motivations.

The irony of it is that when you carefully read Rand's "hat" example, she, without realizing it, makes the case for subjective value, arguing that it depends on the mother's subjective hierarchy of values whether the act of buying the hat can be called a sacrifice or not.

William Scherk addresses this as well:

A mother decides to buy hats or gewgaws from QVC rather than fried chicken and coleslaw and chocolate milkshakes to feed her hungry child.

Sacrifice? Did the mother sacrifice the health of her child?

Nope, or rather, not necessarily -- not if the mother actually values her child less than hats.

The child squawls, withers, expires or gets taken by The Wet Nurse, the hats are laid out on their stands, yet no one ought label this a sacrifice, unless and only if this mother did not give up a greater thing (by her own set of values).

If QVC hat lady figured, Fuck it. My brat is obviously not as important as the fake suede ladies homburg and matching keyfob -- then she will obviously not be sacrificing young Whiny Starvy-face. She has given up a lesser value for a greater.

No sacrifice in the Randian sense.

Some months ago on another thread I wrote some fairly extensive posts on this topic. But I have no idea where to find them, so I will need to repeat myself, if in a summary manner.

You wrote quite a bit about "sacrifice" on the "Settling the Debate on Altruism" thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6799&st=800&p=95132entry95132

In post # 809 there, you wrote:

I think Rand was careless at times in how she used the word "sacrifice."

I think we can both agree on that. The whole # 809 post of yours on that "Altruism" thread addresses other key issues as well.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Rand certainly didn't disagree with this observation. When she speaks of sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, she is speaking of objective values, not of subjective motivations.

What she believed were "objective" values. And all those who didn't happen to share that code were regarded as immoral. This is the key problem with "objective valuists": that they tend to be intolerant of those whose code of ethics does not match their own. Her "objective value" attitude for example led Rand to state that e. g. family and friends are not primary in a person's life.

But where do the 'objective valuists' take the right to tell others how others how the ought to live their lives?

My philosophical position on the value question is a radical one and its radicalness is based on the epistemological conclusion that there exists no ought from is.

So you, as someone who believes that all values are subjective, are a model of toleration? Okay, does this toleration extend to people who believe and act upon their subjective values of rape, robbery, and murder? If not, why not?

Whether or not you agree with Rand's notion of objective values has no bearing on what she meant by "sacrifice." You read Rand with the mentality of a child who thinks that everyone should think like she thinks. But Rand was not privy to your stunning philosophical insights, so she followed her own thinking, not yours.

As for extending our debate on objective values, that would be a huge waste of my time. I invested a lot of time in this earlier, before I knew better, only to find that you ignored virtually every major argument I made and simply repeated your mantra that all values are subjective. If I want this kind of "debate," I will find a parrot to argue with.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

My philosophical position on the value question is a radical one and its radicalness is based on the epistemological conclusion that there exists no ought from is.

All this means is that one cannot, via a deductive syllogism, arrive at a normative ("ought") conclusion from purely descriptive ("is") premises. So what? No defender of objective values that I can think of, including Rand, ever claimed otherwise.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Re the GHS and WS discussion of objective and subjective value, some years ago a speaker at IOS proposed a neat taxonomy of the concept of value as used in different contexts.

A book that I like a great deal is Paul Taylor's Normative Discourse (Prentice Hall, 1961). I first read this book during the late 1960s, while taking a graduate seminar on ethics, and I cited it briefly in ATCAG.

Part I of Normative Discourse contains the following chapters:

The process of evaluation

Value judgments

The justification of value judgments: verification and validation

Value systems and points of view

The justification of value judgments: vindication

The justification of value judgments: rational choice

Part 2 (of 3) contains the following chapters:

The concept of prescribing

Prescribing and evaluating

"Ought" and "Is"

I suppose I should add the usual proviso that I don't agree with all of Taylor's conclusions. But his classifications of various types of value judgments and how they can be justified are very useful. This is a book that I have frequently consulted when I want to refresh my thinking about values. I should add that it is a fairly technical book that beginners in philosophy may find difficult to follow.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I contrast that unbalanced and near-demented tirade with her now more measured allowance for dissent. I see a difference in tone and accomodation of 'differing angles,'...

William,

Here's an observation from someone studying this stuff (I mean studying Internet stuff, not studying that lady. ).

Hsieh is experimenting with new media--not only audio and video, but social networking. (I actually applaud her for doing this, since she is facing down her fears to use these things. Such fears are quite normal with human beings and at least she is confronting them without thinking she is some kind of Randian failure for feeling them, which is a trap I have seen others--including myself--fall into.)

But I don't detect a change of a hard-heart in Hsieh, which is what I detect you perceive. I detect a change of behavior, not intent. She has toned down the message a bit, but I believe it is for more technical reasons.

If you get too hamhanded and hysterical in audio and/or video, you will come off like Peikoff did with Bill O'Reilly and look like a loon. Normal everyday people will make fun of you. I can think many things about Hsieh (although I don't think of her very often), but I don't think she is too stupid to perceive this. She knows she is exposing herself--especially on camera--and she has to be careful about looking rational. Looking like a loon is exactly what will happen when you go for overkill in moral condemnations.

Believe me, she is very concerned about how to position moral condemnations in public. Just look at her comments when she prunes posts (thanks for the link where this is particularly evident). Moral condemnation--and how to express it--is a major topic at those times.

As to social networks, when you get really specialized (like making groups for Objectivist Pet Lovers, Objectivist Knitters, Objectivist Bocce Ball Players etc. -- OK, I'm kidding, but she does have OGardeners in her OLists--and I kinda like that capital "OL" in her name "OLists" ) and go hamhanded in the recruitment phase, nobody will hang around. People don't join specialized social groups of already specialized groups to receive orders and intimidation. They usually want to have fun.

So I suggest these things might be other reasons for Hsieh's toning down of spite and hatred messages than any real change of heart.

Michael

[Xray]

So you, as someone who believes that all values are subjective, are a model of toleration? Okay, does this toleration extend to people who believe and act upon their subjective values of rape, robbery, and murder? If not, why not?

Where do you get the idea that from the conclusion that values are subjective it follows that one has to agree with all the value choices made by others?

Realizing that values are subjective merely acknowledges the fact that an ethical value is not something existing independently "out there", only to be discovered. Values (like rights) are the results of human choices.

That so many Objectivists have problems with the term "subjective" value may also have its reason in Rand's mistakenly labeling everything subjective as "the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional". (Rand, The Romantic Manifesto “Art and Moral Treason,” The Romantic Manifesto, 15) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

But of course one can enter into a rational discourse explaining why one has chosen one's subjective values, and one can also agree to share a common code of values. Also, one can try to convince others to adopt one's values.

For example, I would probably not have become a vegetarian if I had not been convinced by arguments from vegetarians.

But this does not make this value of mine in any way more "objective" than a meat eater's value decision.

Where rationality also factors in is when it comes to assessing the means to achieve a chosen goal.

For example, it would be irrational for John, if his goal is a harmonious relationship with his wife, to expect a 'peaceful' reaction from her in case he values resorting to personal insults in discussions. For insults are an unsuitable means to achieve the goal 'peace and harmony'.

Being able to understand why a person has developed his/her values is also a rational act.

So when doing research on Rand, given the traumatic experiences she made in Communist Russia, it becomes perfectly understandable why she came to loathe Communism.

But being disgusted with Communism does not necessarily establish its opposite: uncontrolled, laissez-faire Capitalism as an "objective ideal". Here is the rub.

In other words, deciding not to buy the black dress because it is badly sewed does not imply that the white dress is sewed any better.

For life is far from being painted in black and white only, and no ideologist (they always think in black and white) has ever succeeded in convincing me of the contrary.

I have never had problems in seeing the many shades of gray, and in realizing that humans just don't fit the mold ideologists have prepared for them.

Even as a kid, I was aware of those "black and white" operations being unfunctional, so when our Catholic priest told me (I was nine years old at the time), hidden behind the wooden screen in the confessional: "Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis", I thought to myself: "Ridiculous. You can't do that, Mr. R., and I have the feeling that you too know that you can't."

And if you, an ex-Catholic as well, didn't have similar doubts at a young age, I'll eat the Catholic Catechism I still have laying around somewhere! ;)

Edited November 4, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

So you, as someone who believes that all values are subjective, are a model of toleration? Okay, does this toleration extend to people who believe and act upon their subjective values of rape, robbery, and murder? If not, why not?

Where do you get the idea that from the conclusion that values are subjective it follows that one has to agree with all the value choices made by others?

Okay, on what basis would you disagree with the value judgments made by rapists, robbers, and murderers? Would you presume to tell them how they should live, which is something you accuse Rand of doing?

Realizing that values are subjective merely acknowledges the fact that an ethical value is not something existing independently "out there", only to be discovered. Values (like rights) are the results of human choices.

If you didn't already value something -- i.e., if you didn't already regard it as good -- why would you choose it?

Suppose you say that 2+2=4, and I reply: "Well, yes, according to the rule of mathematics. But why should I accept those rules? Why should I accept your conclusion? After all, you have given me a purely descriptive proposition, and, as we all know, one cannot derive an "ought" (i.e., that one should accept your conclusion) from an "is." The rules of mathematics do not exist 'out there.' As human creations, they are subjective, not objective."

So how would you respond to this argument? If you find it chock-full of confusing equivocations, welcome to the Xray Club.

And if you, an ex-Catholic as well, didn't have similar doubts at a young age, I'll eat the Catholic Catechism I still have laying around somewhere! ;)

I was never a Catholic -- though I do regard Thomistic Catholicism as the most reasonable of all the variants of traditional Christianity.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I was never a Catholic -- though I do regard Thomistic Catholicism as the most reasonable of all the variants of traditional Christianity.

Ghs

I was a priorist bullsh*t. Invoking such balderdash and calling it reason gives reason a bad name.

If it ain't empirical, it is nonsense or abstract hot air.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

I was never a Catholic -- though I do regard Thomistic Catholicism as the most reasonable of all the variants of traditional Christianity.

Ghs

I was a priorist bullsh*t. Invoking such balderdash and calling it reason gives reason a bad name.

If it ain't empirical, it is nonsense or abstract hot air.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Aquinas was an empiricist -- one of the most influential in the history of western thought.

Ghs