My problem with Objectivist meta-ethics

[Gavagai]

While reading Tara Smith's "Viable Values" I ran into the following problem.

She claims that survival in a strict, physical sense is a root of all values and she does a generally nice job to tie all known human values to it. She for example neatly proves that the value of "floureshing" has its roots in a value of survival because floureshing makes an organism stronger and less vulnerable (at least such is my understanding of her argument). In this way she is able to tie a lot of values to survival. But there are still values which do not fall into this scheme. For example, music. I think, everyone would agree that music can be a value but how on Earth listening to music helps us to survive?

Here Ms Smith uses the following logical chain. She claims that as music provides us with pleasure, it strengthens our desire to live. This reinforces our will to life, makes us more motivated and thus, indirectly, still helps our survival.

But this seems to me unconvincing.

In every argument Ms Smith works carefully to differentiate Objectivism from hedonism. As I understand the main difference between two is that the standard of value in the former is objective (survival) not subjective (pleasure) as in the latter. But here we see that pleasure by itself has an objective value because it makes our life worth living. And so hedonism becomes compatible with Objectivism.

And there is more to it. According to Objectivism survival is an ultimate value. Life is an end in itself, its own purpose. But in this argument Ms Smith actually concede that it is important for us to take pleasure from living that life is only valuable for us while we can enjoy it. She even agrees that a rational person may consider suicide in a painful and desperate situation (e. g. concentration camp). But doesn't it mean that life is not an end in itself? Doesn't it mean that pleasure is a purpose of life? And doesn't it mean that hedonism not only compatible with Objectivism but in this respect deeper?

This is connected with my more general trouble with Objectivist ethics - its negativity. It puts in a place of an ultimate value a thing we already have at the beggining - survival. The ultimate purpose of our life is to keep - not to gain. It seems wrong to me - though for now I can't explain it rationally.

The above doesn't mean that I think Objectivist ethics somehow disproved. There are other arguments for Objectivism and against hedonism - they still stand. I simply can't integrate the above arguments within a general scheme.

[DavidOdden]

Here's a starting point that might help you. There is no existence without identity, so to exist implies to exist as something, in some particular way. That means that it is impossible for a man to pursue a course of action "just to exist". Part and parcel of my choice to exist according to my nature is the recognition that there are certain kinds of activity that (simply because of my nature) result in pleasure for me. As long as they do not compromise the more basic fact of existence (do not shorten my life), they integrate perfectly with the choice to exist -- which necessitates a choice "as what?". At a fine-grained level, my primary choice (to exist as what I am) is not the same as SN's primary choice (to exist as what he is) or Tara Smith's primary choice (to exist as what she is). They do, however, have in common the fact that we have all made the primary choice to exist.

There are many optional values, which should be evaluated and pursued if they further your goal (of existing as something). Given a choice of actions neither of which is harmful to your physical being, and neither of which corrupts your consciousness, and only one of which is actually pleasurable to you, then the deliberate choice to select the non-pleasant choice is net destruction of value, not a gain in value. The Objectivist ethics does not say that pleasure must be avoided. Hedonism holds that pleasure itself is the ultimate value, beyond even existence. That completely differentiates Objectivism and Hedonism.

The excruciating pain problem is not about pleasure being your "real" goal, it is about the recognition that existence and the rational pursuit of values in furtherance of your existence may become metaphysically impossible, in other words you re-evaluate the primary choice itself.

[SamuelD]

...As long as they do not compromise the more basic fact of existence (do not shorten my life...neither of which is harmful to your physical being...

Aren't some chosen values that facilitate living "as something" harmful to our health (e.g. living as a smoker, a sculptor exposed to dust, an engineer in a sedentary job, etc.)?

[tito]

Aren't some chosen values that facilitate living "as something" harmful to our health (e.g. living as a smoker, a sculptor exposed to dust, an engineer in a sedentary job, etc.)?

Yes, possibly. Which is why we have a hierarchy of values.

A sculptor will value his art enough to put up with the (probably very small) risk of dust harming him, etc.

[DavidOdden]

Aren't some chosen values that facilitate living "as something" harmful to our health (e.g. living as a smoker, a sculptor exposed to dust, an engineer in a sedentary job, etc.)?

I am not aware of any evidence that being an engineer in a sedentary job is harmful to your health. We don't accept arbitrary and especially scientifically false claims. Being a sculptor does not entail breathing harmful amounts of dust. In my opinion, the facts regarding smoking are clear enough that "living as a smoker" is an irrational contradiction.

If you're saying "you can make these choices and then it turns out that you were wrong, and that sculpting without a mask or smoking are harmful", then of course it's possible that your choice would not be rational, given a broader knowledge context.

It is also completely wrong to translate ignorance into knowledge. The possibility of harm does not mean that there is harm, it means that you don't know, and that you should find out, depending on the strength of the evidence that it is possible that there is harm.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

In Objectivism, the pleasure one gets from something is not the standard by which we judge that something is good for one. For example, you could eat a lot of chocolate, which would be very pleasurable, but since man's life is the standard, we know not to eat so much chocolate that it makes us sick or unhealthy. In a sense, the hedonist is like a young child who doesn't go beyond the immediate pleasure response -- that is, he doesn't think it through.

Music, for example, is a good, not just because it gives pleasure (for the right kind of music), but because it is a form of art and concretizes an abstraction, thus making it easier to grasp certain wide abstractions that are otherwise difficult to retain. I think music is a concretization of psycho-epistemology -- i.e. the relationship between one's conscious mind and one's subconscious mind. I come to this conclusion because when I listen to certain types of music, mind mind brings up scenes and actions, like a movie, that is super concretized for certain emotional reactions. And while this is pleasurable, I recognize that having those abstractions concretized helps me to experience those mental processes per se. And besides, I think it is true that listening to melodic music is good for the mind and the brain.

So, it is not that both Objectivists and hedonists take pleasure in life, but the Objectivist understands the necessity of the pleasure and how it is good for him, rather than just saying that it must be good because it is pleasurable. The focus is different, and the Objectivist understands that sometimes it is even necessary to go through pain to achieve a value; something a hedonist would claim is not good at all.

The experiencing of pleasure for its own sake is all well and good, but it is not the standard.

[Grames]

But here we see that pleasure by itself has an objective value because it makes our life worth living. And so hedonism becomes compatible with Objectivism.

Hedonism is not a synonym for pleasure. Hedonism is the elevation of pleasure as the end and the standard of ethical value with no explanation of what pleasure is or where it comes from. Objectivism admits pleasure is instrumental to life in that it is both a reward for achievement of objective value and a signifier that things are going well. Big difference.

This is connected with my more general trouble with Objectivist ethics - its negativity. It puts in a place of an ultimate value a thing we already have at the beggining - survival. The ultimate purpose of our life is to keep - not to gain.

An ultimate value which we didn't have and may never attain would be positive somehow? Screw that.

[Gavagai]

=There is no existence without identity, so to exist implies to exist as something, in some particular way. That means that it is impossible for a man to pursue a course of action "just to exist". Part and parcel of my choice to exist according to my nature is the recognition that there are certain kinds of activity that (simply because of my nature) result in pleasure for me. As long as they do not compromise the more basic fact of existence (do not shorten my life), they integrate perfectly with the choice to exist -- which necessitates a choice "as what?"=

David, thank you for this clarification. It didn't come to my mind before. But I have two questions.

1. How do we make the transition from "is" to "ought" in this argument? If some activities bring me a pleasure how it follows that I should be engaged in them? This is particulary important because of your qualification "as long as they do not shorten my life". How exactly does the standard of pleasure relate to the standard of life?

2. How is your observation that we should exist as persons with particular natures integrated with our ability and need to self-improvement, to alteration of character traits we find in ourselves undesirable?

[Gavagai]

In Objectivism, the pleasure one gets from something is not the standard by which we judge that something is good for one. For example, you could eat a lot of chocolate, which would be very pleasurable, but since man's life is the standard, we know not to eat so much chocolate that it makes us sick or unhealthy. In a sense, the hedonist is like a young child who doesn't go beyond the immediate pleasure response -- that is, he doesn't think it through.

Music, for example, is a good, not just because it gives pleasure (for the right kind of music), but because it is a form of art and concretizes an abstraction, thus making it easier to grasp certain wide abstractions that are otherwise difficult to retain. I think music is a concretization of psycho-epistemology -- i.e. the relationship between one's conscious mind and one's subconscious mind. I come to this conclusion because when I listen to certain types of music, mind mind brings up scenes and actions, like a movie, that is super concretized for certain emotional reactions. And while this is pleasurable, I recognize that having those abstractions concretized helps me to experience those mental processes per se. And besides, I think it is true that listening to melodic music is good for the mind and the brain.

So, it is not that both Objectivists and hedonists take pleasure in life, but the Objectivist understands the necessity of the pleasure and how it is good for him, rather than just saying that it must be good because it is pleasurable. The focus is different, and the Objectivist understands that sometimes it is even necessary to go through pain to achieve a value; something a hedonist would claim is not good at all.

The experiencing of pleasure for its own sake is all well and good, but it is not the standard.

Thomas,

hedonist would answer that he calculates the amount of pleasure he receives during the whole totality of his life. And that the pleasure he gets from the chocolate is offset by the pain he will get from sickness. And he will also claim that he lives not just to live but with a purpose to get pleasure, that he doesn't pursue values to live but lives to pursue values. And he will also say that so do Objectivists, because even Objectivist would kill himself in a situation where no values are possible. How would you answer to this arguments?

[Gavagai]

An ultimate value which we didn't have and may never attain would be positive somehow? Screw that.

Why "never attain"? I mean that in Objectivism we take a some kind of defensive stance towards the world. We struggle only to keep what is given to us from the birth - and we are doomed to lose in the end. Somehow it assocites for me with the mailvolent universe premise.

[Ifat Glassman]

While reading Tara Smith's "Viable Values" I ran into the following problem.

She claims that survival in a strict, physical sense is a root of all values and she does a generally nice job to tie all known human values to it. She for example neatly proves that the value of "floureshing" has its roots in a value of survival because floureshing makes an organism stronger and less vulnerable (at least such is my understanding of her argument). In this way she is able to tie a lot of values to survival. But there are still values which do not fall into this scheme. For example, music. I think, everyone would agree that music can be a value but how on Earth listening to music helps us to survive?

Here Ms Smith uses the following logical chain. She claims that as music provides us with pleasure, it strengthens our desire to live. This reinforces our will to life, makes us more motivated and thus, indirectly, still helps our survival.

Art is essential to survival in a deeper way than just giving pleasure. Art enables you to experience the ideal kind of world and person you would like to have/be, giving a boost of motivation to improve your life. For example, think how Atlas Shrugged affects your motivation to live, work and become your version of the ideal man. It is far more than some general pleasure - it is direct motivation to acquire your kind of world. It's like fuel for living.

In every argument Ms Smith works carefully to differentiate Objectivism from hedonism. As I understand the main difference between two is that the standard of value in the former is objective (survival) not subjective (pleasure) as in the latter. But here we see that pleasure by itself has an objective value because it makes our life worth living. And so hedonism becomes compatible with Objectivism.

Hedonism means 'do whatever feels good'. According to Objectivism if something gives you pleasure yet it is damaging to your life (in the short or long term) then it is bad.

So you can see right away that Hedonism is not compatible with Objectivism.

It is only when something is enjoyable, and yet does not clash with your well-being that it is good to have according to the Objectivism ethics (as I understand it). For example - playing games is enjoyable, and it is also important to your survival (allows you to relax after a long day of work and to regenerate energy for the next day). However, if you play all day and night it is harmful to your life and ceases to be a value according to Objectivism (but not according to Hedonism).

And there is more to it. According to Objectivism survival is an ultimate value. Life is an end in itself, its own purpose. But in this argument Ms Smith actually concede that it is important for us to take pleasure from living that life is only valuable for us while we can enjoy it.

Ayn Rand talks about it in the Objectivism Ethics:

"In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of “life or death,” but as an issue of “happiness or suffering.” Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death."

(I think you will find this essay good to clarify the above point).

She even agrees that a rational person may consider suicide in a painful and desperate situation (e. g. concentration camp). But doesn't it mean that life is not an end in itself?

No. Psychologically, we are motivated to be happy. Existentially, this means that we are surviving well. When Ayn Rand talks about life as the ultimate value she means it in the existential level, not the psychological level, as something you chose or should chose. Psychologically, you live to be happy - that is the right purpose which is compatible with human psychology. Existentially, you have the mechanism of happiness/suffering in order to survive. By choosing to pursue happiness you ensure, existentially, to take actions for your survival.

when happiness is not possible to a man there is no psychological fuel to live. This does not change the fact that our psychology is "designed" to secure our survival. Existentialy, psychology is in the service of physical survival. Psychologically, life is in the service of achieving happiness.

[DavidOdden]

1. How do we make the transition from "is" to "ought" in this argument? If some activities bring me a pleasure how it follows that I should be engaged in them?

It follows from understanding the "is" better. You should not look at pleasure as a primitive, automatic physical reaction to a stimulus. This is most obvious with art and music, especially (visual) art which I think would be fairly ho-hum without some intellectual involvement with the object. At the most basic level, you can evaluate a representational painting on technical grounds, in terms of the artist's ability to exactly duplicate what is really there; and then you can evaluate it in terms of his skill at selective representation (which relates to his reasoning about what to represent or make prominent). Summed up, what is required is an active mind that is constantly evaluating and integrating those perceptual facts that we have, and one by-product of this integration is pleasure. That pleasure comes from actually achieving a goal (such as finally understanding, in music, the structure of the dastgah Homayoun).

The particular short term goal, such as understanding a musical mode, follows from the more fundamental fact that man's nature is to exist by reason, which implies having an active mind, which means integrating perceptual facts into higher level concepts. Whether or not a particular activity is one that you should (for that reason) pursue is impossible to answer in advance of experience. It was really a quite fortuitous chain of events that led me to my recent interest in Iranian classical music: but once faced with that initial fact, it was clear that there was something requiring further study.

This is particulary important because of your qualification "as long as they do not shorten my life". How exactly does the standard of pleasure relate to the standard of life?

Pleasure is not a separate standard. Pleasure is a fact of living.

I don't think we really understand the mechanism of pleasurable physical sensations well enough (I certainly don't), so let's just say that chemical stuff happens, and that the chemical stuff can come about in many ways. One way of creating sensations of pleasure is with injections of harmful chemicals, another is reading a good book. The former yields a more intense physical sensation but will kill you soon. The latter is a less intense pleasure, but has no negative effect on you living. (I would argue that it probably has a positive effect on your life-span, but I won't pursue that now). A simple accounting procedure tells you that rather than seeking a short-term intense injected rush, you should read a good book, because your primary choice is "exist", not "have pleasurable sensations".