| | Hi Christopher,
You might be amused by a post a contributed to a google groups thread back in April 2003. Here's an excerpt from the Theory of Value thread I started in humanities.philosophy.objectivism:
3) She seems to equivocate on "value", sometimes using it to
mean"that which one desires"and sometimes using it to mean"that
which is of benefit to someone." I suspect that she would either (A)
accept the latter view (which requires oodles more explaining on her
part), or (B) claim that desire and benefit are not two separate
issues but are two different aspects of the same achievement--a
problematic view since that which is desirable is not always that
which is of benefit, and vice versa. So I'm pretty much on the same page as you when it comes to Rand's use of the term "value." While I'm at it, I found one post by HPO JURY = MALENOR in response to mine rather helpful for understand where Rand might have gotten her definition in the first place.
Rand stole her theory of value
from Ludwig von Mises classical economic treatise "Human Action,"
first published in 1949. Rand and Mises were actually acquaintances.
In the ethical context, she plagiarized from Mises his axiom of action
-- value is that which we ACT to gain and/or keep.
[omit]
I agree with you that Rand's definition of "value" is untenable. She
may have conflated two definitions of it, that which one desires and
that which is of benefit to someone. The latter is at least more
objective. But she created an even worse confusion with her readers
and followers: she often used "value" as synonymous with "principle."
For example, Purpose is one of the primary values of her system, along
with Reason and Self-esteem; however, one cannot act to gain and/or
keep Purpose. One practices it through virtuous action, in this case,
productivity. One's life work is valuable because it reflects one's
principles in action. A productive person is, to that extent, a
principled one, especially when he practices this virtue to the
greatest extent of his abilities. Therefore a value is a moral
principle, but she often just called it values, particularly when
critiquing someone as having or not having values.
Onward...
[Peikoff:] He said in that essay "Reality, we hold--along with the decision to remain in it, i.e. to stay alive--dictates and demands an entire code of values." I take Peikoff to mean simply that if we want to live we need to figure out how we're going to do it, given our present situation. I don't see see this as a comment against intrincism. I also don't see this as saying the same thing as Smith and Binswanger.
Am I right in thinking that you are more of an intrinsicist when it comes to your conception of value?
I'm trying to keep my own views out of this, but no, I'm not intrincicist. I'm better described as relational, which I think aligns with the Objectivist viewpoint. But that's another story.
Ayn Rand and other Objectivists seem to rule all kinds of action which do not sustain one's life as outside the realm of ethics entirely. I think that this is absurd because I know that it is sometimes right to end one's life (although the appropriate circumstances are extreme, I'll admit). To tell a man who is dying of bone cancer, who is rolling around in his hospital bed in constant agony from pain, that his decision to end his life is either immoral or ammoral is to pronounce an absurdity to him. He knows (assuming that he is rational) that his decision is in every sense rational, moral, and proper. I think Rand thought every volitional action was within the realm of ethics. She thought it was ethically important to figure out what her favorite colors were. Peikoff, I think, followed suit in saying that even the choice to brush or not to brush one's teeth is ethically relevant.
I daresay she never pronounced as absurd terminally, chronically ill people who choose to end their lives. I'm unclear as to why you think otherwise. Incidentally, rarely to I share personal bits on these forums, but your viewpoint does get a sympathetic ear from me. I serve on the board of Compassion & Choices of Northern California, an organization that advocates and educations for reasonable end-of-life decisionmaking. Before that I served as an extern at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer as an ethics consultation extern, dealing with end-of-life decisionmaking on a daily basis.
Jordan
|
|
