Testing when one

Hi All,

I asked this question awhile back in another forum, but didn't get any great answers.

Life is the standard of value for an individual, right? Well what test can one perform to show when an action or attribute is for one's life? Please keep in mind the trickier cases like petty theft, dictatorship, and fraud.

Jordan

Post 1

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 1:05pm

Jordan,

Life is the standard of value for an individual, right?

Wrong!

The purpose of one's life is to enjoy it, not make it last as long as possible.

To enjoy one's life one must understand what kind of being they are, what the requirements are for that kind of being to enjoy itself. When one understands that, they know they cannot enjoy themselves as a mooch, or parasite, or second-hander.

Sure, they might enjoy some pleasure those ways, but their greater need as human beings to know they are competent to live successfully in this world, that the things they enjoy they deserve to enjoy because they have earned them, that they are not fakes or frauds living lives of constant evasion, cannot be fulfilled that way. Pleasure can be obtained almost any way. Happiness is only possible to humans whose values, knowledge, and actions are non-contradictory and truly integrated--that is what integrity means, and it is the only source of happiness.

Regi

Post 2

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 1:45pm

Aw Geez Reg,

Am I to preface every post with "according to Objectivism..." or "what would Objectivism say about..."? My question of whether life was a standard of value was rhetorical. Rand writes, "An organism's life is its standard of value..." (VOS, 17). Because this is an O'ist forum, I'm assuming Rand's proposition to be true for the sake of this discussion.

Nevertheless, your view doesn't seem tenable anyway. You would deny, without observation, that any fraud, mooch, or thief is happy. But I could point to plenty of apparently happy mooches and thieves, to which you'd likely respond -- they aren't genuinely happy (i.e., fulfilled). But if their happiness appears to be the same as the happiness of the value-integrated person, then how could you say that there's really a difference? I think you'd say that there's a difference somewhere?

Similarly, I could point to people who have apparently integrated values, but who aren't happy. They appear to have the same integrated value system as some happy guy. However, I suspect that you would deny, without observation, that their systems are the the same. I think you'd say that somewhere in the unhappy guy's system lurks some dis-integrated values. And so I think you might be guilty of Rationalist thinking.

What I'm looking for here is criteria for falsifying whether an act or attribute is for or against life.

Jordan

Post 3

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 8:06pm

Jordan,

I like your questions; you do exhibit an intellectual curiosity that I admire. And you seem open to discussion - another exemplified virtue. But I have got to criticize you, man.

Criticism (hopefully interpreted as "constructive" - although admittedly forceful):
First of all, your retort to Regi reminds me of when asked me about existence being a property (Existence Exists thread) and failed to work hard to understand my answer. Regi's answer may not be what you were looking for, but it is the right answer to your question nonetheless.

How can this be? Answer: You see Regi's words as "rationalistic" because you view them from an empiricist's (non-objectivist) perspective. But that's the way strong empiricists see all "real or apparent" rationalists (whether they are being strongly rationalistic, or not - only the "smell" of rationalism is needed to set them off). And that's the type of "perceiving without adequate understanding" that I experienced from you before on the other thread.

You may attempt to defend your retort to Regi by quoting Rand's warning to only judge a man's actions and not inferred intent (yes, I know, I'm inferring here). But my main beef with you is not over "irritating details" such as who was justified making which statement. More generally, you seem to be the type to deny that there can be knowledge of human nature.

Here's a quote that I think is relevant:

"There is in a man an upwelling spring of life, energy, love, whatever you like to call it. If a course is not cut out for it, it turns the ground round it into a swamp" - Mark Rutherford 1831-1913

Jordan, do you see how Rutherford's words convey a global understanding of human nature? What do you think of this pre-objectivist quote? Do you think that Rutherford must be making a hasty generalization to mankind - because he hasn't directly perceived enough particular instantiations of the principle to draw such an inference to the population?

Ed

Post 4

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 7:09am

Ed,

I'm okay being criticized so long as its constructive and I have a chance to defend myself. You've accused me of "failing to work hard" to understand answers. I read your answers; I think about them; I respond. One can argue that I've made a mistake, or that the person I'm responding to has -- in answering the wrong question or in answering the right question but with unclear language. I'd prefer to say that there's been a communication breakdown -- this places blame on neither party. It's more constructive, and gives both the option to improve her/his side. <shrug>

Reg's answer did not address my question, and I might not have asked it clearly. Neither did Rutherford (although I appreciate his quote).

To Rutherford's, his was nice and poetic but not terribly revealing. "If a course is not cut our for it, it turns the ground into a swamp." How does this translate into a test? How can we tell if a course is not cut out for it? Reg's answer wouldn't do because he lacked criteria for falsification. He is, of course, welcome to argue that falsification is irrelevant here. So are you. I'd like to see that actually.

In my view, Objectivism is skewed toward an empiricalist view of the world (with the emphasis on the evidence of the senses, percepts and all). I'm pretty sure I've "perceived and understood" (as best I could) Reg's post, and he's welcome to clarify. In any case, Ed, I encourage you not to sell my question too short.

Jordan

Post 5

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:25pm

Jordan,

First of all, I'd like to note that the quote I gave above was for the purpose of establishing whether humans have an identifiable nature (hence my preface to it, and my follow-up questions). It was not, as you said, to attempt to directly help in answering your request for "criteria for falsifying whether an act or attribute�is for or against life." Let me ask more plainly: Do humans have an identifiable nature, or not?

Secondly, I will respond to your question directly at the end, but I need to preface my response by first responding to your particular statements (they are my best evidence of your current understanding of the issue). Regi, please chime in at will - especially if I misrepresent you.

"You would deny, without observation,�that any fraud, mooch, or thief is happy. But I could point to plenty of apparently happy mooches and thieves,�to which you'd likely�respond�-- they aren't genuinely happy (i.e., fulfilled)."

Jordan, there are, in fact, 2 senses of happiness:

1) One sense of "happiness" (which is in common use at the moment) is a purely psychological one, which refers to the pleasure from acts which suffice to satiate indulgences. This sense of happiness is a fleeting one. In this sense, one could be quite happy one day, but unhappy the next day, and then happy again on the third. This is not true of the second sense below, but it is true of your mooches and thieves.

2) In its ethical or moral sense, "happiness" refers to a full life, well-lived. In this sense, life is like a symphony of virtue and value (you don't know if a symphony is "good" until its been "played out"). It is more appropriate to say that one is "on the road to happiness" or "becoming happy."

"But if their happiness appears to be the same as the happiness of the value-integrated person, then how could you say that there's really a difference?"

"What I'm looking for here is criteria for falsifying whether an act or attribute�is for or against life."

Jordan, the short answer is that we'd use sense #2 above and look to the natural needs and desires of humans.

Long answer:
At this point I'd like you to dispense with the popular use of the word "need" which is best illustrated by a child that whines that it "needs more ice cream" (even though more will mean a tummy-ache) or a young teen who whines that it "needs the freedom to continue - without consequence - to be profanely defiant to authority and others" (for the purposes of "self-expression").

A truly natural need is a real human good (there are no wrong natural needs - every true human need is a right desire). I understand that you'd love a list of such universal needs and desires. I'm working on it.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the best that I can come up with on such short notice. I'll remind you that Maslow found the needs by discovery after 30 years of research, and not by philosophical invention. You could use his hierarchy as a preliminary slide-rule to gauge effects of various actions.

At no time should you cover up or ignore the levels of the hierarchy, which compartmentalizes the picture (e.g. meeting a need by sacrificing another is not moral - human lives should be integrated well, not poorly).

Ed

Post 6

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 7:25pm

Ed,

Regi, please chime in at will - especially if I misrepresent you.

You are doing just fine, especially considering the conditions under which you are debating.

Personally, I'm not interested in pursuing any conversation where the premises are not allowed to be questioned.

When someone suggests that a single statement or two by a philosopher can be taken as their whole integrated view on something, and refuses any suggestion their premise might be wrong, there is no reason to pursue the debate.

For the record:

The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, Galt's Speech from Atlas Shrugged, page 123.]

Man must choose his actions, values, and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man�in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life. [Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Objectivist Ethics," page 25]

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, Galt's Speech from Atlas Shrugged, page 123.]

[Bold emphasis and mine.]

I am a bit tired of those who have read an Ayn Rand novel, or some summary of her philosophy somewhere proposing to analyze and criticize her philosophy without having any idea what it is.

Regi

Post 7

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:28am

Reg,

I'm talking about standards, not purposes. I should've clarified that early on. Standards are measurable, no? Your first two quotations support my initial premise which I've asked you to assume. I don't expect you to come up with anything constructive for me, especially with your condescension. I find it amusing that you've decided that I'm ill-read of Rand's work. Comments like that are always the mark of a great debater.

Ed,

Yes, I think humans have an identifiable nature. (Sorry to disappoint you.)

When did I start talking about needs? You started that, not me. And I don't want a list of needs. I want a test I can use to determine whether an action is for or against life.

I'm getting the picture that neither Ed nor Reg appreciates falsification here. It would help me to know why.

Jordan

Post 8

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 4:23pm

Jordan,

"Yes, I think humans have an identifiable nature. (Sorry to disappoint you.)"

I actually find your answer pleasing, Jordan! I'm serious. I find it refreshing when people admit that. Now, should I say that I'm "sorry to surprise?"

"When did I start talking about needs? You started that, not me. And I don't want a list of needs."

You started talking about needs when mentioned "criteria for falsifying whether an act or attribute�is for or against life."

Jordan, it is the NECESSITY (need) of a specific course of action - which human nature requires - that justifies an objective morality, a universal morality for humans.

Inherent human needs define specific courses of action. For animals, instincts direct these actions. For humans, it must be learned, or there will be consequences (I outlined some of these - such as the Holocaust - on the Existence Exists thread).

It is only because humans need to survive by producing (food, etc), that we need human rights, such as the property rights. These inescapable needs are the justification of all rights.

Moralities that fail to justify human rights are properly summed up as a Moralities of Death. And we cannot argue that moralities of sacrifice - such as Third Reich morality, or Stalin's communism - haven't already sacrificed enough human lives to prove this beyond reasonable doubt (if you've read Rand like you say you have, this should be review).

"I'm getting the picture that neither Ed nor Reg appreciates falsification here. It would help me to know why."

I appreciate falsification that is arrived at by the interplay of evidence and reasoning - never one without the other, nor even when one is strong but the other deficient.

Popper's empiricistic falsification (valid only for experimental science, but not for other types of rational investigations) is deficient as a means to understand human nature and morality.

Adler's dual falsification (empirical AND rational) transcends these limitations and should therefore be adopted. This superior type of falsification is captured in the spirit of objectivism.

Ed

Post 9

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 4:10pm

Jordan writes:
>I'm getting the picture that neither Ed nor Reg appreciates falsification here.

Hi Jordan,

I'm pretty familiar with Popper. "Falsifiability" as I wrote in another thread, is designed to tell scientific theories from non-scientific theories. A theory is non-scientific if you can't design a test that it can, in principle, fail. That's why, according to Popper, belief in God is non-scientific, in that you can't design any test, theoretical or physical, where that belief could fail. (for example, if a proposed test failed, one can always say, oh, God wanted it to be that way....!) That's the basic idea.

But yes, you're right, I don't believe Ed or Reg are too familiar with the idea. From my experience, falsifiable arguments are not exactly Regi's strong point...;-).

What normally happens is people play around with the terms (eg: "life") to avoid potentially falsifying statements, thus preserving their own theories. (The Scholastics called this "saving the phenomena"; Popper called this "verbalism" or just "playing with words")

In fact, here's a perfect example to test this theory:

Jordan writes:
>Life is the standard of value for an individual, right?
�
Regi replies
>Wrong!

So, Regi, you are saying life is *not* the standard of value for an individual?

;-)

- Daniel

Post 10

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 5:08pm

Daniel B.,

"But yes, you're right, I don't believe Ed or Reg are too familiar with the idea."

See my reply to yours on the White Collar crime thread. It shows that you really did drop the context (my words clearly state that the "public" (not Popper) was at fault for the misuse of falsificationism to support/promote moral relativism (ie. fact/value dichotomy).

Would you please be more thorough in capturing my stated views when you criticize me? It would really help if the goal is a mutual understanding and progress toward truth (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that that is a goal that you would subscribe to).

Ed

Post 11

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 5:08pm

The post above needs editing. The thread referred to (White Collar Crime) should read "Not Respecting Opinions."

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/20, 10:30pm)

Post 12

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 5:44pm

Without taking sides here, I want to observe that Objectivism rejects any essential difference between "science" in Popper's (and many others') sense and other fields of knowledge, including philosophy, and thus also the falsifiability criterion of science, and thus also the idea of devising some test such as Jordan is seeking. This, I think, explains the fact that people are talking past each other a bit.

Post 13

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 5:40pm

Ed wrote:
>See my reply to yours on the White Collar crime thread. It shows that you really did drop the context (my words clearly state that the "public" (not Popper) was at fault for the misuse of falsificationism to support/promote moral relativism (ie. fact/value dichotomy).

Do you mean the "not respecting opinions" thread? If so, I see that following my criticism you've amended your position to blame the public, and not Popper. So that's completely cool with me.

>Would you please be more thorough in capturing my stated views when you criticize me?

I didn't drop context, I simply hadn't read your correction when I posted this.

- Daniel

Post 14

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 6:14pm

Daniel,

So, Regi, you are saying life is *not* the standard of value for an individual?

Exactly!

To just say "life" is the, "standard of value," drops the context that life does not exist independently of the organism it is the life of. There is only one class of organisms that needs or is capable of forming values, man, because man is the only creature that must live by conscious choice. It is the life of man as man that is the "standard of value," not just life.

Before values can even begin to be established, the nature of the creature the values pertain to must first be established. Life is the fundamental issue that makes values necessary, that is true; it is the question, "to be or not to be." But for any organism, to be means to be the kind of organism an organism is--not just the perpetuation of protoplasm.

Regi

Post 15

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:16pm

Jordan, Daniel,

I'm getting the picture that neither Ed nor Reg appreciates falsification here.

Please devise a test this statement must pass if it is false and show it will fail that test, otherwise we know there is no basis for assuming it is true.

My view of falsification is absolute. A test that will prove a proposition false, if it is false, is possible for all true propositions, and all true propositions will fail such a test. My view is not based on Popper, or Adler, or any "modern" philosopher, but classical logic and strict empiricism.

Pretty simple actually. I'm always surprised by those who think it's a big deal. They sound like kids who have just discovered sex and don't know everyone else has known about it forever.

[Just one note. The purpose of proof is not to convince others but to ensure one's own reasoning is correct.]

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 6/21, 4:31am)

Post 16

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 7:51pm

Daniel wrote:
>What normally happens is people play around with the terms (eg: "life") to avoid potentially falsifying statements, thus preserving their own theories. (The Scholastics called this "saving the phenomena"; Popper called this "verbalism" or just "playing with words")

Regi then writes:
>To just say "life" is the, "standard of value," drops the context that life does not exist independently of the organism it is the life of.�There is only one class of organisms that needs or is capable of forming values, man, because man is the only creature that must live by conscious choice. It is the life of man as man that is the "standard of value," not just life.
Before values can even begin to be established, the nature of the creature the values pertain�to must first be established. Life is the fundamental issue that makes values necessary, that is true; it is the question, "to be or not to be." But for any organism, to be means�to be�the kind of organism an organism is--not just the perpetuation of protoplasm.

See what I mean, Jordan? Actually, that last sentence is such a fantastic piece of utter blather, I'll repeat it so we can enjoy it all over again...

Regi:
>But for any organism, to be means�to be�the kind of organism an organism is--not just the perpetuation of protoplasm.

A gem.

- Daniel

Post 17

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 10:46pm

Daniel B.,

"Do you mean the "not respecting opinions" thread? If so, I see that following my criticism you've amended your position to blame the public, and not Popper. So that's completely cool with me."

Daniel, I had originally blamed the public. While it's true that I did edit my original post - the edit had nothing to do with your criticism. If you think that I went back and edited my own words in order to have a "case" against you (as misrepresenting my view) check the edit date - it pre-dates your initial response to my words.

">Would you please be more thorough in capturing my stated views when you criticize me?

I didn't drop context, I simply hadn't read your correction when I posted this."

As I said above, my original words did place the blame on the public. In light of this, your responses on this matter now seem rather disingenuous. Would you please address that?

Ed

Post 18

Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 9:34pm

Rodney writes:
>Without taking sides here, I want to observe that Objectivism rejects any essential difference between "science" in Popper's (and many others') sense and other fields of knowledge, including philosophy, and thus also the falsifiability criterion of science, and *thus also the idea of devising some test such as Jordan is seeking* (emphasis by Daniel).

So, Rodney, in effect you are saying:
"No test can be devised that could show an Objectivist statement is unscientific."

- Daniel

Post 19

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 5:53am