RoR: Forum

Some values are universal. Humans, in general, possess the capacity to reason and rationality is a value. The problem with Craig's essay is that it's argument for individual rights is a subjective preference . What if I don't value individual rights? What gives you the right to impose your rights theory, based on your morality, on me? Say hello to anarcho-capitalism with competing views of "rights" .

Hmm.... Two thoughts: 1) Isn't it a fact that we have different values? 2) Doesn't the synthesis of these values lead us to conclude that living by respecting individual rights IS a way by which we can all pursue our individual values?

In other words, I don't care if you don't value individual rights. This doesn't change the fact that a political framework based on individual rights will allow all of us to pursue our individual values, to the best degree possible. Do we not believe in individual rights because it is prudent? Can you prove to me that I should respect your individual rights?

Craig

Post 21

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 5:55am

No; rational thinking is of value to human beings but, and here is where universality comes in, to any and all of them (other than in certain very exceptional cases which do not count in this kind of discussion). I am not defending the intrinsic but the agent-relative and universal value of it. Rasmussen's and Den Uyl's just released Norms of Liberty (U of Penna Press, 2005) promises to lay this out nicely, much like my own Individuals and Their Rights (Open Court, 1989) and Classical Individualism (Routledge, 1998) did. Moreover, the fact that something is of universal value doesn't authorize anyone to impose it on another--in any case, one cannot impose rational thinking on anyone; it has to be chosen by the agent. Yet, as noted above, it is of value to any and all human beings.
(Edited by Machan on 10/15, 5:58am)

Post 22

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 6:09am

And another thing: For something, x, to be of value to someone, A, it doesn't follow that A must consider or treat x as a value. For example, nutritious food can be of value to people even though they fail or refuse to acknowledge this. This is what objective value is about. Universal value is about the scope of the value involved, whether its of value to all members of the class or species. What misleads a lot of folks is that from the economic standpoint, what counts is not whether x in fact is of value to A but whether A acts to gain and keep x. That is why economists qua economists focus on subjective value, meaning whatever it is people actually (though quite possibly mistakenly) consider of value to them.

Post 23

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 6:39am

Well said.

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 10:00am

Well said.

Yep, mm-hmm.

Post 25

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 11:37am

... For something, x, to be of value to someone, A, it doesn't follow that A must consider or treat x as a value. For example, nutritious food can be of value to people even though they fail or refuse to acknowledge this. This is what objective value is about. ...

Let's take this back to Rand for a second, please... "'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose, and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative."

So if we don't know A's purpose, then we can't know that something 'x' is of value to him, unless you're assigning A some purpose, like a long life, or other such purpose, but that may be contrary to A's life as HE defines it. A must choose his own value hierarchy. Hence, a value requires a valuer.

Now we choose values for babies, for the incapacitated, and for the mentally handicapped. But we do this in lieu of their rational ability to think. These are the exceptions; not the rule.

I need to learn more about your view on this, and I'll try to find the text that you reference. Nevertheless, it does seem odd to me that one can choose a value for another rational individual, or believe that some values are universal to everyone.

Craig

Post 26

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:19pm

Snowdog,

Objectivists uphold a person's life as his objective standard of value. We can say whether something is beneficial to that person or not by that standard. He may agree or disagree, but it is a factual statement. You can determine whether or not it's true or false.

That doesn't mean the other person agrees. They may not accept it as beneficial. But morality is concerned with normative statements. It tells you what you should do. In that context, value means what you should pursue. It's what you should value, not what you necessarily do value.

Despite all this, I still think your article makes good points. I hesitate a little when I hear the term "universal" applied to values. I readily accept that humans need food, water, reason, etc. to live. And because of that, you can see these things are valuable to each person.

But these things are valuable to people in different degrees and in certain contexts. If you abstract from specifics, you can say things like food is a human value. But is McDonald's burgers a universal value? Is it more or less valuable than a glass of water?

"Universally valued" sounds better than "a universal value", at least to me. One seems to keep in mind that it's individuals valuing something, with the possibility of varying degrees, while the other seems to abstract away the degrees and opens the door to intrinsicism.

Post 27

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:25pm

That doesn't mean the other person agrees. They may not accept it as beneficial. But morality is concerned with normative statements. It tells you what you should do. In that context, value means what you should pursue. It's what you should value, not what you necessarily do value.

This is what is meant by 'values' and 'viable values'...

Post 28

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:38pm

You cannot choose a value for another but once you know that this is a person who has chosen to live a human life, you can infer what broad choices he ought to make--like to be honest, to work hard, to be decent and generous. Folks around us have made a choice to live--otherwise they'd be lying around dead or dying. That choice has implications. Why on earth would one chide another for lying or cheating or being a jerk? Now if you are talking about how we cannot tell what someone ought to do prior to making the choice to live, that's OK, but values aren't for the dead or those who care nothing about life. So it is moot--values simply don't apply. Values do apply to the living and when it is a human being who has chosen life over non-life, then some universal values kick in right away, like thinking! The details, of course, require intimate knowledge of a person, usually, although some general knowledge--like, she's a doctor, so she ought to heal and not hurt--can be known; it follows the choice one has made about his or her profession. And very generally, we can tell that people as such ought to think and respect the need of others to be free to think (hence respect for others' rights comes from our own exercise of the virtue of rationality which guides us to understand that they, like we, need liberty; this is not altruism but simply logic, pace Max Stirner & Co.).

Post 29

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 5:30pm