Should Others Ever Be Appreciated As Ends in Themselves?

I think I have finally been able to zero-in on what the issue is that I'm most divided on in ethical and political philosophy: I realize that it is something about having one's own most fundamental and personal values (the values that one pursues in one's own life) that makes it possible to appreciate others having the same values in their lives. I wonder, however, if the reason one responds positively to one's most basic, personal values in the lives of other people is because finding those values in other people's lives means the chance to have more values oneself, or if it is merely because of how they serve the other person. Of course, it doesn't have to be exactly one of these or the other (often times it is both reasons that make the experience positive); however, I wonder if one can objectively enjoy seeing one's values in the person of another simply because it enhances the life of the other person, or if other people's values should have value to us only because of how they serve us instrumentally.
Since I believe I have actually seen both of these views expressed in different "Objectivist" works and papers, I thought that I would make this post on the general forum; I hope some of you can share your thoughts with me on this issue.
Thanks a lot,
Chris

Post 1

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 6:33pm

Of course, it doesn't have to be exactly one of these or the other (often times it is both reasons that make the experience positive); however, I wonder if one can objectively enjoy seeing one's values in the person of another simply because it enhances the life of the other person, or if other people's values should have value to us only because of how they serve us instrumentally.

Inspiration is a priceless value. I don't want to know the joyless, spiritually dead individual who's never inspired by the values gained by others.

Post 2

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 7:40pm

Christopher, take a look at Branden's principle of psychological visibility (nicknamed the 'Muttnick principle').

(I googled and found this article which describes the principle, but I didn't look beyond a quick skim to see if it was the same concept I was looking for.)

Post 3

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 7:57pm

Solipsists are not Egoists

The proper conceptualization of egoism requires us to hold that each person is an end in himself. It is proper for each self to be selfish. If John Smith's "egoism" means only that for John Smith, John Smith is an end in himself, then John Smith does not hold the concept of ego, since John Smith is a proper noun, not a concept, while the concept ego applies for every conscious self. There is no such thing as solipsistic egoism, since without more than one instance of self there can be no concept of self. If we understand egoism, as opposed to adhering to a stunted moral solipsism, then we will naturally appreciate it as proper that each ego achieve its own end.

Post 4

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 8:02pm

I'm with Steve. Think of the joy you experience on viewing a masterful work of art. It is a pleasure born of percieving an affirmation of your inner self, your core values, in the real world. Yet people are themselves works of art in progress. Some people, of course, choose to deliberately debase the heritage of four billion years of success. In them, it is sometimes possible to still see - if in the inverse - a reaffirmation of principles such as justice.

Post 5

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 8:23pm

I posted this in the original thread, it rings with the same tone as the other posts here:

************
Christopher,

In Nicomachean Ethics (1166a), Aristotle said: "The good person is related to his friend as to himself (for his friend is another self)."

What that says is that 'good' folks seek friends who mirror themselves in virtues and values. Having a good friend is like having a mirror -- a value mirror. It doesn't, however, say anything about the kind of friends which bad folks seek. It is, it seems, an implicit adulation of objective values (values good for all folks, but which the good folks will most assuredly seek).

Rand also wrote about values good for all folks, i.e., objective values. Those values are inherently life-affirming. For instance, when talking about what children get from good (Romantic) art, Rand said:

It is not abstract principles that a child learns from Romantic art, but the precondition and the incentive for the later understanding of such principles: the emotional experience of admiration for man�s highest potential, the experience of looking up to a hero�a view of life motivated and dominated by values, a life in which man�s choices are practicable, effective and crucially important�that is, a moral sense of life.

The art serves the psychological need for the child to learn what makes life really, really worth living. Good friends do that for us, too. They don't plan to, they just do. They remind us of the kind of character that is possible to us. In answer to your question, I'd say that somewhere close to half of the value of friends is admiration, and the other half is inspiration. In a personified way, interaction with good friends is like enjoying the experience of good art. It is, on some level, hero-worship. It is an affirmation of a good 'sense of life.'

Rand said this about sense of life:

But it is a process of emotional abstraction: it consists of classifying things according to the emotions they invoke�i.e., of tying together, by association or connotation, all those things which have the power to make an individual experience the same (or a similar) emotion. For instance: a new neighborhood, a discovery, adventure, struggle, triumph�or: the folks next door, a memorized recitation, a family picnic, a known routine, comfort. On a more adult level: a heroic man, the skyline of New York, a sunlit landscape, pure colors, ecstatic music�or: a humble man, an old village, a foggy landscape, muddy colors, folk music . . . . The subverbal, subconscious criterion of selection that forms his emotional abstractions is: �That which is important to me� or: �The kind of universe which is right for me, in which I would feel at home.�

... and she said that a sense of life is most tied to one's love of others and one's expression of values through art:

There are two aspects of man�s existence which are the special province and expression of his sense of life: love and art.

So, according to Objectivism, good friends are validating to a good sense of life, a reminder to us of what's good for us, and what's possible to us. They serve a psychological need and a moral need.

Ed
***************

p.s. Thanks to Ted for getting me up to speed.

:-)

Post 6

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 7:07am

More relevant Rand quotes (from the Love section of aynrandlexicon.com). They seem to simultaneously accept the idea that folks are ends in themselves while viewing good friendships as being entirely selfish at one and the same time (apostrophe's removed for formatting issues):

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another mans character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another persons virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as ones own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another ...

... One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a persons character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is ones own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as ones own basic values in the person of another. ...

[Selfless love] would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that persons need of you. I dont have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.

One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is ones own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.

A "selfless," "disinterested" love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of ones selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a "sacrifice" for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

The practical implementation of friendship, affection and love consists of incorporating the welfare (the rational welfare) of the person involved into ones own hierarchy of values, then acting accordingly.

Love is the expression of ones values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. ...

Post 7

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 10:56am

Thanks for your posts guys.
I was essentially asking you guys if other people have to be able to do more than just "mirror" us in order for us to objectively appreciate them; if, for example, they would have to be able to provide us with practical knowledge, or physical values, in order to be objectively valuable to us. It seems that all of you think that someone else mirroring us is, at least in certain contexts, enough to make them objectively valuable to us. Am I wrong in thinking that ya'll have that opinion?
Now that I think of it though, perhaps mirroring does itself offer us practical knowledge for our own lives... It can at least offer us the kind of knowledge which Rand said that art can provide man with: the knowledge of a proper philosophy.

Post 8

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 2:44pm

Christopher,

It seems fairly obvious, so maybe I'm missing your point, but I'd say that there are many objectively valuable traits in others from the perspective of a rational egoist.

I value the intelligence in others that I run into (at work, socializing, here on RoR, in a magazine article, etc) - they provide concrete examples of what I otherwise hold as an abstraction - and the intelligence is usually in some form that provides a practical value (a good laugh from humor, saving me money from good advice, teaching me something I can use from their knowledge, modeling a virtue I hold to the point of inspiring me - energizing me, etc.)

I value honesty and authenticity in those I interact with because I know how much more risk and annoyance is involved in financial or social interactions with those whose motivation isn't up front.

I value people with a benevolent sense of life and with a sense of humor that works well with mine - they continually remind em of, and allow me to experience a universe that is more fun to be in in - that makes life better.

I value the sight of beautiful woman - certainly natures finest work of art from my perspective. What a joy to exist as man when a woman moves in a way, or carries a certain scent, or twinkle her eyes at something you do or say, in a way that lets you FEEL how good it is to be a man.

I so value all the intricate and interesting differences (well, actually, not ALL of the differences) for how much that adds to life. As a psychologist this is a biggie.

Just their presence can be of value economically. It there weren't a great many people packed into a small land area, you would be unlikely to find great restaurants as one does in Los Angeles, New York, Bangkok, etc. The nature of free market economics gives great advantage to high level of demand (supply will follow) and the result are lower and lower prices with greater and greater quality. The very existence of other people, especially those who think differently, make up a working market where their will be those who would rather sell what I want to buy and buy what I want to sell. I can't invent and build all that I want.

There are so, so many things to selfishly value others for - I could write and write on this.

Was this helpful?

Post 9

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 3:59pm

Helpful? One paragraph was positively exciting!

: ]

jt

PS: Affirmation... that is the one word answer. Nice thread!
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 7/17, 4:00pm)

Post 10

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 4:24pm

Thanks, Jay - that's nice to hear

(another way to say that Jay is of value to me - in addition I tend to value people that like boats as well :-)

Post 11

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 5:02pm

Steve,
I think I get what you're saying... that is, if it is that the right values in the person of another can (at least oftentimes) lead to more values for oneself. However, I was really asking whether finding the values in the other person(s) itself should be reason for joy (whether or not one get's something else out of it, or can expect to maybe get something else out of it in the future.) Do you see what I'm saying?
As for myself I also tend to enjoy finding the same traits that you do in others; I sometimes wonder though if it is because I expect it to have practical effects for me other than just the joy of finding someone else who shares the same basic values as myself. (I know that finding those values in others oftentimes means that I will benefit from them in other ways than simply being able to look up to them, but that is beside the point that I'm questioning... The question is: Is finding your own most basic values in another persons life itself worth experiencing, even if one doesn't expect any other values to result from that person sharing one's values.)
While I sometimes seem to myself to appreciate my own most basic values in the person(s) of another for it's own sake, I sometimes wonder whether this is rational.
Thanks for your comments Steve (and all others as well) :)

Post 12

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 5:36pm

Christopher,

First, it is good to remember that value is a relationship and not an intrinsic - got that? Okay, you are walking past a neighbor's yard and their little boy is frolicking with his puppy and you smile, delighted with their antics and in effect feeling some joy at the the fun they are having.

There are two values here. The value of a positive emotional experience which, all else remaining equal, is a self-evident value. And the source of that value (boy and dog, playing), which is a value, in that instance, for its capacity to generate the positive feelings. Like money is of value for things that I purchase later which will be the ultimate values (except that they may be of value for how they make me feel, or some other goal to which they are subservient).

You received no value from that other than experiencing a positive emotion. But isn't that enough? "The boy and his puppy are of value," I say. To whom? To me. Why? Because they made me feel good.

I suspect that carrying this further just goes into psychology - into an explanation of why and how the value is expressed.

Put more succinctly, it is of value to value. Valuing is a process that is life-affirming - it is an essential part of human life. To value nothing, literally nothing, would require one to be comatose. If life is a value, then valuing is valuable and to value requires things to value, people to value. Love is the internal experience of intense valuing. Passion is tied to valuing. Self-esteem requires self-assertion which isn't possible without values.

You said, "I sometimes wonder though if it[enjoying finding positive traits in others] is because I expect it to have practical effects for me other than just the joy of finding someone else who shares the same basic values as myself." Joy is practical - experiencing lots of joy in life is more important that most 'practical effects'." If you empathized with feeling joy at the sight of the little boy playing with his puppy - then you've already answered your question... Yes?

You said, "I sometimes wonder whether this is rational", when talking about experiencing a positive emotion in seeing a shared good trait in another that you will not get a practical benefit out of. Think about evolution. Can you not imagine the evolutionary benefit of an emotional reward for asserting and or experiencing your core values more widely than less widely? We are unique in that we can choose and in that fashion pick up values that are conntrary to our well-being, but that doesn't change the basic equation. You would rather not feel physical pain - commonly nature's way to telling you that you need to do something different. Evolution would reward bonding with those who are more likely to share values.

Whether you reference this from psychology, ethics, aesthetics, economics, politics, or the perspective of evolution I see it as rational to value others in many different ways.

Post 13

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 5:52pm

>>PS: Affirmation... that is the one word answer. <<

Exactly what Jay said. Perfect!

Christopher, are you still looking for a rule book to replace the old religious texts? Just wondering.

I think I get what you're saying... that is, if it is that the right values in the person of another can (at least oftentimes) lead to more values for oneself. However, I was really asking whether finding the values in the other person(s) itself should be reason for joy (whether or not one get's something else out of it, or can expect to maybe get something else out of it in the future.) Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't see it. Yes, the values of others can certainly be a source of joy. Why wouldn't they be? I love to watch movies and get tremendous pleasure out of many stories. I watched Billy Elliot recently, twice, because it was so good. The story gave affirmation to my sense of value, as many great movies do. I don't, and never did aspire to be a dancer. Unless you're the hardest of concrete thinkers, the movie, and value I found it it, wasn't about dancing at all.

Post 14

Friday, July 17, 2009 - 11:27pm

Christopher,

The question is: Is finding your own most basic values in another persons life itself worth experiencing, even if one doesn't expect any other values to result from that person sharing one's values.

While I sometimes seem to myself to appreciate my own most basic values in the person(s) of another for it's own sake, I sometimes wonder whether this is rational.

Yes, finding the values is worth it -- even if there is no possibility of a personal, material gain from those values. Steve's answers are great on this point and you may be interested to know that Rand even said as much in the quotes above, where she said [bold added]:

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are ... the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. ...

Notice how she's talking about something you get from someone else's virtues, but she is not talking about a material gain "which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character"; but, rather, about something else (pleasure) besides material gains. You don't have to materially benefit from someone's existence in order to benefit from someone's existence. There is the spiritual realm, too. You can benefit just by merely witnessing the existence of virtue in another. Rand was actually quite clear about that.

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 12:15pm

I wish to protest this blatantly vulgar and demeaning thread. It is an insult to homosexuals and straight people alike!

Sam

Post 16

Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 1:49pm

Thanks for all of your responses,first of all.
Ed, I think your last response was especially good at showing what Rand thought about this topic.
It occured to me last night that there is another issue that is closely related to what we've been writing about that confuses me as well: why we should respect the rights of others who give us no sign that they will ever use them for their own good. If someone is very irrational, for example, and shows no sign that they will ever turn-around, then why should we care--as rational people--what should happen to them?
I know I'm treading on dangerous ground here, and would understand if you guys deleted this post; still, I thought I would ask anyway.

Post 17

Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 2:04pm

Christopher,

Nothing wrong with that question. I don't care what happens to those who are blatantly irrational. But I don't want their individual rights to be violated, because I want the process of protecting individual rights to remain vigorous and universal (otherwise some bureaucrat is deciding). I want rights, as such, to be respected, no matter what idiot owns them. (Remember, if the idiot violates someone else' rights he gives up his own. And if he doesn't, he is only unpleasant for those who bother to dwell on his existence. In other words, it is just like protecting the free speech of a Nazi. As long as his rights are safe, I know mine are likely to be safe as well. As for the Nazi, if he slips and falls in his bathtub and drowns, it won't occasion a tear from me.

Post 18

Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 2:32pm

What Steve said.

If you want to care about an idiot butt monkey, that's your business, but you can't force anyone else to care about them. As it stands, government forces everyone to support idiot butt monkeys, which only serves to produce more idiot butt monkeys.

Post 19

Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 4:41pm