Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Heirarchy of Value

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am somewhat new to objectivism and would like to get some feed back on whether or not I am understanding something. In my reading of Rand, Peikoff and Biddle, I have come across the concept of the Heirarchy of Value. This is how the individual values the world around them and establishes the import of said things. My heirarchy of value is as follows:

1. Life

2. Freedom

3. Wealth

4. Happiness

Obviously life relates to my own life and the lives of those I value. The same can be said for freedom and wealth. Happiness is a catch-all. Is this heirarchy to vague? I know that by saying "Happiness" the whole category is vague but am I heading in the right direction. Any feed back would be appreciated.

Sergius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello. :)

Two things here. First, life (your own life, not life in general mind you) and happiness are very closely intermingled due to happiness being a consequences of doing well preserving and furthering your own life as yourself. Because of this I am not so sure if those two really require separate listings. Second, the hierarchy of values thing encompasses a lot more than just these general things. These hierarchies differ from person to person in many ways because each person is unique and the hierarchy of values covers ALL of a person's values. Everything from biggies like freedom and justice down to your favorite pair of socks (if you have one) has a place in your own personal values hierarchy. Because of the enormity of what is on this hierarchy it would be almost futile to try to write down the whole thing. Having a pretty solid idea about some of the top few things isn't a bad idea though. It helps though I think to get to some more specific, personal things on the list and not just these kinds of broad issues that apply to everybody. You'll have lots of specifics and concretes to deal with in your life and knowing clearly what some of the most important of those are to you can help with deciding what to do on a short and long term basis.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluecherry makes some valid points, but I would explain it this way.

Your personal value hierarchy should be defined in terms of concretes rather than broad abstractions, and your emotions have a key role to play in these value-choices. Your mind defines the abstract principles involved—career/purpose, romantic love, friendships, recreation, art, et. al.—but your personal emotions enable you to choose between the range of valid options available under each principle.

Too many Objectivists yield to the rationalist formula of keeping their values in the form of floating abstractions disconnected from reality. The role of your personal value hierarchy is to guide your daily choices, and broad abstractions are of minimal use here. Your actual value hierarchy would not consist of abstractions but the particular concretes you have chosen—your career (writing, medicine, etc.), your spouse or life partner, your friends, the sports, movies, books you enjoy, et. al.

To some extent, philosophy would help you with the actual ranking of value categories. Many options would apply here, however. In my own case, for instance, any and all relationships would always be secondary to football. (Actually, that was a joke.)

For more on this, see the chapter on ‘Emotions and Moral Judgment’ in Peikoff’s Understanding Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat new to objectivism and would like to get some feed back on whether or not I am understanding something. In my reading of Rand, Peikoff and Biddle, I have come across the concept of the Heirarchy of Value. This is how the individual values the world around them and establishes the import of said things. My heirarchy of value is as follows:

1. Life

2. Freedom

3. Wealth

4. Happiness

There's just one on my list:

1. Doing what's morally right.

All of the other good things flow from the consequences set into motion by #1.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your life and freedom are givens in the sense that you cannot ignore these values and continue to exist; they are self-evident. Your happiness, specifically your emotional well being (or lack thereof), is a barometer of the efficacy of your actions to maintain your life and freedom. So you might consider the preservation of your life as your highest value, as it incorporates points 1, 2 & 4.

Wealth (point 3) as a value, may or may not enhance the preservation of your life. For example a criminal endangers the preservation of their life in spite of whatever wealth they accumulate by their actions. Be wary of elevating wealth above any aspect of the preservation of your life. I prefer to consider wealth, like happiness, as a barometer of the efficacy of action, where action is taken to obtain commercial success for the purpose of enhancing the preservation of ones life in a social context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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...