Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Objectivism too difficult to follow?

Rate this topic


RSalar

Recommended Posts

First the definitions:

Subjective: Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Objective: Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Just for clarification. How does "Contextual" differ from Subjective? Objective requires context, and you seem to have given a definition for Subjective that really means Contextual. Subjective really has more of an implication of arbitrariness, as being NOT based on observable phenomena; based on whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, do you have difficulty distinguishing (objectively) why (assuming some degree of a normal context) a 30 year old man with a wife, two kids, and a mortgage should generally go to work each day versus playing video games all day?

Or is your objection on a smaller scale such as, why should I drink Coke instead of Pepsi?

My problem is with the principle as it applies to all choices. Why would we use an objective standard to guide us with big issues and a subjective standard when the decision is about a smaller issue? Objectivity in this context means to me that there should be a factual right and wrong—and a person’s opinion should make no difference. Is Coke better for you than Pepsi? There should be a factual answer to that question. Should a 30-year-old man with a wife, two kids, and a mortgage go to work each day versus playing video games all day? There should be a factual answer to that question. But if we say that this guy can decide for himself (subjectively) that playing video games is a higher value to him than supporting his family, then there is no factual answer to the question. Objectivity requires the absence of personal bias. I can’t say I value smoking cigarettes more than living a long time if I want to be objective. Objectivity requires that value living longer over smoking cigarettes because life and living is the objective standard of value. The same goes for the food we eat, the amount of exercise we get, and the types of sports we participate in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for clarification. How does "Contextual" differ from Subjective?
Context: The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

You could view things objectively or subjectively within a particular context. An objective view is factual -- whereas a subjective view imparts a personal preference or bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we use an objective standard to guide us with big issues and a subjective standard when the decision is about a smaller issue?
A standard of the "big issues" applies to everyone, and no standard of the "smaller issues" applies to everyone.

Incidentally, you don't mention universality in your definition of "objective". I could be thus be "objective" in preferring Sprite's lemony taste, and you could be "objective" in preferring Pepsi's cola taste - both standards being objective (based on observable phenomenon) and subjective (personal) by your definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that it isn't big versus small issues, it is whether two options lead to an equal goal. If three plates of food are placed before a dog, two may be nutritionally equivalent while the third may contain poison. If an amoeba comes to a fork in the stream, the two ways may lead to equally nice ponds (given the context of an amoeba's life). In one garden, the plants may all tend to one direction, because of how the sun shines; in another, at a different location, the plants may have no discernible slant -- the ones that tilt slightly right do just as well as the ones that tilt slightly left.

Or, are you thinking of situations where the two options are not clearly both clearly good and bad, and not both equally good (do either, they're optional), but rather where the options both contain an element of harm (or at least some element of risk)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if we say that this guy can decide for himself (subjectively) that playing video games is a higher value to him than supporting his family, then there is no factual answer to the question.

The core issue here (as it appears to me) is that for you, objectivity only exists if everyone does exactly the same thing, eats exactly the same food, has the exact same job, uses the same exact tooth brush, etc. etc. etc. As I suspected earlier in my attempts to clarify subjective vs. objective, I'm apparently failing to communicate that each individual can look at factual evidence within the context of his life, and derive different rational conclusions that apply to him but not the next guy. This does not mean his decisions are subjective (or arbitrary). People are different. People are individuals. They have different physiology, different personalities, etc. etc. So there can be specific, objective reasons why each person chooses differnt things or values.

In the Coke versus Pepsi example, let's assume that for all intents and purposes, each of them has the exact same health affect on you as an individual and you only drink it occasionally because you recognize that too much consumption of soda conflicts with some of your higher level values (staying healthy and trim for instance). The only difference between the two is that Coke offers a more favorable reaction to your taste buds. I couldn't begin to tell you the scientific reason why some taste buds react differently to certain tastes, but I know factually that they do. Based on the fact that you prefer the taste of Coke and all other factors are equal, objectively speaking, you should drink Coke instead of Pepsi. However, the next guy in line, his taste buds react favorably to Pepsi. Should he drink Coke or Pepsi? However, this particular choice is of such relative insignificance that if the person who prefers Coke drank a Pepsi instead, it would hardly be more than a quizzical footnote in the back of my mind.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subjective: Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

There is a definitional problem here. That is not the definition of subjective used by Objectivism so if you attempt to apply that definition to the task of understanding Objectivism, you will reap confusion. Although I am not involved in this discussion, as such, I would encourage everyone to not let definitional confusion take place.

Also, there seems to be some definition-switching going on here. Rsalar, you seem to be using "subjective" to sometimes mean the above and sometimes mean "arbitrary; non-objective." Note that the definition above in no way implies non-objective. You could have an observation particular to a given person that is based entirely on observable phenomena and is presented factually. You cannot say the same if you put "arbitrary" into that definition (which you haven't stated but I think you are doing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The core issue here (as it appears to me) is that for you, objectivity only exists if everyone does exactly the same thing, eats exactly the same food, has the exact same job, uses the same exact tooth brush, etc. etc. etc. As I suspected earlier in my attempts to clarify subjective vs. objective, I'm apparently failing to communicate that each individual can look at factual evidence within the context of his life, and derive different rational conclusions that apply to him but not the next guy. This does not mean his decisions are subjective (or arbitrary). People are different. People are individuals. They have different physiology, different personalities, etc. etc. So there can be specific, objective reasons why each person chooses differnt things or values.
As I see it, there are several issues here: 1) What is objectively good for me as an individual in my unique circumstances, 2) what is objectively good for me as a human being according to the nature of human beings in general, 3) where is the line that divides subjective personal tastes from objective facts that affect me in a positive or negative way, and 4) when is it in my self-interest to choose a negative physical effect to achieve a perceived psychological gain? Perhaps I feel emotionally good while doing something that is physically harming me. Am I rationally choosing to do physical harm to myself in order to achieve a perceived emotional gain when in fact the emotional gain is due to false premises (that I do not even know I hold—and may not have the ability to discover)? It’s this last issue that is the focus of my concern. This is where I think it would be too easy to subjectively choose one’s values and then think that because no higher value was sacrificed for a lower one all is well. All is not well because unless one’s values are objectively chosen and prioritized it doesn’t matter that no higher value is sacrificed for a lower one. You can be acting towards your own self-destruction while thinking you are being motivated by the principle of choosing values that “make life worth living.”

IMO -- Values must be chosen objectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I feel emotionally good while doing something that is physically harming me. Am I rationally choosing to do physical harm to myself in order to achieve a perceived emotional gain when in fact the emotional gain is due to false premises (that I do not even know I hold—and may not have the ability to discover)? It’s this last issue that is the focus of my concern.

If the gain is due to false premises, then Objectivism would definitely say that you should check those premises and not seek the emotional gain. Reality comes first, after all. So if you're concerned that Objectivism encourages that sort of behavior, I'd say that it doesn't.

As for the "may not have the ability to discover" part, well that sounds like a personal problem to me (i.e. as opposed to a problem with Objectivism). It is your responsibility to discover such things; your responsibility to yourself. As you understand, failure to do so means that you won't be acting to further your life. What Objectivism does is tell you how this sort of thing is a problem, and give you the tools to identify it. Now, once you have discovered it, there is always the option of professional help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the line that divides subjective personal tastes from objective facts that affect me in a positive or negative way?
If there is no objective standard for a given choice, then the only thing such a choice can be based on is personal taste.

When is it in my self-interest to choose a negative physical effect to achieve a perceived psychological gain?
...I dunno. Ignoring your treatment of rational happiness and psychological (whether rational or not) "gain" as equivalent, maybe the degree of physical harm matters?

*passes question on to someone else*

Unless one’s values are objectively chosen and prioritized it doesn’t matter that no higher value is sacrificed for a lower one...

IMO -- Values must be chosen objectively.

It has already been said that you seem to be using "objective" rather loosely. The (current) problem I have with your usage is that, in saying that values must be chosen objectively (presumably meaning: based on universal standards), you disallow the possibility of some preference simply not having an objective (universal?) standard. You'll end up arguing that either there is some fundamental, philosophical reason why I should choose one colored shirt over a differently colored shirt... or the color of my shirt can't/oughtn't be a value to me. Sounds like a false dichotomy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Values must be chosen objectively.

Okay, what does this statement mean to you?

How does it differ (in your view) from what I have said so far?

As it stands, I don't think that I have told you anything to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, what does this statement mean to you?

How does it differ (in your view) from what I have said so far?

As it stands, I don't think that I have told you anything to the contrary.

In post #14 you said, "So doing things that give fulfillment to our lives (or perhaps add value to our lives) quite often means that sometimes we choose to do things which may shorten our physical life span to some degree (as well as having an impact on some or all of our other values), but they increase the quality of the time we have here. The difficulty occurs in deciding how much of the length of your life you wish to sacrifice for the other value you wish to pursue."

When you say that an activity may shorten our physical life span but it increases the quality of time we have here, my question is: by what objective standard do you measure the quality of time we have here?

And when you say, "... life does not consist of doing only those things necessary to "avoid the morgue". Rather, to a large degree what you also have to consider is what things make our lives worth living to begin with," (post #14) by what objective standard to you determine what makes life worth living?

I say these things must objectively make your life better and worth living and cannot be subjectively chosen, because if it is just a matter of taste (like choosing Pepsi over Coke) then what’s to stop me from choosing smoking cigarettes over living a longer life? Then it becomes, “smoking cigarettes, drinking whisky, and chasing women adds fulfillment and makes life worth living.” Etc.

Having objective values means that the things we choose to do (eat fatty foods, ride motor cycles, jump from airplanes, smoke cigarettes, avoid physical exercise, etc.) must actually be good for us—they can’t just be perceived to “make life worth living.”

Objective values are just that--real values. They must really make life better. If we have objective values then we enjoy doing only those activities that really do make our lives worth living.

How did you decide that riding motor cycles makes your life better? Couldn't you have just as much fun doing something safer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you decide that riding motor cycles makes your life better?

I'll provide more later with respect to the rest of your post, but I'll answer this now.

I originally started riding motorcycles roughly 19 years ago. At that time, my wife and I lived in an apartment on a significantly more limited income and her vehicle went south. Economically speaking, a brand new motorcycle (on the smaller side) was far less expensive than even most used cars, and it got excellent gas mileage. The weather where I live is such that if one really enjoys riding (or really has to ride), you can pretty much ride year round. Snow is pretty much the only weather that will absolutely prevent me from riding, and it does not snow much here at all (typically).

Aside from being shown the controls, and having already been familiar with manual transmissions, I taught myself how to ride. While not real difficult, it does take some skill development so I'm somewhat proud of this achievement. I got my license and we had two vehicles again. Then my other car went south. We got a second bike, a little bigger because I had "outgrown" the first one, and my wife and I rode motorcycles as both of our primary means of transportation for about a year. In retrospect, this was probably NOT the wisest choice, and I doubt I would do it again, but nothing bad ever came of it. None the less, during the (roughly) two year period we rode, I was the only one to have one minor mishap when I wasn't paying attention to the traffic ahead of me and I laid my bike down at low speed. No injuries and minimal damage that did not affect the operation of the bike.

As we more seriously started considering having a child and our incomes had improved somewhat (the context of my life changed), we decided to play it safer so we got a car and get rid of one of the bikes. When my wife actually got pregnant, the second bike went in favor of another car. While we accepted the additional risk when it was just the two of us, we decided not to take that risk anymore with a little one depending on us. Having a son was one of the greatest things that ever happened to me in my life. At the time, I really enjoyed riding, but taking care of my son become far more important to me.

Fast forward seventeen years. I missed riding quite a bit from time to time as my son grew up. After a promotion and reassignment to another precinct, I found myself around a couple of avid motorcyclists who brought their bikes in to work quite often. As it happens sometimes, as time fades, one forgets things about their past and just how intense the experiences were at the time. Being around these bikes started to bring back the memories I had of riding so long and I started thinking about getting another bike. My son was now 17 years old, and far less dependent on me. I discussed this with my wife and ended up getting a new bike.

As I started riding again, I could not believe how much I had forgotten about the sense of freedom and happiness I experienced. I see the world around me differently from the saddle of a bike. I'm not a thrill seeker by any stretch of the imagination, but there was something exhilarating about the increase in risk, not simply "playing it safe" anymore. However, unlike many risky activities, I had significant control over the amount of risk I exposed myself to. By contrast, I do not care for most amusement rides at all, particularly rollercoasters. They make me sick to me stomach, I have no control, I don't learn anything or improve any skills.

And while I mentioned that I was proud to have taught myself how to ride, I recognized that there was still some fundamentals that I could learn and improve on so I took a Basic Rider Safety Course (with my wife and son) and learned a fair amount more of how to ride even better.

However, the "feeling" I get from riding is not the only value added to my life. In totality, then and now, here are some of the other benefits I have gained;

1) I added a transportation option to life.

2) I've added a skill set to my life.

3) Motorcycles are generally more fuel efficient than cars so I spend less at the pumps. ( though I have to admit, Harleys are not necessarily cheaper than cars :) )

4) Being a motorcycle operating added career options to my life, both in my current career, and outside of this job (though I have never needed or desired to take advantage of that yet)

5) Riding affords me a significant stress relief from my job.

6) Riding (well) requires a person to be more accutely aware of their surroundings as well as becoming more of a defensive driver in order to offset at least some of the additional risk. Consequently, I would say my overall car driving skill and awareness has improved. It's easier to become complacent when you are protected by the metal around you in a car. Also, I'm far more likely to notice motorcycles while in a car now, not that I didn't look for them before.

7) I don't know if you have ever driven while tired, but I have. After working a long night, I would get in the car pretty alert and start driving home. By the time I hit the straight stretches of the interstate for awhile, I have actually started nodding off behind the wheel. Driving, at least for me, can be a very tedious, boring activity, particularly when alone. I never feel sleepy or bored when I'm on my bike, ever. The relative safety of driving a car deteriorates rapidly when boredom starts to make one attention lapse. The drive home in the car is always too long. The ride home on the bike is always too short.

8) Riding has actually afforded my wife and I with more opportunities to do things together, as most of our other interests do not intersect well. Yes, we could go places in the car, but as I said, it's boring, it's a chore. The ride makes the whole event more interesting.

Every time I ride, I improve my skills, I become more familiar with my bike. I have slowly started to master the machine, which still has limitations that are beyond my own.

With respect to the risks involved, what are they REALLY, for me? I can look at crash studies and derive that motorcyclists are twice as likely to be involved in an accident versus cars, and four to five times more likely to be killed if in an accident. But not every motorcyclist is involved in an accident, much less killed. What separates them from the statistics? Probably circumstance to some degree, but I bet on skill, attentiveness and the general manner in which one operates their bike. Make no mistake, every time I get on the bike, I am accutely cognizant of how vulnerable I am, and how much I do not want to die or be seriously injured.

Considering how much I drive a car (work and personal life), I have had very few accidents in 26 years time.

Couldn't you have just as much fun doing something safer?

How much safer would be acceptably safer? Should my life consist simply of "avoiding the morgue"? But to answer your question within the context of my current knowlede, no, I can't think of any other activity (at least reasonably similar) that provides me that level of enjoyment at whatever actual risk it presents. Will I be one of the statistics or will I "beat" them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say these things must objectively make your life better and worth living and cannot be subjectively chosen,
(my bold emphasis)

As to the rest of your post, we still seem to operating on different definitions of the word 'subjective'. I pointed this out, KendallJ pointed this out, Inspector ponted this out, and hunterrose noted another definitional issue. Until we can resolve that, I see no way the discussion can advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we can resolve that, I see no way the discussion can advance.
I have been using the dictionary definition from the beginning and I provided it in post #23. If you would prefer to use a different definition I am happy to use yours. If your definition is different from the one I have supplied and you are unwilling to use mine for this discussion I may be able to find another word that will fit what I am trying to express. Do you disagree with the basic premise that things like personal tastes are entirely subjective? In other words there is no objective standard for me to apply to the choice of what I should like about the taste of Pepsi over Coke --- Or why I like blonds over redheads --- or why I like to walk in the woods and do not especially enjoy big cities, etc etc etc. Each of us as individual human beings enjoy certain things for personal (subjective) reasons--the way we choose these things is not based necessarily on some factual data, instead it’s based on the way we were brought up, or based on the emotions that the experience produces (for reasons unknown), or perhaps for some other physiological reason that is not based on logical reasoning. You listed a bunch of reasons why you ride bikes but if you read each one I’m sure you can see that other activities would also apply to the reason provided. 1) There are many other transportation options, 2) other activities also provide an opportunity for you to increase your skills, 3) you already addressed the fuel efficiency or cost to operate reason not being valid, 4) there are other ways to give yourself additional career choices, 5) the fact that you find stress relief in riding is entirely personal (I could use subjective) – someone else would find the experience stress generating. And you could probably find other stress relievers. 6) You could learn how to be more observant in a car if you were willing to put in the effort. 7) There are drugs that will keep you awake that may be safer than riding. 8) You and your wife choose riding as your shared interest—another couple might choose downhill skiing, another sky-diving, mountain climbing, base-jumping, drinking in bars, etc. Again where is the objectivity in this subjectively chosen activity? I can't find it.

For the record I am not suggesting that you should not ride! As I have said I enjoy flying my own single-engine airplane (for no objective reason)—it just feels good. I am looking for the line between objectivity in our choices and why we enjoy certain activities over others. I think you would agree that certain activities are so risky that even if a person finds fulfillment in the activity and they think that this activity “makes life worth living,” it would still be irrational for them to pursue it. Where is this line and how is it determined using objective facts? You mentioned, “thrill seeking” – can you define it and state whether it is a good thing or a bad thing and why? Perhaps we will find a clue here ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been using the dictionary definition from the beginning and I provided it in post #23.

Yes, but prior to that, in my post #14, I provided you with the meaning as it is used by Objectivists. I advised you of this meaning since we were discussing Objectivism. You did not respond with any thoughts on that meaning (despite starting your response #20 to #14 with "I agree with most of your post-") and it didn't appear you objected to that definition. The whole point of that part of my post #14 was to clarify this and hopefully get that out of the way so we would avoid miscommunication.

The reason why I choose to ride motorcycles is the sense of freedom I get from riding, the different perspective of the world from the saddle, the controlled feeling of risk, and learning to master the machine as best I can. These are the qualities that make me "feel good" or be happy while I'm riding. However, being happy alone does not tell me whether this is good for my life or not. Therefore, I have to consider other benefits or risks that may impact my life. This is where the 1-8 come into play, and the subsequent statistical evaluation of the risk. While you can try to shoot my reasons down individually, you fail to do so when they are taken in totality. It is not sufficient to tell me there are other options, because those other options do not bring the same sense of pleasure. It almost as though you are saying, why pick anything because there are almost always other options besides what you picked. Aside from that, here are some specific refutations to your refutations of my numbered reasons;

1) There are many other options, but I have one more available to me that most other people do. Many other options are simply not practical or desireable for me, such as public transportation. Also, I'm unwilling to spend the money necessary to learn to fly given it's relative usefulness to me and the general uneasiness I feel when in the air, particularly on smaller aircraft.

2) No other activities develop the skills I need to ride a motorcycle.

4) No other skill development would give me the opportunity to do motorcycle traffic enforcment if I were so inclined. Other skill developments may not lead to other career opportunities that I may actually have an interest in.

5) Yes, the stress relief is personal, but it's still an objective reason. My heart rate goes down, I feel more relaxed, etc. These are factually verifiable physiological responses I have when riding. The objectivity of this is immaterial to how other people would react.

6) That I could have learned observations skills by other means does not detract from the fact that I did learn from motorcycle riding and thus gained a benefit. The fact that there are other options does not invalidate the validity of this option.

7) No thanks to the drugs. Caffeine is one of the major ingredients of most, if not all energy or pep type medicines or drinks. I have a very bad reaction to the consumption of any significant amount of caffeine so I typically avoid even sodas with caffeine. Aside from that, other ingredients such as Ma Huang have been known to have very adverse affects on people. The very few times I have tried this drugs like this, my heart would race and I would feel very anxious or nervous.

8) Why is it that you think what another couple would has any impact on the objectivity of our decision to share this common interest? Is it basically your opinion that objectivity requires people to be automatons without choice or any variation from the next person?

It would appear that I lack the ability to explain to you that "personal" and "objective" are not mutually exclusive concepts as you believe they are. I'm hoping that the book I recommended will do a better job, as it should. I'm unsure how much more time I intend to invest in this pursuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but prior to that, in my post #14, I provided you with the meaning as it is used by Objectivists. I advised you of this meaning since we were discussing Objectivism. You did not respond with any thoughts on that meaning (despite starting your response #20 to #14 with "I agree with most of your post-") and it didn't appear you objected to that definition. The whole point of that part of my post #14 was to clarify this and hopefully get that out of the way so we would avoid miscommunication.
Let's look at Post #14: "The most common mistake I see with this statement is an equivocation of the word "subjective", or at least a variation in the way it is used by Objectivists. When an Objectivist uses the word "subjective", they typically mean "without reason, based on whim." The word subjective in your statement refers to its meaning "personal, or unique to an individual." There is no reason why personal values cannot be derived from objective facts contextual to each individual's life. I enjoy riding motorcycles for several valid reasons, but you may not."

I see no difference between the Objectivist definition and the dictionary definition. When you say I ride motorcycles because of reasons 1-8 I could use basically the same reasons for why I do something ridiculously dangerous. (As I have repeatedly pointed out.)

If you say that your choice is not subjective simply because you can list several reasons why you choose to ride you are missing the point that these reasons may not be objective so in fact they could be biased and based on the feeling you get from riding (with or without your wife). Just because I can list several reasons why I smoke cigarettes it does not mean that my decision to do so is objectively in my self-interest.

I might reason that I smoke cigarettes because: 1) It keeps unwanted bugs from biting me, 2) it is a common interest that I share with my friends, 3) I have learned a lot about tobacco and farming and how cigarettes affect my health—this knowledge provides material for me to write about and make additional money, 4) smoking helps me reduce the stress in my life, 5) smoking helps keep me awake while driving at night, 6) smoking helps me keep my weight under control so I feel better about myself, 7) smoking has led me to find new friends because we meet in designated smoking areas, and 8) I really enjoy the feeling of the smoke entering my lungs. So by your way of thinking these “reasons” turn a subjective decision into an objective one. And fussing over the definition of "subjective" does nothing to change this.

When you said: “It would appear that I lack the ability to explain to you that "personal" and "objective" are not mutually exclusive concepts as you believe they are,” I think the reason you are finding it difficult to explain, is because there are in fact areas of our lives that we make decisions that are not based on objective reasons—and they can’t be because they are simply a matter of personal preference.

These concepts (subjectivity and objectivity) are sometimes mutually exclusive, but not always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*now understands why RationalBiker changed his name* :)

I have been using the dictionary definition from the beginning and I provided it in post [#25?]
The thing is, you are using "objective" in ways that differ from your own definition.
The fact that you find stress relief in riding is entirely personal (I could use subjective) – someone else would find the experience stress generating.
Do you care to state what a "subjective fact" is?

Where is [the]line and how is it determined using objective facts?
If course of action A has 0% chance of success (in obtaining one's values) and course of action B has some positive chance of success, then it is an objective fact that B is the better (and here, only) means to obtain one's values.

________________________________________________________________________

If course of action A has 1% chance of success in obtaining one's values and course of action B has 99% chance of success, then it is not an objective fact that B is necessarily the better course.

I see no difference between the Objectivist definition [of subjective] and the dictionary definition.
Really?? Subjective qua 'without reason' is the opposite of 'with reason (i.e. rational)'. Subjective qua 'particular to an individual' is the opposite of 'not particular to an individual (i.e. universal)'.

When you say I ride motorcycles because of reasons 1-8 I could use basically the same reasons for why I do something ridiculously dangerous.
RationalBiker's reasons are based on observable phenomenon and this ridiculously dangerous thing is implied to equivalently be based on observable phenomenon. Yet you are implying, despite meeting the terms of your definition of "objective", that one or both are in fact not objective?? You're causing a lot of unnecessary confusion.

"Obviously", you mean to include something else (universality? means to one's values?) in your definition of 'objective', which makes it all the more perplexing as to why you haven't explicitly acknowledged this, despite multiple suggestions.

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?? Subjective qua 'without reason' is the opposite of 'with reason (i.e. rational)'. Subjective qua 'particular to an individual' is the opposite of 'not particular to an individual (i.e. universal)'.
Just because you can come up with "reasons" does not mean you are being objective. Your reasons may be irrational! Objectivity requires the use your faculty of reason to identify what is real. To make up reasons why some activity is good for you does not make the activity good for you. The activity is either good for you or it is not—by objective standards. He knows that riding a motor-cycle is dangerous and that there are safer means of transportation --- and of having fun --- and of enjoying the company of his wife --- and of relaxing --- and of staying awake, etc but in the end he has decided to accept the added danger. My question goes to the basis of these decisions (that we all make); it is NOT about semantics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article by Leonard Peikoff called "Fact and Value" which may also shed some light on the recent discussion.

Yes I am familiar with it and I agree: "Objectivism holds that value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality (it does not derive from mystic authority or from whim, personal or social). Reality, we hold—along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive—dictates and demands an entire code of values. Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism. Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man's life (it is good): or it threatens man's life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live."

You have made a personal choice that the pleasure derived from riding outweighs the increased risk of death. Why is this choice any different from the person who determines that the pleasure derived from smoking cigarettes outweighs the added risk of contracting lung cancer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He knows that riding a motor-cycle is dangerous and that there are safer means of transportation

A point of clarification: I know that riding a motorcycle is statistically more dangerous than driving a car. That does not mean that riding a motorcycle is dangerous per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this choice any different from the person who determines that the pleasure derived from smoking cigarettes outweighs the added risk of contracting lung cancer?

You say that as if someone could never, rationally, declare that the utility derived from smoking cigarettes outweighs the added risk of contracting lung cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that as if someone could never, rationally, declare that the utility derived from smoking cigarettes outweighs the added risk of contracting lung cancer.
Assuming the person is healthy and not already terminally ill -- yes that is what I am saying. But as I have said, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it. Can you come up with a good reason why a healthy person with a normal life expectancy should value smoking cigarettes (the consistent, daily, long-term act of inhaling cigarette smoke)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point of clarification: I know that riding a motorcycle is statistically more dangerous than driving a car. That does not mean that riding a motorcycle is dangerous per se.
Are you saying that given the same contextual facts of reality, i.e., the same person with the same mental alertness, same eyesight, same cautiousness, same reflexes, etc., driving a car or driving a motorcycle on the same roads under the same conditions (road condition, amount of traffic, amount of daylight, etc.) is in the same amount of danger (of being harmed)? Or are you saying that there is a way that a person can ride a motorcycle (like on a deserted road and very slowly with guards making sure nothing leaps out in front of him, etc) that makes it not dangerous? Or are you bringing up the issue of what constitutes a dangerous condition—as in what the concept danger means per se?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...