A challenging question for Objectivism

To say that this is wrong implies that there is an extrinsic, universal, and objective hierarchy of value, and thus of morality.

No, to say so does not imply a extrinsic universal hierarchy of value. In fact, its clearly rejected by Objectivism that valuation does not exist unless with respect to a living being who chooses to act to gain or keep something. There are no universal values. There are values that are common between groups of people such as Ojectivists or Christians.

When I say something is morally good/bad I mean so with respect to my moral system (my own life is the most important thing, which should be roughly equivalent to any other Objectivist's moral system), or another's moral system if for example I am clearly talking from a Fundamentalist Christian's perspective.

Post 21

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 3:36pm

Joseph,

If we set virtue as a highest value (this may be poor phrasing - I'm referring to a kind of hierarchy of importance, either intrinsically or universally), we will be willing to die for a cause, or for our family. We are not coerced to do so, but we choose to. In Atlas, I recall that Fransisco and others risked their lives to save Galt.

If you are your own highest value, you place your own safety above everything - including your own moral code. You will run when threatened, and hide while the virtues you believe in are desecrated. You will leave your family to die rather than risk your life, if you live this principle consistently. Could you call it anything but self-serving cowardice?

The error above is one of the most pervasive errors in philosophy and science (that "selfishness" must mean sacrificing others to oneself -- BECAUSE altruism means sacrificing yourself to others).

But this is a false dichotomy.

Post 22

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 3:58pm

I don't get the relevance Ed, could you explain a little more? No tricks, I just don't understand. Selfishness seems to mean that you don't sacrifice yourself for your values, does it not? I'm not advocating "altruism" here, sheesh.

Post 23

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 5:27pm

Joseph Funk,

Now I'll move to some potential arguments for setting one's self as an "ultimate value." The three I am familiar with so far are: 1) I am in a better position to know myself, and thus will know virtue in ourselves more than we will see virtue in others. 2) This life is all I have. If I die, I can no longer be happy about anything. 3) There is a harmony of interests, in which others benefit by my "selfish" actions. The best way to help others is to value myself.

The first as weak...
The second...
The third...

I am extremely confident there is no way to "deduce" that Objectivism's selfish moral system is the universally optimal moral system. I do not claim that any of those points that you mentioned above prove that Objectivism's moral system is best. They are interesting ideas that may make a person's viewpoint on Reality more clear, which may influence their decision. It seems like you are trying to prove that we haven't proved or deduced that every man should choose Objectivism's moral system, and all other moral systems are universally wrong or bad to use.

Repeating myself now:
Should we choose a virtue as the highest value, or choose one's own life, or what? That's something an individual will have to decide for themselves. I promote that you choose your own life as your highest value. It doesn't make any sense to me that I choose a different moral system.

Post 24

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 8:54pm

Joseph, when you say ...

... we will be willing to die for a cause, or for our family ...

... you are speaking about certain situations in which it would be "better" to risk your life for something of great value, than it would be to stand by and let that value be eradicated. This is because life without that value, wouldn't then be worth living. This is something that is true for Objectivists, too, Joseph. Did you know that?

Did you know that Objectivists would risk their lives for certain things? I'm not sure that you know this (and I think it taints your thoughts about "us"). Even Rand said that revolution (yes, even the bloody, genocidal kind), was an appropriate response to a leader attempting to take away certain freedoms (i.e., the freedom of the mind). Think about William Wallace, portrayed by Mel Gibson in the epic motion picture, BraveHeart: "They can take our lives ... but they can't ... take away ... OUR FREEDOM!" How moving (and for good philosophical reason).

Here's the reasoning behind why reasonable people (i.e., people who think straight) ought to risk their very lives for their own freedom to live according to their nature (which REQUIRES freedom): Aristotle said that, when faced with 2 competing values -- values that can't both be sought and gained or kept together -- then it's necessary (for our own happiness) to find out which 1 of the 2 is the more choiceworthy. Here is a paraphrase ...

This [A] is more choiceworthy than that [B] if this [A] is choiceworthy without that [B], but that [B] is not choiceworthy without this [A].

Now, simply replace A with "freedom to live (or die trying!) as a human" -- and replace B with "a security that could only come from a sub-human level of living." And run the proposition again ...

The [freedom to live (or die trying!) as a human] is more choiceworthy than [a security that could only come from a sub-human level of living] if the [freedom to live (or die trying!) as a human] is choiceworthy without [a security that could only come from a sub-human level of living], but [a security that could only come from a sub-human level of living] in not choiceworthy without the [freedom to live (or die trying!) as a human].

Perhaps this example is a bit much. It's like an enthymeme with missing (assumed) premises. The point is that there's a point to being a human -- and it's not just for respiration (like plants experience), and it's not just for crude sensation (like animals experience).

If you are your own highest value, you place your own safety above everything - including your own moral code.

We need first define what it is that can properly be called a moral code. And only in reference to Objectivism (because it is the philosophy under debate). In Objectivism, moral codes are sets of principles that guide action for a twin goal: the furtherance of life and happiness. As defined, it's impossible to place your safety "above" your moral code -- as the moral code already subsumes your safety (as it, at least tacitly, subsumes anything and everything that furthers your life and happiness).

Is that more clear?

Ed

Post 25

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 9:00pm

Selfishness seems to mean that you don't sacrifice yourself for your values, does it not? I'm not advocating "altruism" here, sheesh.

Joseph, this doesn't really make sense. Perhaps that's why you're having trouble understanding it.

Why would selfishness "seem" to mean this? If one dies for one's values, how is that a "sacrifice?"

If you are your own highest value, you place your own safety above everything - including your own moral code. You will run when threatened, and hide while the virtues you believe in are desecrated. You will leave your family to die rather than risk your life, if you live this principle consistently. Could you call it anything but self-serving cowardice?

What you describe is "whim worship," not rational selfishness.

To say an individual's life is his highest value means everything in one's life, not just one's safety! It kinda made me smile that's you'd make the leap from "value" to "safety at all costs!" analogy. This may be the error, the false dichotomy, Ed mentioned. Clearly human beings are a little more complicated, and value much much more than that!

One's "life" doesn't end where the rest of the world begins. It extends as far as the mind can take it. One's life can go as far as the "wings of their vision" can take them.

If all I valued was my safety, I'd be dead inside of a month from starvation and thirst, or at best I'd have an incredibly empty life. A life devoid of values. That doesn't sound very selfish to me.

A sacrifice is giving up something of value for a lesser value. Selfishness doesn't play a part in the destruction of values. It can't. Irrationality destroys values. Rational selfishness does not.

Values cannot be acquired by the unselfish. Only selfish individuals can acquire values. Unselfish people cannot "love." Love is a selfish value. Learning to drive is a selfish value. Understanding complicated language is a selfish value. Caring for one's children, or an aging parent, is a selfish value. These things, and many more, give one's life its sense of "value." My life extends as far as my mind can take it. So does yours.

Selfishness can't be lived in a fishbowl. Human beings need to exercise their minds, and participate in the world. "Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible."

My life can't be my highest value if I can't/won't exercise alternatives [or die trying!] that will further facilitate my happiness. Living outside of my values and watching them die isn't a very selfish, or rational way to live.

(Cross posted with Ed. Had to add "or die trying!" Had to!)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 4/05, 9:08pm)

Post 26

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 9:10pm

Joseph,

Selfishness seems to mean that you don't sacrifice yourself for your values ...

Now, let's replace the word "value" with the phrase "most cherish" (which I think is a fair thing to do here) -- and substitute it and then check this proposition for potential absurdity ...

"Selfishness seems to mean that you don't sacrifice yourself for [what it is that you most cherish in life]."

In this respect, "selfishness" must be viewed as a cowardly, continuing existence devoid of value and motivated by fear. But this is not the kind of selfishness that Rand envisioned (and portrayed in her fictional characters). And, because it's not the kind she meant -- the whole argument is a Straw Man.

Ed

Post 27

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 9:34pm

Teresa,

(Cross posted with Ed. Had to add "or die trying!" Had to!)

hehe! Sounds like a Steven Seagal movie, doesn't it?

[low and raspy male voice speaking now] ...

Live Selfish, or Die Trying:
Escapades of an Individualist

Rated "R" for adult content and mature thought

Starring:

Steven Seagal as ... I.M. Sovereign
Jackie Chan as ... Gimme U. Freedom
Liv Tyler as ... Liv Fahyahself
Matt Damon as ... Maaattt Daayyymmonnn!
Susan Surandon as ... Ima Communist
Tim Robbins as ... Trey Terr
Alec Baldwin as ... Michael Moore

Coming soon, to a theater near you!

;-)

Ed

Post 28

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 10:13pm

::Names saved for future reference:: Hilarious! (Tray Terr, LMAO!)

Post 29

Friday, April 6, 2007 - 6:35am

Good choices there - Alex is getting rather pudgy, isn't he......

Post 30

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 12:52pm

I like it Ed, but can we leave Steven Segal out?

Let me address Teresa's concerns first. By sacrifice, I usually don't mean Objectivism's "sacrifice". I mean
"To exchange something (less) valuable in exchange for something else of greater value" vs Objectivisms:
"To exchange something (more) valuable for something of lesser value"
I kind of addressed that earlier, but I didn't want it to become an issue of discussion. As long as we understand, let's not waste time deciding which meaning of a word we should use. I'll call it "giving up" in the future to avoid confusion. Respond to what I'll explain below and let me know if I still fail to understand.

I find it funny that people can interpret the same argument so differently. I see three people that all think I'm making different arguments. I think I'm mostly to blame for that.

Ed, thank you for not being insulting or condescending about it, that did help. I'm almost thinking we can agree with each other. You'll have to tell me based on what follows.
---------------
Let me make it really basic so that no one thinks I'm babbling about something irrelevant:
What I have been trying to say is that virtue is of more value than self. It was acknowledged that a person with no virtue has no basis to be valued. Therefore the heart of my argument is that self has value because of virtue.

Consider a situation of certain death vs. saving people worth loving. You can say that life would not be worth living without them. This means that they make your life worth living, and thus that something gives your life value, and it does not have intrinsic value without virtue. (Presumably, these people are worth dying for because of their exceeding virtue)

I still see no way to justify placing self as ultimate value. How can we put the lives we live above that which makes it worth living? As has been pointed out, we don't. That's my point.

----------------

I also recognize that the question would be pointless without a self to appreciate the virtue. That does not, however, answer the entire issue.

(Edited by Joseph Funk on 4/07, 12:56pm)

Post 31

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 1:55pm

Joseph:

     I haven't read through the rest of this thread past your initial question. That said, let me concentrate on only that for now.

     You ask "What is the philosophical/moral justification for loving/valuing one's self?"

     My basic response is: "What is the need for such a question?" Loving/valuing anything else has no need for such a question, unless and until, a 'reason' arises to justify the questioning itself.

     What is your justification for the question...beyond the Cartesian style of 'questioning/doubting for it's own sake'?

LLAP
J:D

Post 32

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 2:05pm

Addendum:

The 'love of one's self' is not something I see as needing a justification so much as merely an identification of the source of all of one's needs.

LLAP
J:D

Post 33

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 2:54pm

Joseph,

You have said,
virtue is of more value than self.
And

self has value because of virtue

Strictly speaking "virtue" is a kind of value and obviously having a self is pretty much a requirement to having any values or doing any valuing.

But, ignoring that, the question we need to ask is, "what is the standard of values?" That will say not only what a value is but also allow one to work out the hierarchy of values.

Ayn Rand defined the standard of values as man's life qua man. When applied, it of course is to an individual - a specific individual. But the word "man" is about the abstract of human nature. And the reference to "...qua man" (as is proper to man given man's nature) is very interesting in the context of your statements.

To live one's life in fashion that is proper to man, is to live life virtuously (properly) and that then is the standard of man's values.

It is most often a statement that put Objectivists in conflict with collectivists because they want the standard to be some form of collective. Same is true with the conflict with altruists who see sacrifice as a virtue and need to locate the standard outside of the individual - anywhere but the individual. It is a statement that puts Objectivists in conflict with Hedonists because they don't want any conflict with making pleasure in the immediate future the highest value. And it puts Objectivists in conflict with anyone that has, as an agenda, already chosen this or that 'virtue' or dogma and want to twist words around till they have a 'standard' that will support their prechosen particulars. And, for other reasons, it puts Objectivists in conflict with those that insist on using faith rather than reason as the tool for determining a standard.

Living one's life in fashion that is proper to man is a generic statement because even though it locates the center of morality in the individual and it asserts an objective standard (man's nature), it does not spell out the particulars. What any particular virtue is must be derived (and Rand does so based upon man's primary characteristics, but we don't need to go there to answer your question).

It wouldn't make sense to say that virtue is of more value than self since a self is a necessary precondition for exercing any virtue. You must have a self to practice virtue. And, in theory, a nearly virtueless person could begin practicing virtue - therefore a self can have at least a tiny value if only as a potential. Also, without a self, who is doing the valuing and of value to who? So your statement that virtue is of more value than self is without meaning. But your other statement is right on the money.

It is reasonable to say that an individual self 's value to himself increases with the virtue he practices. (I phrased it this way because 'value' implies 'to whom?' and because it is a dynamic relationship based upon actions)

Did this answer your questions on Objectivism's position on these issues?

Post 34

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 3:07pm

John,

I certainly agree that the 'love of one's self is not something I see as needing a justification..."

But rather than to call it an identification (which is cognitive) I point you to my post #10, earlier in this thread. Love is an emotional response to deeply held values.

What one would love wouldn't, strictly speaking, be the self - but rather a collection of primary attributes that make up oneself (and in that sense it would be a response to what we identify as our essence).

Also, when we are talking about the self, it would be remiss not to mention self-esteem. A large part of self-esteem is the experience of oneself as lovable.

Post 35

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 6:33pm

Joseph,

Consider me in complete agreement with Steve Wolfer's post #33 (he depicted my own thoughts well there).

Ed

p.s. Don't worry, Steven Seagal is "out" (never thought him much of a hero, myself).

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/07, 6:35pm)

Post 36

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 10:58pm

I'm sorry for being so stubborn here, but I still don't think the right question is being addressed. I just realized that we're not understanding each other for at least two reasons. "

For one thing, we might be working with different definitions of "value. First, I can value something - it's important to me, etc. Second, something can be of value: similar to the first. Basically it is of value because you value it.
The other way something can be of value: objective value. Philosophy, truth, reason, or things of the sort may have value, even if every last person on the earth thinks not. Something is of value because it is good. I use the word in the last sense most often.

Should I be using different terminology to differentiate?

Second, why has everyone continued to argue against collectivism or "altruism" or other such things?? I'm not advocating anything of the sort, nor does the argument lead there. I'm afraid that you're confusing my argument with their arguments, that possibly sound similar. Hard to say, since I'm not sure I understand the ins and outs of your (the general consensus) argument.

If you could re-read my argument with the first in mind, and tell me if that changes anything, and then explain the second to me, maybe I'll know the right questions from there.

I don't have much time right now due to opressive deadlines, or I would explore a little further. More when I can give appropriate attention to Steve's post and those to follow. I hope you see that my main motivation is not to convince you, but to see how I might be wrong.

Post 37

Monday, April 9, 2007 - 1:49am

A value is that which you act to gain or keep. Philosophy is valuable, because it is a group of ideas that assist you in knowing what is knowable, how to learn, and how to act. Truth (true information) is information that is consistent with Reality. True information is necessary to perform any sort of useful planning. Reason is induction and deduction, methods used to discover more truth given some truths. All of these are things that are useful for accomplishing and keeping goals (acquiring value), hence they are all things which any value seeker would want to gain or keep, hence they are values.

"Even if every last person on the earth thinks not." I'm not so sure about that. If people for some reason think they are of disvalue (such as a person of religion might view science), then well, hell, you pretty much can't do anything without science (science is necessary to chew and swallow food). So you may consciously decide that something is a disvalue to you, while in actuality something is actually assisting you in accomplishing your goals, and you would not act to destroy it, but act to preserve it, well, then you have some sort of mental contradiction, in a way it is a value to you, and in another way its not.

"Something is of value because it is good. I use the word in the last sense most often." What is good (from the perspective of an individual) is "that which helps an individual act to gain or keep their values", while what is bad (from the perspective of an individual) is "that which hinders or destroys an individuals values". When individuals share values, they will generally share conclusions on what is good and bad.

"Should I be using different terminology to differentiate?" If you use the word in the last sense most often, I think you had better define what you mean by "good" and "bad", otherwise you are making meaningless statements.

"Second, why has everyone continued to argue against collectivism or "altruism" or other such things?" Any kind of primary goal/value you may decide on other than "one's own life" may lead to collectivism/altruism (which us individualists are very much against), hence these arguments.

"If you could re-read my argument with the first in mind, and tell me if that changes anything, and then explain the second to me, maybe I'll know the right questions from there."
What is your argument again?

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 4/09, 1:51am)

Post 38

Monday, April 9, 2007 - 12:25pm

Joseph,

As far as differentiating terminology goes, it would be expedient for you to delineate and demarcate the following 3 choices of qualifiers to be tagged onto the term "Value" ...

1) Objective (true for all)
2) Subjective (true for one)
3) Intrinsic (true even in the absence of valuing agents)

As far as the age-old debate about collectivism v. individualism, it turns out that arguments related to valuing (i.e., ethics) are intimately related to arguments related to the legitimate use of force in society (i.e., politics).

In response to your concern however, I (for one) will now try to focus the debate only on the ethical questions involved -- rather than to delve into the consequential politics that ensue from a given, accepted, ethical paradigm (code of values).

Ed

Post 39

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 3:37pm