| | Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Stern,
"By “philosophically objective,” I mean a value estimated from the standpoint of the best possible to man, i.e., by the criterion of the most rational mind possessing the greatest knowledge, in a given category, in a given period, and in a defined context (nothing can be estimated in an undefined context)."
This seems to give dictatorial power for determining value to a single being.
If you look at it in the hyper-literal sense -- where one, and only one, man gets to estimate something -- then it appears like the best guy gets to call all the shots. But it's actually just a normative statement. If you look at normative language and thought, you will find examples of certain kinds of things are given -- and those examples are typically the very best individuals of those kinds of things. Take birds.
If you are attempting to outline or provide an example of a certain bird, let's say a spine-tailed swift for example, then you would avoid referring to mutant birds born with only one wing. The reason that -- when outlining or providing such examples -- you don't talk at all about such anomalies is because it would not help you in understanding what the bird is or what it does. The spine-tailed swift is the fastest-flying bird and can fly at 100-mph. Let's try another example: knives.
If you were trying to characterize what a Ginsu knife was, you wouldn't include botched knives that came off of the assembly line without a handle (or with an imperfect handle). You wouldn't include deformed knives, or even dull ones. Instead, you would only include the very best and most sharp knife -- in your characterization of what all of these knives are, or what they do. Or you could try explaining a circle. In doing so, you would show or talk about only the most perfect circle possible. You would not include discussion of imperfect circles when trying to get someone to understand what a circle is.
So, it is just a method utilized during normative discussions, to always and only include the very best or brightest -- temporarily putting aside the fact that there may be some things of a certain kind which are not perfect. So, when Rand said that philosophically objective value would be what is estimated by the best man in the best situation, she was merely speaking "normatively." All natural law philosophers do this: Aristotle, Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, etc.
what if two beings are equally rational and knowledgeable ... Would they necessarily estimate the same value? No, and your question seems misguided -- as if you are still in the same train of thought as in the first quote above. If so, then my answer above should be sufficient to answer this question, too (because it applies in the same way to the subject matter). An absurd example (reductio ad absurdum) would be: What if 2 spine-tailed swift birds had the same genetic impediments? Would they necessarily fly at the same speed?
Also, is an estimate "objectively true"? Yes, you just have to "show your work." What you do is start out by saying: "Under these assumptions, the value of X is properly estimated to be between Y and Z." If you take a stick that is 18" long, and you use a reproducible method of estimating that it is between 1-foot and 2-feet, then your estimate is objectively true. An example might be that you have a 12-inch ruler laying around. To be more precise (if the context called for that) you could put the stick up to the ruler and see that the stick is longer (by about half). You could make a notch on the stick that is exactly 12-inches down the stick and then you could measure from the notch to the end of the stick (another 6 inches). No matter the precision required by any specific context in question, you can always get to an estimate that is objectively true.
Also, what sort of things would this mind consider when determining value? Are these things objective? How are we to know what they are if they, as the quote suggests, require rationality and knowledge? It's simple, we would use our rationality and knowledge. Under Rand's philosophy, man (in general) is a creature with rationality and he is a creature that gains knowledge (and even passes knowledge on to others). So there isn't this one, very special and unique human being who has in his possession the rationality and the knowledge -- leaving the rest of us like hungry baby birds waiting to be fed whatever it is that he regurgitates. Because humans have a common nature, it will be possible to find out what kinds of things lead to an objectively-fulfilling life for folks -- and what kinds of things detract from human fulfillment.
At the margins, there will always be some idiosyncratic differences, but this doesn't prevent us from arriving at some broad truths. For instance, the existence of psychotic people -- people who value murdering others, for example -- does not take away from a normative conclusion about murder and mankind. These kinds of exceptions actually work to prove the rule. Also, you could ask if faith and force is good for mankind, and if reason and freedom is better for mankind. And then you could get to an objectively correct answer to that question.
And how would one go about verifying any of these things ...? In the example I gave above (faith & force vs. reason & freedom), you may start with reference to first principles about mankind. For instance, man survives via the use of his mind and faith and force subvert the use of the mind. It follows that for humans faith and force will, in general, result in what scientists call "a failure to thrive" when compared to the opposite ideas: reason and freedom.
What role do personal preferences play (related to "equal minds" disagreeing)? I'll have to answer when I have more time. Welcome to RoR.
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/29, 10:34pm)
|
|
