Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is "anti-value" a valid concept?

Rate this topic


Dormin111

Recommended Posts

Rand talked a lot about "value" in an ethical context. But she never mentioned or addressed "anti-value," or something which actively destroys your life. From her readings, it seems like an individual can either collect value and flourish or fail to collect value and suffer. Is anti-value inferred in this analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand talked a lot about "value" in an ethical context. But she never mentioned or addressed "anti-value," or something which actively destroys your life. From her readings, it seems like an individual can either collect value and flourish or fail to collect value and suffer. Is anti-value inferred in this analysis?

I think Rand was rather dialectical in regards to value. To her, if something didn't add to your life, then it subtracted from it. I think this was wrong because of the Principle of Surplus Capacity by which any successful organism must be capable of producing in excess of what it consumes. This principle implies some interesting things, such as the fact that our activities are not necessarily limited in classification to those that support our life or destroy it, but there is an additional category of activities that are irrelevant to our existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Aren't there universal 'anti-values' that everyone should avoid, regardless of the person/his feelings/context? For example, smoking cigarettes is bad for a person's health. I've seen it argued that 'smoking has nice short term benefits, so each person should decide whether those small perks make the long term troubles worth it.' Makes sense.. But if we're being objective about smoking, that 10 minute rush is nothing compared to all the health problems you'll end up with if it turns into a habit. The cons outweigh the pros; smoking is an anti-value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come now, isn't it obvious that the malodorous is an anti-value. That which one does well to shun has the property of 'anti-value'. Our very biology has established that certain things must be shunned. Does this not validate the concept within the appropriate context?

I still maintain the existence of the irrelevant. Quoting proof-texts as though this is Sunday School does not amount to an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no, that example does not validate the concept. An odor might be unpleasant, but it will not negatively affect your health. Further, odors are not things that we can (usually) make a conscious decision to avoid.

 

As for the proof-text, it's actually a run-down of positions from this thread. The rationalization there is that 1. 'survival does not merely mean physical survival.' and 2. it's okay to physically harm yourself if those acts make you a little happier or make your life a little more bearable. (For instance, a lot of people cut their arms or inner thighs to release psychological pain. If it helps an individual through a rough time, why shouldn't he do it? It's obviously a value to him, so there's no reason to send him off to a psych ward, right?)

 

I maintain that regardless of your personal, subjective value-judgements, certain things cannot be values.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "value" serves a purpose by grouping all the things one should seek, wouldn't "anti-value" similarly group things to avoid?

I think 'value' groups those things which one acts to gain and or keep, should implies something other than that which is saught  , what purpose would be served by a concept that groups those things which are not saught? Plants 'value' co2 , but not a whole host of other things, what would you refer to by forming the concept of all the things plants do not seek , I do not think there could be a 'group' such as all the things plants do not value(act to gain or keep) that would be available to perception to integrate into a concept, its more like a confusing form of semantics and playin' with epistemologic terms eg the example of anti-warm

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I maintain that regardless of your personal, subjective value-judgements, certain things cannot be values.

Would you agree that drugs, candy, liquor, loud music, tattoos, caffeine, violent video games, contact sports, piercings, gambling, moshpits and promiscuity are always anti-values, universally and eternally?  (Really, considering the long-term health effects of carpal tunnel, obscene amounts of time spent online should be out as well)

There are a vast number of everyday activities which are harmful in the long run (how many artificial chemicals are in any given meal?).  How far would you take that assertion?

 

I'm not necessarily disputing that premise; I'm just wondering what the distinction is between smoking and this forum.

 

 

 

I would agree in a third, irrelevant category; some apathetic sort of null-value.  For instance, the tattoos on the unhygienic, chainsmoking trucker as I pass him on the highway, are neither something I should pursue or avoid; they are something utterly meaningless to me.

(if not necessarily null-value then perhaps a broad range of barely values and barely nonvalues)

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "value" serves a purpose by grouping all the things one should seek, wouldn't "anti-value" similarly group things to avoid?

 

If we include in our definition of value that what we act to gain or keep is what we *ought* to gain or keep, then what is the objective basis for the standard?

 

However bad men may become, we need some word designating something true of all men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we include in our definition of value that what we act to gain or keep is what we *ought* to gain or keep, then what is the objective basis for the standard?

 

However bad men may become, we need some word designating something true of all men. 

A very good question.  The thread "The Principle of Two Definitions" goes into this issue.

 

The ambiguity of the question "Is 'anti-value' a valid concept?" is in which definition of value is being referenced.  "Anti-value" as used by several posters in this thread attempts to smuggle into thought as a hidden premise that "life is the standard of value".

 

Death itself is seemingly the best example of an anti-value, yet Objectivist philosophers have endorsed assisted suicide in certain medical scenarios which would make death a value as in the broad definition of "that which one acts to gain or keep".  

 

"Anti-value"  is too slippery and paradoxical to be used reliably for any purpose.  If you need the logical negation of 'value' then use 'non-value'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison- Many of the things you mentioned above are context dependent. For example, getting a tattoo is not universally bad- it's only bad IF your tattoo artist uses a dirty needle. What I'm referring to is things that are universally bad and not context dependent. I mentioned smoking because it's physically bad for everyone's health: the smoker, the people he smokes around, etc. Smoking and secondhand smoke is linked to all kinds of cancer, heart disease, COPD... the list goes on forever. Smoking cigarettes can never be good for your health- just as eating sugar as a diabetic can never be good for your health. If you have diabetes, your body literally can't convert sugar into energy, so it all goes into your blood stream. If your blood sugar gets high enough, you'll stroke out. (However, people without diabetes can eat sugar and be fine- so I wouldn't say that 'eating sugar is universally bad' because it depends on the individual and his/her medical conditions. But I would say that 'eating sugar as a diabetic is universally bad' because it is, regardless of the diabetic person in question.)

 

Edit: I tried to find the thread on here about moral absolutes, but couldn't find it.

 

Edit: Found it. Nicky says: "Subjective doesn't mean dependent on context. It means dependent on the subject (meaning that if you and me are in the same exact situation, I consider it moral for me to do something, because I'm me, but immoral for you to do it, because you're not me)." So applying this to the example above, eating sugar as a diabetic is (universally or) absolutely wrong if we agree that life is the standard of value. That's my reasoning, anyway.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like non better than anti, anti is too specific. Rand said value implies to whom, for what.

 

Would cold be anti-hot, or visa versa? Could there be antiwarm? Or rather what purpose would the concept serve?

 

Using the definition of anti (opposed to; against), anti-value is opposed to value, whereas non-value is the absence of value.  When used to respond to the question, "to whom, for what", the evaluation of something to or for something presumes the existence of something.  Non-hot, for example, means hot isn't being evaluated, whereas anti-hot evaluates something opposed to hot, e.g. warm, cool, cold.  Use anti for comparrisons and non for negation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA

I'm confused , are you saying anti-productive would be more apt than non-productive?

Value qua concept 'means' those things which agents act to gain and or keep, I do not recognize a strictly normative connotation within the concept, though contextually it is hard to avoid it, perhaps I am being too literal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA

I'm confused , are you saying anti-productive would be more apt than non-productive?

Value qua concept 'means' those things which agents act to gain and or keep, I do not recognize a strictly normative connotation within the concept, though contextually it is hard to avoid it, perhaps I am being too literal.

... or perhaps I am...

 

Non-productive implies inactive, whereas anti-productive implies activity directed at retarding production.  Anti-value means opposed to, or against a value.  Non-value means the absence of value.  I think Grames may have expressed this better in post #13.  In the context of value, anti-value expresses the degradation of value, whereas non-value dismisses value altogether.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky says: "Subjective doesn't mean dependent on context. It means dependent on the subject (meaning that if you and me are in the same exact situation, I consider it moral for me to do something, because I'm me, but immoral for you to do it, because you're not me)." So applying this to the example above, eating sugar as a diabetic is (universally or) absolutely wrong if we agree that life is the standard of value. That's my reasoning, anyway.

Okay.  And that does make sense, if you're talking about life as in the state of having a beating heart.  I think that, talking about life as a more metaphorical, carpe-diem sort of "live your LIFE" way to ultimately refer to your own happiness, you arrive at different conclusions.

 

Let's imagine a diabetic who loves pixie sticks.  They love them SO much that, for them, to have a pixie stick is momentary Nirvana.  Now, since they're diabetic, there's a necessary dichotomy:

Do they eat the pixie sticks and die, or live forever desperately longing for pixie sticks?

 

Granted, either way around it, such a person definitely isn't living up to their potential or being very rational.  But since values are self-chosen (and if we assume "your own happiness" as the ultimate value) I think the value would be in if they were to kick the Oxygen habit in a whirlwind of sugar.

 

Besides, if the ultimate value is life as in having a heartbeat, then the health Nazis would be morally virtuous in the extreme.  You know the ones I mean; people like Michelle Obama and Bloomberg and their ilk, who would kill all of the Christmases from now until eternity just to prevent one person from killing one cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course diabetic people can eat whatever they want - I'm not saying they should be banned from buying pixie sticks or anything. My point is just that there are facts of reality we can't ignore. If I'm allergic to cats, I'm not going to buy one (no matter how happy the idea of one might make me). If I'm diabetic, I'm not going to consume large amounts of sugar (because I understand that sugar is like poison to diabetics). If I have celiacs disease, I'm going to avoid gluten like the plague (because I understand that eating gluten literally makes it harder for my body to absorb the nutrients that I need in order to stay alive).

 

The only way to have or maintain any values at all is to literally keep your heart beating.

 

Granted, either way around it, such a person definitely isn't living up to their potential or being very rational.  But since values are self-chosen (and if we assume "your own happiness" as the ultimate value) I think the value would be in if they were to kick the Oxygen habit in a whirlwind of sugar.


As an observer, would you say that decision is objective? Of course not. The diabetic person in question is evading the fact that sugar = poison in his body. Values are not supposed to diminish your body or shorten your lifespan.. that is the very opposite of 'value'. Like Vik said above, there must be some objective standard for determining what a value is. If 'life' is the standard, then anything that doesn't promote life cannot be a value.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to have or maintain any values at all is to literally keep your heart beating.

 

If 'life' is the standard, then anything that doesn't promote life cannot be a value.

True.

Even if we take the ultimate value of 'life' to actually refer to happiness, this would necessarily entail life because corpses can't be happy.

 

It is good for a person to promote their own health and longevity, and the opposite is bad.  But we will all be corpses someday.  So would the value in longevity be an absolute and universal value?

What about soldiers, who are about to enter the battle and fight and/or die; would it be immoral in the same way and for the same reasons if one of them were to have a cigarette?

 

I agree in principle.  But I think that even 'smoking is an objective nonvalue' is too strict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AHA!!

The only way to have or maintain any values at all is to literally keep your heart beating.

Euthanasia.

 

There are people in the world who want to die.  Not because they've lost their grip on reality or as a vie for attention; there are people in the world with terminal illnesses, with chronic pain, people whose lives are spent in agony every minute of every day.

It's not fun to dwell on.  But it is important to note.

 

Is the ultimate value life or happiness?  (Happiness requiring life as a necessary condition, but not vice-versa for the opposite claim)

If the ultimate value is happiness then such people should morally and rightfully end their misery.

If life is the ultimate value; life as an end in itself, then if such people were to do so it would be objectively immoral and contemptible.

 

Life, without happiness, is not a condition worth pursuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AHA!!

Euthanasia.

 

There are people in the world who want to die.  Not because they've lost their grip on reality or as a vie for attention; there are people in the world with terminal illnesses, with chronic pain, people whose lives are spent in agony every minute of every day.

It's not fun to dwell on.  But it is important to note.

 

Is the ultimate value life or happiness?  (Happiness requiring life as a necessary condition, but not vice-versa for the opposite claim)

If the ultimate value is happiness then such people should morally and rightfully end their misery.

If life is the ultimate value; life as an end in itself, then if such people were to do so it would be objectively immoral and contemptible.

 

Life, without happiness, is not a condition worth pursuing.

 

 

Life is also a prerequisite for happiness, so putting happiness ahead of life makes no sense. Here is an essay by Robert Bidionotto where he attempts to reconcile the twp points: http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/SurviveOrFlourish.html

 

He argues that Rand herself was sometimes unclear on the "survival vs. happiness" debate. In later discussion, Leonard Peikoff has been on the survival side while David Kelly has supported flourishing. He proposes a synthesis of the two which declares "life as man" to be the standard of value. This is neither pure survival nor deontological happiness, but rather human existence in its natural form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add- life is not the standard here

Why not??

 

I agree with your earlier comment, "The only way to have or maintain any values at all is to literally keep your heart beating", because a corpse certainly cannot have or maintain values by their own actions.  However this falls short of responding to the primary bone of contention, does actively preparing for one's own death necessarily mean that one has abandoned life as a standard of value?  If so, preparing for one's own death appears to discard values like inheritance and legacy as well.  Why should anyone care about what happens to their personal posessions or how they are remembered after they die, if keeping their own heart beating is the only way to have or maintain a personal value??

 

It seems to me that life as a standard of value presumes the consideration of more than ones own life.

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...