Values as objective

[Ifat Glassman]

From my blog: link

Values as objective

What makes something good? Is it how you feel about it, how the universe "built" it, or how something in the universe relates to you?

These are 3 different philosophical approaches to "the good", which are Intrinsic, Subjective and Objective:

• Intrinsic: "Eating a banana is good because food is good"
  
• Subjective: "Eating this banana is good because I feel like it"
  
• Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment"
  

• Intrinsic: "Religion is good because that's the nature of reality as dictated to us by god"
  
• Subjective: "Religion is good because I feel good whenever I read the bible"
  
• Objective: "Religion contradicts reason, which is requires for my survival, therefore it's bad"
  

A description of the three approaches by Ayn Rand, from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (in blue):

"There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective.

The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself."

"Intrinsic value" is the approach of the man that says that what makes something good is how the universe "built" it.

Examples of an intrinsic approach to values:

• "The elimination of the human genes in the process of evolution is good because this is the nature of the universe, or the will of the universe, if you will"
  
• "The existence of living things is good" (This implies that something can be good regardless of someone for which it would be good)
  
• "Having sex before marriage is bad" ("Why? Because god said so" - or "it simply IS")
  
• "Cutting down plants is bad because it hurts mother earth"
  

The Subjective approach:

"The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality."

Subjective approach examples:

• "Religion is good because whatever makes the person happy is good for him"
  
• "What I see as good is not the same as what you see as good, therefore, there is no real concept of "good" or "bad"; In your worldview, a killer is bad, but in his worldview, he is not."
  
• "Nobody really knows what is good or bad for anyone - it's a matter of individual feeling."
  
• "I am good because I am me, and every person thinks of himself as good." (implies that a person is good because he wants to be good, not because he has some criterion to judge himself by)
  

"The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man."

Objective approach examples:

• "This medicine is good for you because it will cure your illness"
  
• "Having independent thinking is good for you because it allows you to create material good necessary for your life"
  
• "Listening to this kind of music is good for me because it uplifts my spirit and inspires me to acquire the success I dream of having"
  
• "Listening to this kind of music is bad for you because it drives you further into despair and running away from reality, despite the fact it provides temporary emotional relief"
  
• "This woman is no good for you because she is a liar and a cheat who will end up hurting you"
  

Notice that in each case a fact of reality is identified, which is relevant to the person's well being - not just his momentary feeling, but that which allows good feelings in general.

In summary:

If the intrinsicist followed his idea of the good to the fullest, he'd be like a robot acting to satisfy the universe or "god" or some unquestioned moral code. In one example, he'd be trying to eliminate himself in favor of the next step in evolution, or in favor of preservation of "mother earth".

If the subjectivist would follow his ideas to the fullest, he'd be looking only at his inner state to decide what is good for him - never at reality. If he craves food he'd be fat, and if he's fat, then he'll say that being fat is good, because he decides what is good.

Only the objectivist (denoting here: a man who uses the objective approach to values) lives with his eyes open, considering both the facts of reality, how they relate to his well being and to the satisfaction of his spiritual needs.

What makes something good for someone is not just how it makes him feel, nor how the universe is built - but his own identification that the thing promotes his physical and spiritual well being.

Like the subjectivist - he strive to enjoy things - to give his emotions satisfaction and achieve pleasure. But unlike the subjectivist he uses reason to identify how to achieve enjoyment, not mere emotions.

Like the instrincisist he strives to follow a moral code - but unlike the intrinsicist he does not take a moral code from "the universe", from god or from society as a given - he develops his own moral code by discovering the principles necessary for his life and happiness.

Personal experience, books and other people can be of great aid in this process, but essentially the process is done with his own judgement.

Under this process the values he chooses are objective: They are his choice, but not an arbitrary one: They are a result of correct identification of the facts of reality in relation to him.

[aequalsa]

From my blog: link

Values as objective

What makes something good? Is it how you feel about it, how the universe "built" it, or how something in the universe relates to you?

These are 3 different philosophical approaches to "the good", which are Intrinsic, Subjective and Objective:

• Intrinsic: "Eating a banana is good because food is good"
  
• Subjective: "Eating this banana is good because I feel like it"
  
• Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment"
  

• Intrinsic: "Religion is good because that's the nature of reality as dictated to us by god"
  
• Subjective: "Religion is good because I feel good whenever I read the bible"
  
• Objective: "Religion contradicts reason, which is requires for my survival, therefore it's bad"
  

Hi Ifitart,

Thank you for the post. As always, it is clear and insightful.

I have a somewhat subjectivist friend in real life who I am in an ongoing discussion with over objective /subjective morality and hoped you would expand a little on your above statements. In particular I would like to know how your explanation of objective good is more than a reductio ad adsurdem . In other words, "a banana is good because it gives you enjoyment," then, enjoyment is good because it is a pleasurable psychological state. A pleasurable psychological state is good because...see what I mean? Obviously most would agree that pleasure is better then pain in a common sense way but without "reasons." It almost needs to be accepted at some point as an axiomatic concept rather then a derived certainty.

It would be possible for someone(and in fact people do) derive pleasure from pain. Masochists, sexually, for example. Or, in a more healthy and Randian sense an individual might derive pleasure from the ache of the quarry or working to exquisitely, painful exhaustion in pursuit of some greater value. This flies somewhat in the face of the less sophisticated view that "pain leads to death, and pleasure leads to life :. choose life" argument, since very few, if any, people exclusively pursue one or the other. In fact, I would argue that both are inherent and necessary for life generally and a meaningful life in particular.

So in short, how does your example of an objective moral choice not end up being reduced to a somewhat subjective, context based decision about the relative proportions and types of pleasure and pain inherent in any action or set of actions which a moral actor is willing to tolerate?

If my meaning is unclear, I'll be happy to elaborate or rephrase it.

l

Edited June 25, 2009 by softwareNerd
Added closing-quote tag

[Randroid]

It would be possible for someone(and in fact people do) derive pleasure from pain. Masochists, sexually, for example. Or, in a more healthy and Randian sense an individual might derive pleasure from the ache of the quarry or working to exquisitely, painful exhaustion in pursuit of some greater value. This flies somewhat in the face of the less sophisticated view that "pain leads to death, and pleasure leads to life :. choose life" argument, since very few, if any, people exclusively pursue one or the other.

From what I gather, masochists only enjoy some specific kinds of pain, and even those only if they are in the right mood, so to speak. If one were to punch an unsuspecting masochist in the face, he would certainly not feel any kind of pleasure. I think you answered your own question regarding the "working to the point of exhaustion" thing: The knowledge of working toward a greater value makes it enjoyable.

Finally, if one's sense of pleasure and pain were truly inverted or otherwise seriously off, that individual would almost certainly work towards their own demise, albeit unknowingly.

[Ifat Glassman]

Hi Ifitart,

Just do me a favor, ok, call me Ifat? (pronounced if, as the condition if, and at as in "I've been at this place before")

I have a somewhat subjectivist friend in real life who I am in an ongoing discussion with over objective /subjective morality and hoped you would expand a little on your above statements. In particular I would like to know how your explanation of objective good is more than a reductio ad adsurdem . In other words, "a banana is good because it gives you enjoyment," then, enjoyment is good because it is a pleasurable psychological state. A pleasurable psychological state is good because...see what I mean? Obviously most would agree that pleasure is better then pain in a common sense way but without "reasons." It almost needs to be accepted at some point as an axiomatic concept rather then a derived certainty.

I got your question, I think it's a good one, I've been thinking about it too. Some lecture recommendations: "Understanding Objectivism" by Peikoff - he talks in length about intrinsicism and subjectivism (though more from an epistemological point of view than ethical as far as I remember - though it provides good explanations of these), then in "Objectivism through induction" again by Leonard Peikoff - he actually explains with examples what it means to have objective values. That's the jackpot for you, IMO, you'll find your full answer there.

So, about the question... Let's take it to a different field. Suppose instead of trying to live well or be happy you try to design a bridge. A subjectivist would go by his feelings "I feel that putting a beam here will make the bridge good, therefore it makes it a good idea", an objective approach will try to discover the best way to build the bridge based on facts like the weight of the bridge, the load it will carry, the surrounding, etc' and at the same time employ creative thinking to come up with new and more efficient way to build the bridge. (Just for the hack of it, the intrincisist will not try to think creatively, rather he would try to let reality dictate to him how a bridge should be built).

So both the subjectivist and the objectivist have the same goal, but they have different methods.

Now cut paste the same thing, but replacing the purpose of the bridge with the purpose of getting pleasure, being happy. The subjectivist acts by his feelings, the objectivist learns the principles by which he should live to achieve this purpose. One principle is that you should consider how something you do will influence your long term goals, how your goals relate to one another, the meaning of your desires against the requirements of psychological health.

A few examples:

A desire to get a dog

A desire to have a vacation

A desire to sleep with someone

A desire to drink alcohol

A desire to go to a movie

Dog:

Subjectivist feels like having a dog? Hell with everything, so long as he has enough bucks in his pocket he'll get that dog today.

Objectivist feels like having a dog? He thinks about his ability to raise the dog, the requirements of taking care of it, what it means for his daily routine, the reason why he wants a dog and whether or not that reason is good (Does he wants a dog because he sees it as a substitution for human companionship, or as a fun addition? If the former than getting a dog will only make a psychological problem worse).

Vacation:

Subjectivist feels like running away from work after a crappy day? Vacation now, to the first destination that happens to appeal to him.

Objectivist thinks how it will affect his work if he goes for a vacation now, what vacation he can afford and at what expense, which location would serve his current needs best (Is he looking for relaxation and quietness or excitement and action? and why - does excitement and action meant to dazzle him so he doesn't have time to think of how much he hates his job, or is it because he enjoys the fast pace of activities?), in short, he considers the meaning of a vacation in the context of his other values, mental and physical health.

A desire to sleep with someone:

Subjectivist: Go with the moment, do what you feel now. Is it good to sleep with her? Of course it is, because that's what I feel like doing.

Objectivist: Who is this woman, is she trustworthy, why do I want to sleep with her, what does sleeping with her mean for my other values (like, say, a wife), etc'.

I'll stop here, I think it's enough to get the idea... The subjectivist ignores reality and only looks at his emotional impulses. The Objectivist considers options for action against principles and long term consequences.

I think you would still ask, well, but suppose he answered all of those questions satisfyingly - he trusts the woman, he wants to sleep with her because he loves and admires her, it does not destroy his life if he does sleep with her, and yet, he wants to sleep with her and not any other woman not just for her general virtues but because of her unique appeal to him like her unique sense of life, sense of humor, interests, the degree her thinking matches his, and stuff like that. Isn't he subjectivist for choosing a woman based on something personal, something in him, in who he is and his personal preferences? Well, no. Who he is (like SoL, sense of humor, method and pace of thinking, etc') are things he needs to take under account. The opposite of subjectivism is not to eliminate personal identity (that would be intrinsicism) - personal identity is a fact just like any other that needs to be taken under account. Just because you have a certain character, does not make it a personal whim. It is a fact of reality like any other. So long as who you are is not immoral, it is compatible with living and achieving happiness, there is no reason to change it. So you just accept that this is who you are and use it as one of the factors to make decisions.

[aequalsa]

Finally, if one's sense of pleasure and pain were truly inverted or otherwise seriously off, that individual would almost certainly work towards their own demise, albeit unknowingly.

This is the thing I am referring to. If it were"seriously off" it would be true, but an individual could be quite a bit off and still manage quite well. Take a risk taking personality for example. Maybe he ends in a horrible rock climbing accident, or maybe he starts a company and does really well. The end result is sorta irrelevant since in both cases he is acting in accordance in a way which does little more than satisfy his desires. The object approach seems well and good when you are dealing with an "if, than." If I want x, do y works out well. On a more basic level though, there seems to be a subjective base at the point of attachment to your basal values.

[aequalsa]

Just do me a favor, ok, call me Ifat?

Certainly, Ifat.

That's the jackpot for you, IMO, you'll find your full answer there.

I have listened to both of those but do not remember getting an answer to this issue. It's been awhile though, so I may just not remember.

Now cut paste the same thing, but replacing the purpose of the bridge with the purpose of getting pleasure, being happy. The subjectivist acts by his feelings, the objectivist learns the principles by which he should live to achieve this purpose. One principle is that you should consider how something you do will influence your long term goals, how your goals relate to one another, the meaning of your desires against the requirements of psychological health.

This is more to the heart of the issue. I think that in certain ways that assessment is very doable, even easy. Some decisions seem to lead to obvious outcomes, good and bad. There are quite a few unknowns in life which in combination with our limited capacity for knowledge, make a rational rather than intuitive decision somewhat untenable.

For example, consider attempting to make a decision to buy stock in a company. With a reason hat on, I might do a good deal of research, making a rational assessment that a particular stock is undervalued with a great deal of upside potential. The next day it drops considerably on news of them diluting the shares, but more than it should so I buy it because I sense from past experience that it is an over reaction. It then goes up a bit once the over reaction cools and I must decide when to sell it. That decision, and actually all of the decisions in this process are not obviously correct. In fact, since you never catch a perfect top or bottom, it is really just different degrees of being mistaken. If I tend to be right slightly more often then I tend to be wrong, I "made good rational decisions." But to call them that when they include this intuitive, almost emotionally based process of integrating more information than I can consciously process, seems incorrect.

So the argument is that most things are this way. The decision to buy a dog might turn out to be great or not since what you get and what it costs are are not necessarily knowable. Parts are. You might know, for example, that dogs are not allowed in your apartment and will suffer significant problems if you buy one. But how good of a dog it will turn out to be, how much you enjoy having it, etc are not really discernible.

Or even better is the decision to sleep with a woman. Way, way to many unknowns to make a reason based decision. It comes into play, no doubt about it, but to make a reason based decision about someone necessarily confines you to a relatively small list of concretes that you can maintain awareness of. I cant think of a better way to make a bad decision then that.

It's easy to point to certain predefined concretes and see causation easily. I find more and more, however, that the meaningful decisions do not lend themselves to that kind of certainty and that holding that view ends up being an impairment in the sense that it oversimplifies complex decisions which disallows a more often correct probabilistic approach.

personal identity is a fact just like any other that needs to be taken under account.

This is exactly the issue. I'm saying that I do not think "personal identity" is a fact like any other. It is an incredibly large amalgamation of facts which cannot be individually considered or even held in context in anyway short of an emotional response. Particular parts can be examined. Some essentials can be found. The decision as a whole though seems to dip its toes uncomfortably into the subjectivist pool.

See what I mean?

This is a fairly complex idea which is more easily explained in person and which I do not fully grasp, so I apologize if I am not being clear.

[Grames]

This is exactly the issue. I'm saying that I do not think "personal identity" is a fact like any other. It is an incredibly large amalgamation of facts which cannot be individually considered or even held in context in anyway short of an emotional response. Particular parts can be examined. Some essentials can be found. The decision as a whole though seems to dip its toes uncomfortably into the subjectivist pool.

See what I mean?

This is a fairly complex idea which is more easily explained in person and which I do not fully grasp, so I apologize if I am not being clear.

Check out Salmieri's course on Ayn Rand's Conception of Valuing (linked in my sig).

Some good questions that can be asked are: "How does objectivity apply to identifying values" or "Where do values come from in the first place and how is that objective?"

These questions do have an answer in the fact of being alive, but leaving it at that is too abstract.

I think it is true one cannot logically, as in deductively reason out, values. Salmieri says (and claims Rand says) values are built up out of smaller values in a process which is ultimately inductive. Some things or actions are means to achieve what we already know that we value so one could form a practical syllogism based on that means-end relation to impart value to the means. But many other things, and the most important things are reached in a primarily inductive process.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The thing to keep in mind is that an objective value is one that is actually good for you by man's life as the standard; a subjective value is one that only feels good for you or that gives you a positive emotional reaction; and an intrinsic value is one that is proposed to be good by some edict or authority figure.

For getting a dog: assessing it objectively would be taking everything into account and how getting a dog will in fact improve your life in spite of having to clean up after it and train it; assessing it subjectively would be more short-term I feel I want a dog or my inner self says to get a dog, without considering its relation to your life in total; an intrinsic approach to getting a dog would be that the Bible (whatever authority) says to get a dog, regardless of what it means to you personally.

For building a bridge (a good example Ifat): An objective approach would be to take loads and structures into account as understood by a rational mind; a subjective approach would be along the lines of making the bridge look pretty without taking the facts of reality into account; an intrinsic approach would be to build a bridge the standard way or the way the authorities would build a bridge, as if one were to take a bridge built somewhere else and pluck it down to your location, not taking the particulars of your location into account.

The Fountainhead has some great examples of doing architecture according to the objective, intrinsic, subjective approach, even though Miss Rand didn't use that terminology in that novel. For example, Howard Roark always built his buildings not only to rational specs of a safe building, but also to integrate into the location and function of the building done artistically. Peter Keating always built his buildings according to some authority without thinking it through as to function or local. And some of the buildings Peter built were strictly based upon the subjectivity of his client, like the one that was designed to be ugly simply because the client wanted an ugly building.

In other words, form following function is an objective approach to architecture; form superseding function is intrinsic (i.e. it must look like a building done before); and form not having anything to do with function is subjective ("artistic" design superseding function -- if it can even be built that way at all without collapsing).

[Ifat Glassman]

This is more to the heart of the issue. I think that in certain ways that assessment is very doable, even easy. Some decisions seem to lead to obvious outcomes, good and bad. There are quite a few unknowns in life which in combination with our limited capacity for knowledge, make a rational rather than intuitive decision somewhat untenable.

You won't always have means to make an objective decision about a value, just like you don't always have the means of reaching an objective conclusion about any subject on earth (like, say, what kind of weather you should expect tomorrow).

Knowledge is still objective, and so are values. When you only have probability that something will happen you do not have knowledge that it will happen - all you have is probability. A friend of mine called it "pre-knowledge".

There are subjects which do not yet have principles to guide proper analysis - like psychology - you have some generalizations, good approximations, and a few actual principles: You do your best to learn about those things which do not have principles but it cannot be called Objective, because there is no way for every man using the method correctly to validate it - to reach the same conclusion.

[it doesn't mean that "pre-knowledge" is garbage - the contrary: it can have degrees of how much it is according to reality, or if some conclusion is a complete loony-bin it won't have the same status as any other non-objective conclusion.]

So in summary, not every conclusion is objective, but knowledge is objective.

Values are objective because values are a requirement of living things, and because of that not "everything goes" - some things work and some things don't. This means that one answer is right while all the others are wrong as to what is good for a certain man at a certain time (or to human beings in general). Certain method of choosing values is therefore required to make the right choices.

This is the same in regard to knowledge - one answer is according to reality, other answers (or conclusions) are not. Therefore, a certain method is required to reach the right conclusion. Conclusions reached with this method (reason) are objective, while conclusions reached by other means are not. They could still be right, but you will not have the means to prove it.

I can prove that many of my values are objective (clothes, the kind of breakfast I had today my choice of career as an artist), some I cannot do so, I can only act by the best of what I have. To take the simplest example I can think of - the decision what to wear is done based on your best speculation of what the weather will be today, but you cannot prove that your choice will turn out to be good for you - maybe it will rain and your short sleeve shirt will make you cold and sick.

This is my own thinking (and that of the friend I was talking to about this), I'm not sure how much it jives with Objectivism - I think it does. Just thought I'd add this comment because the explanation above looks like a serious inquiry and I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression to anyone that I got all of this directly from some lecture by Peikoff.

[Jach]

Knowledge is still objective, and so are values. When you only have probability that something will happen you do not have knowledge that it will happen - all you have is probability. A friend of mine called it "pre-knowledge".

Sorry, that's a fallacy of "there's still a chance, right?" It's all probability, but probability isn't a one-color system of grey, it's many shades of grey, and you can be "more white" and "more black" (though never pure white or pure black; I'll explain this in the shortest way possible by saying that 0 and 1 are not probabilities, just as plus and minus infinity are not integers). For some reason people think that this ideal "knowledge", for example 0.0% chance of winning the lottery, somehow means you have to cast aside the belief, whereas if the chance were 1/googolplex, you're allowed to keep it.

Failure to distinguish this is the real essence of the "bad subjective" in which the first post decries. If a person is going to ignore your argument that says the likelihood is 1/googolplex, why don't they just as well ignore some argument which claims to have 0 likelihood? And conversely, if you're going to ignore an argument that's 99% certain, you might as well ignore an argument that's 100%.

Though your terminology of "pre-knowledge" isn't entirely incorrect... Probabilities exist in the mind; I can flip a coin and assign 50% chance it lands on heads, but reality isn't uncertain and has already decided, and if I have the option of repeated experimentation, I can calibrate my probabilities to make my map better reflect the territory by seeing which side of the coin comes up. (Ignore quantum stuff.)

I can prove that many of my values are objective (clothes, the kind of breakfast I had today my choice of career as an artist)

Really? I'd like to see that proof. But don't spend your time, because what I'm really at odds is the redefinition of objective and subjective, which lead to arguments over definitions. What great light in the sky says your values are objective, and good for you? Death could be considered an objective fact by most, I think, but I don't think it would be a good value to prefer it on the grounds that it's objective, and I intend to live forever (provided there's enough fun) anyway.

* Intrinsic: "Eating a banana is good because food is good"

* Subjective: "Eating this banana is good because I feel like it"

* Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment"

Intrinsic is a part of the mind projection fallacy, where you project your map onto the territory, your mind's perception of reality onto reality itself. Your mind is not separate from reality, but you are not a god, and can't discern reality as it Really Is, sitting in your living room with your blinds shut. We've only known about quarks for so long, you know, and that knowledge came around through experimentation. But so did atoms, so just because you experimentally verified something doesn't mean the territory (reality) actually works that way, just that your map of the territory at that level works that way. We know that the universe doesn't change its calculations for things at different scales; it's all quarks (as far as we can tell). But we have to use less-precise-but-faster-to-compute methods because our computing power can't handle the everything-is-quarks map yet. I agree that intrinsic thinking ought to be avoided.

"Subjective" in this case is the on-the-whim decisions which Rand discouraged and so do I. But people really make many of their decisions on this sort of basis very frequently (right now I just feel like posting), and then they rationalize why it was rational later (I'm building my writing skills, laying down my beliefs so I can see them more clearly, challenging what I believe to be false statements, etc.). This isn't necessarily a bad thing; if you're faced with a situation in which you must either run into a burning orphanage to save someone or give in to your fear of death and run away, you're not going to have a lot of time to weigh the reasons for or against one or the other, and if you sit down and think about the problem you can find many. You'll start what-if-ing, coming up with different solutions for different scenarios (go in if it's a family member you love, run away if firefighters are already there and the heat is too intense for you), but I believing finding general solutions are of much greater use. This is my objection to people's objection against thinking about hypothetical situations, especially broad ones. Argue it out now and come to as rational a solution as you can, getting as least specific as you can, then in the event that you're faced with something like it you'll know what to do (if you still value rationality, anyway).

"Objective" in this case is still very subjective, but I'll grant that "objective" in this case is really just a redefinition so more distinct categories can be made. I think it might help the Objectivist cause more if they were labelled Garf, Pappit, and Morpid, along with as clear-as-possible definitions of each that don't just say "Pappit = subjective". An ideal definition would be to say "these configurations of quarks represent the human brain acting Garfily, and are to be avoided". But that's not likely to happen. It's important (I've found) when talking to people about selfishness that it's not at all used in the classic sense of the word which society still holds, the one which carries a negative connotation, or the one which goes along the lines of "caring about your own life regardless of anyone else's". I think Objectivism would have less resistance to the ideas if new words were used instead of hijacking meanings from other established words. I can say "the fox is asleep" and really mean "my head itched, and a scan says my brain is receiving itch signals from the scalp-nerves, and continual scanning will show my brain telling my hand to scratch it", but I'm going to find it hard conveying that information. Defining selfishness as "concern with one's own interests" (Virtue of Selfishness) is okay, but then you have to also define what interests mean, and what constitutes concern, and what those things are, and so forth. Then you start bringing "rational self-interest" in it, without any math to back you up, and you're done. (I'm firmly convinced that the art of rationality lies in the studying of probability and decision theories.) Once you start using abnormal meanings for common terminology you've got to be very, very explicit. The nice thing about math is that it is explicit.

Anyway, "objective" is subjective ("in the mind", which seems to me a standard definition, if somewhat poorly defined) in this case because you're taking your past experiences of eating bananas as evidence, along with the people you know's past experiences. I can give the same argument for why I should eat dark chocolate. Except try feeding chocolate to a cat (not seriously, please). To me, for something to be objective it seems like it should apply regardless of the situation. For it to be "subjectively objective", which is as close to objectivity I believe humans as they are now are to get, it has to exist in the most accurate map we have of the territory. Back in Newton's times, we would say that his equations were objective because our maps which used them reflected the territory better than any others, in that they produced more accurate results and so forth. Then later on Einstein showed up, and helped us draw an even more accurate map, showing that it has really been Relativity governing things all along, even in Newton's times, and Newton's equations were just special cases of Einstein's.

Now as I'm at the end of my post (more observant users will notice it's my first; this felt like a good place to come in instead of the traditional method of making a greeting topic, saying nice flattering things all the time, then every once in a while raising a few questions or concerns), I want to reveal a little of my personality along with an attempt to prevent ad hominem attacks. I'm not here to blindly attack everything to do with Objectivism or its followers or all of its beliefs (you won't find me dissing laissez-faire capitalism, for example, or advocating communism). I would like some sort of intelligent response though instead of one consisting of just pointing me to literature, though, as I've had that in the past... And while the real "enemy" is the irrational leaders who threaten to blow the world up, or the irresponsible, over-arrogant engineers who dream nanotech or strong-AI without considering all the precautions, I do think myself as less wrong on a lot of things; but I strive to become less wrong, and I'm not going to stop when I really think I have the answers. I'm not going to accept anything with absolute certainty (even this sentence), because I would never be able to undo it. I've found I don't need absolute certainty; 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.99...9% (with 3^^^3 9's, a very arrogant percentage) work for me.

[Grames]

Anyway, "objective" is subjective ("in the mind", which seems to me a standard definition, if somewhat poorly defined) in this case because you're taking your past experiences of eating bananas as evidence, along with the people you know's past experiences.

This idea that any touch of the personal invalidates the idea of objectivity is just wrong. First, it is a demand for out of context absolutes which is the same demand that the intrinsicist makes. Second, being objective in action means willfully adhering to proper methods of thought, and since the only thought you can control is your own thought then being objective is a way to be personal.

With regard to the bananas, what other kinds of experiences are there than human experiences that could possibly be relevant to the question of the worth of bananas? If you throw out "your past experiences of eating bananas as evidence, along with the people you know's past experiences" then what the hell is left to go on? Stranger's accounts? Personal subjectivism is not improved by switching to social subjectivism, and the same could be said for objectivism. If the method of objectivity is followed, then the conclusions will have merit and strangers can reach the same the conclusions but it doesn't matter, there is no voting on truth and whether or not strangers agree, conformity, is essentially the method of being subjective, not objective.

refernce: Objectivity at the lexicon

[Ifat Glassman]

Sorry, that's a fallacy of "there's still a chance, right?" It's all probability, but probability isn't a one-color system of grey, it's many shades of grey, and you can be "more white" and "more black"

Are you aware that this is a forum for Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand? It is a fundamental of her philosophy that knowledge is possible. your idea that all knowledge is probability goes against the fundamentals of her philosophy. Do you know her philosophy at all?

(FYI: I'm not going to read your long post since if you are not familiar with her philosophy the distance in our knowledge would be too big. The things you write look to me like complete, complicated nonsense, and I doubt you will understand what I am talking about).

Edited June 30, 2009 by ifatart

[Jach]

Second, being objective in action means willfully adhering to proper methods of thought, and since the only thought you can control is your own thought then being objective is a way to be personal.

Ah, but the proper methods of thought are debatable, and cognitive biases and so forth were virtually unknown by people outside the field before 2000. Proper thought isn't easy; you need math and stuff. And as for controlling thought, your brain is part of the universe, and once the tech advances a little more I could control it entirely by hooking you up to a machine. (Not likely me, but you get the idea I hope.) We've had drugs that alter the brain's chemistry for quite some time.

With regard to the bananas, what other kinds of experiences are there than human experiences that could possibly be relevant to the question of the worth of bananas?

Chimps, and other primates.

Stranger's accounts? Personal subjectivism is not improved by switching to social subjectivism, and the same could be said for objectivism.

Yes, stranger's accounts. Ever watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Ask the Audience gets the question right more often than phone a friend, who probably has access to Google and is also probably "the smartest person the contestant knows". I'd explain the statistical reasons why but I doubt you'd listen.

Do you know her philosophy at all?

(FYI: I'm not going to read your long post since if you are not familiar with her philosophy the distance in our knowledge would be too big. The things you write look to me like complete, complicated nonsense, and I doubt you will understand what I am talking about).

You can call me a beginner in Objectivism, if you want. I've read Atlas Shrugged and a good portion of the essays in Virtue of Selfishness. I know the proposition I'm challenging, but really, assert for me that you can have absolute certainty when you are a brain that perceives reality imperfectly, not a god who is omniscient after looking at something.

As for not reading my post, I took the time to read yours, I'll admit myself slightly insulted (and saddened, for reasons I'll not divulge) you stopped with mine. I also think I'd understand what you were talking about, but the only experimental way for one of us to be right is for you to post and me to read. But wait, I must stop myself, I've been attacked personally, and I really don't want to start down the ad hominem path. Plus I believe in non-violent non-cooperation, but that's a matter for a different forum I think.

To be honest, I somewhat expected something along the lines of "Welcome! Now here's why you're wrong as incest." (Edit: Aw, no easy smalltext.)

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

I don't consider myself spreading the ideas, as I'm not very great at persuasive writing, but I think these are valid questions because if I'm so wrong it should be easy to explain to me why. I agree with the proposition that "Existence exists", what I'm less certain of is what it actually means to exist, and why. Right now I believe we're all made of quarks, but who's to say quarks aren't made of something else? Not long ago all the intellectuals believed we were made of little round irreducible balls called Atoms.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Jach

[Ifat Glassman]

You can call me a beginner in Objectivism, if you want. I've read Atlas Shrugged and a good portion of the essays in Virtue of Selfishness. I know the proposition I'm challenging, but really, assert for me that you can have absolute certainty when you are a brain that perceives reality imperfectly, not a god who is omniscient after looking at something.

The distance in our unedrstanding of Objectivism is too big for me to be able to talk with you about this particular subject of values as objective. You are still struggling with the idea that men can have certainty - can have knowledge, you want to dive right away into values as objective? that's a suicide jump. You first need to begin with things more basic, like whether or not we can have knowledge at all.

As for not reading my post, I took the time to read yours, I'll admit myself slightly insulted (and saddened, for reasons I'll not divulge) you stopped with mine.

Well, when you don't understand the philosophical base you're standing on, and yet right away you launch into whole theories about knowledge, you should expect the response you got from me.

I appreciate independent thinking, but it is ridiculous to debate values as objective when you're not even sure yet that knowledge is possible. The right thing to do is to start with the basics and try to understand it first. So no, I'm not going to read things to entertain disconnected, long chain of thoughts. If you would have started a topic discussing the validity of knowledge I might have participated, because that might actually lead to a discussion of actual things. Instead you jumped into a subject on which you know nothing about from the Objectivist point of view to tell me I am wrong and give us a lecture about your knowledge of probability. No thanks, I studied probability in college, I have no desire to get lessons again.

I don't consider myself spreading the ideas, as I'm not very great at persuasive writing, but I think these are valid questions because if I'm so wrong it should be easy to explain to me why.

It's not easy to explain high level ideas when the very basics are not understood by one side. In some cases, it can be nearly impossible without going first into tons of discussions explaining various other things.

I agree with the proposition that "Existence exists", what I'm less certain of is what it actually means to exist, and why.

How can you agree with it if you have no idea what it means?

[Grames]

Ah, but the proper methods of thought are debatable, and cognitive biases and so forth were virtually unknown by people outside the field before 2000. Proper thought isn't easy; you need math and stuff. And as for controlling thought, your brain is part of the universe, and once the tech advances a little more I could control it entirely by hooking you up to a machine. (Not likely me, but you get the idea I hope.) We've had drugs that alter the brain's chemistry for quite some time.

If someone chooses to debate evolution or the flatness of the earth, that makes it debatable? No, the missing element here is that a critic with an opposing point must have a legitimate point to make, and there are no contenders for a proper method of thought against reasoning by observation and logic. Aristotle discovered the syllogism, and more recent philosophers have validated induction. Enumerating the many varieties of logical and rhetorical fallacies and the cognitive biases just makes it easier to be objective.

Your hypothetical example about a machine is irrelevant because it is counterfactual. Neither one of us is hooked to such a machine and philosophy is for people not hooked up to such machines.

Chimps, and other primates.

It is not subjective but objective to observe that what is true for a chimp might not be true for a human.

Yes, stranger's accounts. Ever watch Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Ask the Audience gets the question right more often than phone a friend, who probably has access to Google and is also probably "the smartest person the contestant knows". I'd explain the statistical reasons why but I doubt you'd listen.

An application of game theory to play a game is supposed to prove what? Wouldn't your deployment of math and statistical arguments be making an objective case for the best course of action? In other words, an example of objectivity not an exception to it. The point here isn't the result (accepting someone else's opinion in the face of your own ignorance) but the method used to argue for it.

You can call me a beginner in Objectivism, if you want. I've read Atlas Shrugged and a good portion of the essays in Virtue of Selfishness. I know the proposition I'm challenging, but really, assert for me that you can have absolute certainty when you are a brain that perceives reality imperfectly, not a god who is omniscient after looking at something.

You certainly are a beginner. Your questions about certainty are not treated extensively in the fashion you are looking for in those two works. The way for a fallible, nonomniscient conceptual consciousness to obtain certainty is to accept his identity and context.

Certainty

“Certain” represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: “possible” and “probable.” . . .

Idea X is “certain” if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative...

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, . . . you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence . . . .

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character . . . .

The alternative is not to feign omniscience, erecting every discovery into an out-of-context absolute, or to embrace skepticism and claim that knowledge is impossible. Both these policies accept omniscience as the standard: the dogmatists pretend to have it, the skeptics bemoan their lack of it. The rational policy is to discard the very notion of omniscience. Knowledge is contextual—it is knowledge, it is valid, contextually.

And these from the Kant related quotes:

The motive of all the attacks on man’s rational faculty—from any quarter, in any of the endless variations, under the verbal dust of all the murky volumes—is a single, hidden premise: the desire to exempt consciousness from the law of identity. The hallmark of a mystic is the savagely stubborn refusal to accept the fact that consciousness, like any other existent, possesses identity, that it is a faculty of a specific nature, functioning through specific means. While the advance of civilization has been eliminating one area of magic after another, the last stand of the believers in the miraculous consists of their frantic attempts to regard identity as the disqualifying element of consciousness.

Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.

Moving on to your final two paragaphs:

Your initial post has quite the hostile edge to its challenges and bald assertions, it is not conversational at all.

You don't need to know physics down to the utmost fundamental particles in order to be certain the macroscopic objects of awareness are real, and have an existence separate from and prior to your awareness of them. In fact there is no way to reach an awareness of quarks without taking for granted the existence of all the tools of scientific research as well as an entire economy of farmers, factories and financiers that make scientific research possible.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Ah, but the proper methods of thought are debatable, and cognitive biases and so forth were virtually unknown by people outside the field before 2000. Proper thought isn't easy; you need math and stuff.

Your problem is that you do not think that we observe reality the way it really is -- that the observation and integration of those items available to the senses and to introspection are somehow illusions of the real world of quarks. And, to you, until we know the most fundamental physical components of existence and can use mathematics to describe them, then we don't have knowledge. But your own essays show that this is not true, since you are going by observation when you write a post or reply to one. In other words, you must be taking that which you observe to be reality, since I'm sure you didn't run the numbers through an equation before deciding to post here.

Objective knowledge means that knowledge derived rationally from observation in a non-contradictory manner. And sensory observations and introspective observations are objective in the sense that they give us true facts about existence, and then one must organize those observations into wider and wider abstractions. This is the objective approach to knowledge. It is called epistemology, and Ayn Rand wrote a whole book on epistemology called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which I would suggest you read in order to become more objective.

And before you come back and say you must prove your observations, the answer is no, observations are the given and do not need to be proven.

[Jach]

Thank you all for your comments, it will give me a good amount of stuff to consider for a while. I think there were some misunderstandings, though, so I'm going to attempt to clear it up, then go my own way and probably leave this topic be. I'll make a point that I do not deny reality, and do not believe reality itself is uncertain about anything, because uncertainty exists in the mind. My distinguishing between beliefs and reality goes about like so: the things which determine my predictions I call my beliefs, and the thing which determines the results of my experiments I call reality. But interpretation of those results still depends on my prior beliefs; the notion of absolute truth invokes an ideal comparison between belief and reality. As for this 'knowledge' business, I don't need absolute certainty to claim I know something. I know for example about evolution and do not doubt it; there's a huge mountain of evidence in its favor that you would be insane to ignore it, just like you'd be insane to ignore your odds of winning a lotto ticket are 1/googol, and still bet anyway. I also know Occam's Razor is true (despite the fact that to justify it you have to invoke it).

I also don't think that when I'm receiving the reflected photons from my socks to affirm I'm wearing socks that I'm seeing an "illusion" of reality. I'm wearing socks because of the fact I'm wearing socks, and I have experimental results to back me up, and I'm pretty darn sure I'm not going blind right now, where my eye doesn't process anything regardless of the photons that enter, but I can't be absolutely sure. I don't need to be, though. I don't have to keep track of the very small probabilities (any more than things you don't have to keep track of that you believe have 0 probability) that something wrong is happening with my brain that would make me not perceive myself to be wearing socks, and I can say with very high certainty that it's a fact I'm wearing socks.

How can you agree with it if you have no idea what it means?

Existence is poorly defined. I've been told "touch yourself" in response to that. I did. If I were an Ancient Greek, I might believe that to be enough. But I know (on a certain level of my map) that the resulting pressure I feel isn't necessarily because "I exist", it's the result of electrons zooming around exerting various particle forces. If you scaled up a hydrogen atom so that the electron was one pixel, the average distance between the nucleus and the electron would be about 11 miles. We're largely phantoms. But then what is existence? I might claim existence is the territory, but that begs the question of what then is the territory? One might then answer reality. My answer to that answer is we cannot know for sure if what we perceive as existence is actually existence, because we deal with maps. I'm quite sure our map that takes into account quarks accurately reflects the territory, but I'm not going to stake absolute certainty in that and say the map is the territory. That would be the mind projection fallacy. Our maps are multi-level, the territory is a single-level, and I won't want to put absolute certainty that we've found that single-level yet.

[Ifat Glassman]

Jach, how about you start a new thread about Existence, knowledge and probability and discuss your ideas there, and present your view or dilema from the beginning?

This will serve to separate topics, so that people interested in the discussion about your topic will know that they can find it from the title of your thread and likewise for this thread.

[Grames]

On topic, I think the following examples can be improved. Values have two components, the facts and a choice. The examples make explicit the relation between the facts and your identity as a person, but they do not make explicit the role of consciousness.

Objective approach examples:

• "This medicine is good for you because it will cure your illness"
  
• "Having independent thinking is good for you because it allows you to create material good necessary for your life"
  
• "Listening to this kind of music is good for me because it uplifts my spirit and inspires me to acquire the success I dream of having"
  
• "Listening to this kind of music is bad for you because it drives you further into despair and running away from reality, despite the fact it provides temporary emotional relief"
  
• "This woman is no good for you because she is a liar and a cheat who will end up hurting you"
  

The way I would write them:

• "This medicine is good for you because it will cure your illness, and you want to be cured."
  
• "Having independent thinking is good for you because it allows you to create material good necessary for your life, and you want to live."
  
• "Listening to this kind of music is good for me because it uplifts my spirit and inspires me to acquire the success I dream of having" (no change, dream is good)
  
• "Listening to this kind of music is bad for you because it drives you further into despair and running away from reality, despite the fact it provides temporary emotional relief, and you don't want to run away from reality."
  
• "This woman is no good for you because she is a liar and a cheat who will end up hurting you, and you don't want to be hurt."
  

The point is, it is not automatic that people want what is best for them. If they don't choose the best then the best is not a value to them. The difference between what people actually value and what they ought to value is the choices they have made and continue to make, and also possibly a mismatch between their actual identity and the relevant facts and their understanding of themselves and those facts. Facts and choices are equally important in creating values.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Facts and choices are equally important in creating values.

Right, an objective value is that which one acts to gain or to keep volitionally knowing that it is good for you qua man so you ought to pursue it and maintain it of your own free will. Morality is there to help you to understand the proper standards by which to choose what to do and what not to do; an objective morality helps you to understand that those things which are good for you ought to be pursued and enjoyed.

[Ifat Glassman]

On topic, I think the following examples can be improved. Values have two components, the facts and a choice.

Yeah, you're right. I had in mind a certain emphasis to show, but the way I phrased those examples, it's not actually an objective value - it's only objectively good for someone as judged by an observer. I'll change them to a first body including a choice. Thanks

[aequalsa]

Thank you all for your comments, it will give me a good amount of stuff to consider for a while. I think there were some misunderstandings, though, so I'm going to attempt to clear it up, then go my own way and probably leave this topic be. I'll make a point that I do not deny reality, and do not believe reality itself is uncertain about anything, because uncertainty exists in the mind. My distinguishing between beliefs and reality goes about like so: the things which determine my predictions I call my beliefs, and the thing which determines the results of my experiments I call reality. But interpretation of those results still depends on my prior beliefs; the notion of absolute truth invokes an ideal comparison between belief and reality. As for this 'knowledge' business, I don't need absolute certainty to claim I know something. I know for example about evolution and do not doubt it; there's a huge mountain of evidence in its favor that you would be insane to ignore it, just like you'd be insane to ignore your odds of winning a lotto ticket are 1/googol, and still bet anyway. I also know Occam's Razor is true (despite the fact that to justify it you have to invoke it).

I also don't think that when I'm receiving the reflected photons from my socks to affirm I'm wearing socks that I'm seeing an "illusion" of reality. I'm wearing socks because of the fact I'm wearing socks, and I have experimental results to back me up, and I'm pretty darn sure I'm not going blind right now, where my eye doesn't process anything regardless of the photons that enter, but I can't be absolutely sure. I don't need to be, though. I don't have to keep track of the very small probabilities (any more than things you don't have to keep track of that you believe have 0 probability) that something wrong is happening with my brain that would make me not perceive myself to be wearing socks, and I can say with very high certainty that it's a fact I'm wearing socks.

Existence is poorly defined. I've been told "touch yourself" in response to that. I did. If I were an Ancient Greek, I might believe that to be enough. But I know (on a certain level of my map) that the resulting pressure I feel isn't necessarily because "I exist", it's the result of electrons zooming around exerting various particle forces. If you scaled up a hydrogen atom so that the electron was one pixel, the average distance between the nucleus and the electron would be about 11 miles. We're largely phantoms. But then what is existence? I might claim existence is the territory, but that begs the question of what then is the territory? One might then answer reality. My answer to that answer is we cannot know for sure if what we perceive as existence is actually existence, because we deal with maps. I'm quite sure our map that takes into account quarks accurately reflects the territory, but I'm not going to stake absolute certainty in that and say the map is the territory. That would be the mind projection fallacy. Our maps are multi-level, the territory is a single-level, and I won't want to put absolute certainty that we've found that single-level yet.

Hello Jach,

Welcome to the forum. I think I see where you are coming from and I am not certain if I am very far off. A lot of the problem seems to stem around the concept of certainty so I wonder if a fleshing out of this irritating little noun might help.

If we are to say that something is certain we are necessarily talking about human epistemology. It is therefore necessary to assume that that standard takes a few things for granted. Namely that there are humans, in some place, with some capacity to gain knowledge. In other words, the axioms must be accepted for the concept to even have a context. I think what confuses the issue is viewing certainty as only possible to closed sets such as we find in arithmetic. 2+2=4 etc. If for example, we were to take Peikoffs induction example of a ball rolling, we see that we can be quite certain since rolling is inherent in roundness. The skeptic though will claim that we can not be certain of this since there exists no reason that a round thing rolls. Sure they seem that way, but perhaps in an alternate dimension square things roll because friction coefficients are inverted.

I submit that this is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=4 only because 2=2 when in fact, 2 might equal 3. To undercut the entire fact by eliminating the premises with a great, big, arbitrary, unsubstantiated "what if," eliminates the idea of certainty as a meaningful concept. Leaves it floating. So it is clear in this way that deductive certainty is no more indefensible than inductive certainty.

In this way, I allow for certainty with regard to both induction and deduction by ignoring the arbitrary until such time as evidence suggests it as a possibility.

What bothers me most is that certainty as defined above is only applicable to a certain class of concretes and that most of the decisions we have to make are not of that class. The decision might contain some concrete things consciously, but most of the decision seems to take place on a intuitive, almost subconscious level. This manifests itself, essentially, as a strong feeling that I ought to do something one way rather then another. If I happen to be strongly integrated, then those facts which are connected to my intuition might might be strongly correlated to concrete certainties which would lead to a higher probability of success, but not what I would think of as objectively true. It is at this point that I believe that I am in agreement with you.

It may be conceptually helpful to envision an objective world in a certain scientific sense, but if we have no access to it in regard to any particular complex decisions, then I see little value in it except in an after-the-fact way.

In regard to the earlier example of whether to sleep with a woman, this point is strongly evident. If my sole criteria were physical attraction, I could make a certain, objective decision. Either I find her attractive or I don't. If I take that decision out of the control of my id, then I might take into consideration whether she is married, whether she has any communicable diseases, etc. A little harder, but still possible to make a certain decision based on actual objective reality. Now if I wish to make an actually good decision, based on what is actually best for me, then I must consider the future ramifications of the decision emotionally, physically, financially, and a bunch of other -ly's I am not aware of at the moment. I attempt this by considering her current and past behavior, my understanding of the world, my knowledge of human capacities and my limited knowledge of my own values, which I must then overlay, cross reference, and integrate. To say nothing of the random changes in circumstance which the future might hold. To believe, after that, that I am making a good decision with anything close to certainty would be a naive sort of arrogance. No matter how many conceptual short cuts I create, I will still be left with many holes in my decision which would each accommodate a mac truck.

It is at this level where I have trouble seeing the objective truth as useful.

Thank you everyone, for your response. They've been very helpful so far.

[Myself]

*** Mod's note: Split/Merged from another topic. - sN ***

But, objectively speaking, if one maintains a value that is not objectively protected (say, something altruistic in nature), wouldn't they really have something that is a lack of a value? I thought Rand never accepted something as a value unless it was objectively defined?

She defined a value as "an entity one acts to gain or keep."

Edit: feel free to create a new thread about values if you want, but try to stick to the topic of blackmail in this one.

Edited April 8, 2010 by softwareNerd
Split/merged

[Dante]

But, objectively speaking, if one maintains a value that is not objectively protected (say, something altruistic in nature), wouldn't they really have something that is a lack of a value? I thought Rand never accepted something as a value unless it was objectively defined?

What do you mean by "have something that is a lack of a value?" I would contend that yes, the thing they are trying to protect is a false value (by definition, in this scenario). However, the method by which they are trying to protect it (blackmail) is valid, even though they are in error about the value of the end goal.

I would say that the ethical value of blackmail stands or falls on whether the object in question is being pursued as a gain or protected from a loss, and the ethical value of the object itself is a different matter (though both obviously deserve evaluation and deliberation by the individual).

Hopefully this post sticks to blackmail enough; that is the method I'm referring to.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Dante