It's a messed up world out there.

[Mammon]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3850761.ece

Didn't know if you guys saw this story or not.

[DragonMaci]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3850761.ece

Didn't know if you guys saw this story or not.

Yeah, I saw it. It has been on the TV news in NZ a lot lately.

[goldstandard]

Sick stuff. People who do stuff like that ought to be skinned alive, heavily seasoned with salt, battered up and lowered into a tub of boiling oil feet first.

Knowing how degenerate western civilization is, they will probably put him in some relatively comfortable jail cell with free medical service for the remaining few years of his useless life.

One thing I cannot understand is, how in the hell was the mother of that poor daughter of his so ignorant of it all. Didn't she wonder why her husband disappeared for hours on end all the time? Didn't she ever even try and check on her daughter that her husband said ran off with some religious cult, or something?

That mother had to have known something about it. After all, as the saying goes, "you cannot con an honest (wo)man." So what is worse, being capable of perpetrating such evils as that man was capable of, or being able to ignore it even when it is happening in your own basement?

[DragonMaci]

Knowing how degenerate western civilization is, they will probably put him in some relatively comfortable jail cell with free medical service for the remaining few years of his useless life.

Does Austria count as a Western nation?

One thing I cannot understand is, how in the hell was the mother of that poor daughter of his so ignorant of it all. Didn't she wonder why her husband disappeared for hours on end all the time? Didn't she ever even try and check on her daughter that her husband said ran off with some religious cult, or something?

That mother had to have known something about it. After all, as the saying goes, "you cannot con an honest (wo)man." So what is worse, being capable of perpetrating such evils as that man was capable of, or being able to ignore it even when it is happening in your own basement?

According to the TV3 news here in NZ he forbade her from asking about their daughter and he phones the house pretending to be their daughter so as to mislead his wife so she thought their daughter was in a cult and wanted out, but was unable to do so.

So, in other words, she didn't ignore it. She didn't know there was anything to ignore.

[Mammon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354641,00.html

This is another example of what we live in.

That town is actually like 3 hours away from me and my friend/schoolmate of mine lives there.

[Greebo]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354641,00.html

This is another example of what we live in.

That town is actually like 3 hours away from me and my friend/schoolmate of mine lives there.

If I may move to an ethical question for a moment, as the quoted link points to a recent example of sexual exploitation of a child. This may be a tough one, it's certainly putting a bad taste in my mouth in asking it:

What is the ethical position in Objectivism regarding child pornography?

I think (or better stated, I HOPE) it's pretty much understood, that exploiting a child who has no awareness of the act (an infant or toddler, and yes there are sickos like that out there) is morally reprehensible. Where the question begins to get hazy in Objectivism, I think, is when a minor is old enough to be aware of the nature of sexuality.

To be quite frank, I can contemplate several scenarios involving children from oh, say, age 10 or so to 17 where, if the child agreed to the acts, the principle of individual liberty and mutual exchange of value would seem, under objectivism, to say that engaging in such behavior (on the part of the adult in the situation) would be morally just. Contemplating that, it causes me to question the entire premise and wonder if there *are* cases where other constraints other than "thou shalt not infringe upon another's right to live by their own choice" are necessary.

I really hope I'm missing something fundamental here.

[avgleandt]

If I may move to an ethical question for a moment, as the quoted link points to a recent example of sexual exploitation of a child. This may be a tough one, it's certainly putting a bad taste in my mouth in asking it:

What is the ethical position in Objectivism regarding child pornography?

I think (or better stated, I HOPE) it's pretty much understood, that exploiting a child who has no awareness of the act (an infant or toddler, and yes there are sickos like that out there) is morally reprehensible. Where the question begins to get hazy in Objectivism, I think, is when a minor is old enough to be aware of the nature of sexuality.

To be quite frank, I can contemplate several scenarios involving children from oh, say, age 10 or so to 17 where, if the child agreed to the acts, the principle of individual liberty and mutual exchange of value would seem, under objectivism, to say that engaging in such behavior (on the part of the adult in the situation) would be morally just. Contemplating that, it causes me to question the entire premise and wonder if there *are* cases where other constraints other than "thou shalt not infringe upon another's right to live by their own choice" are necessary.

I really hope I'm missing something fundamental here.

Things like Prostitution, pornagraphy, ect, would be judged as immoral but objectivism I believe. However, the government would have no role in regulating these industries. The governments role would only be to protect the individual rights. If an individual decides by his/her own volition to participate in such and exchange there would be no law prohibiting them from doing so, however it would be looked down upon. In the case of child pornography, it can be argued that the child is being forced to enter this exchange and his/her rights are being broken. In this case the government would step in. So at what age does a person become able to make their own choices? This question is the only gray area in this matter, because different individuals can gain cognitive competence at different ages. The government can then pass a law as a guide rule, ex: person becomes an adult at the age of 18. However the cases would still be handled in individual manner, bc it still remains possible for a 16 year old to be more aware then a different 20 year old. Also the government would have a process by which an individual younger then 18 could become an adult through some judiciary process, and evaluation.

Edited May 9, 2008 by avgleandt

[EC]

To be quite frank, I can contemplate several scenarios involving children from oh, say, age 10 or so to 17 where, if the child agreed to the acts, the principle of individual liberty and mutual exchange of value would seem, under objectivism, to say that engaging in such behavior (on the part of the adult in the situation) would be morally just. Contemplating that, it causes me to question the entire premise and wonder if there *are* cases where other constraints other than "thou shalt not infringe upon another's right to live by their own choice" are necessary.

I really hope I'm missing something fundamental here.

I'm trying to understand your position here. I don't think most people would disagree that someone around 14 or 15 should be able to do what they want to sexually, especially with someone close to thier own peer group, but younger than teenage might be pushing it. Are you saying something similar or are you saying that because people might accept what I'm saying as true that I am morally wrong, i.e., they should be "legal adults". By the way my grandmother got married at barely 15 and while she's definitely NOT the most rational of people I don't think my grandfather(who was 21 at the time-- this was the early '50's in the deep South) did anything wrong or to harm her "emotionally".

[Greebo]

I'm trying to understand your position here.

I apologize and will endeavor to clarify as best I can, tho honestly, I'm not sure I do either, not fully, not yet.

I don't think most people would disagree that someone around 14 or 15 should be able to do what they want to sexually,

I think you need to broaden your test group. I can think of HUGE numbers of people who would say that no, a 14 year old should not be experimenting sexually. In most cases, I can think of 2 people for each teen: The Parents.

I think what my question boils down to is, at its core, when does a child gain the maturity to act with total autonomy?

Objectivism says that as individuals, so long as we don't infringe on anyone else's right to live their way, we have the right to live however WE want. That more-so, in the absolute ideal Objectivist society, we would be totally autonomous, because no adult individual would ever consider acting irrationally and compel others or defraud others.

However, a child must be educated on how to think and live rationally, and moreso, must reach a point of maturity where they have the ability to choose to live rationally, and join society, or not, and work against society (raising the question, would society then expel such a person, but thats a different topic).

Age isn't a valid indicator of rationality or maturity - so an arbitrary age limit is out of the question. So, how do we determine when a child is mature enough to make their own decisions about what they want to do, with the implication there being that if such determination is made, then said child would be free to engage, for example, in sexual activities with any other "of age" individual, if the exchange was mutual. At such point, any decisions about the child's actions would be those of the guardian's, not of the child.

But even then, what if the guardian engaged in sexual activities with a ward? If the ward is responsible for the child and for determining what is in the child's best interests, is the ward the sole judge?

I'm thinking largely here of the polygamist compound arguments being made in the polygamists defense. What if, for example, some of the girls who were pregnant at very early ages really DID consent to it? How do we judge whether they were capable yet of acting autonomously in such cases? (I'm not saying they were, by the way, just considering the question in general terms.)

I'm sure that helped clear up the matter a LOT...

Things like Prostitution, pornagraphy, ect, would be judged as immoral but objectivism I believe.

Why? What if one person wants sexual gratification - just sexual gratification - and another person enjoys sex and is willing to trade sex for money?

Why would that free exchange of values be immoral, objectively?

[avgleandt]

Why? What if one person wants sexual gratification - just sexual gratification - and another person enjoys sex and is willing to trade sex for money?

Why would that free exchange of values be immoral, objectively?

Free exchange of values would not be immoral. But can sexual gratification be considered a value? Or more concreatly can sex be considered a value? Sex in it self is not a value but an expression to of a persons sense of his own value. For a person who lacks his own value sex then becomes an attempt to fake it, or gain an illusion of value. Further would you consider prostitution equally moral an industry as for example medicine? I would not. Personaly I do not find pornagraphy or prositution very immoral.

Here is a quote from what Ayn Rand said about sex.

"Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important." -Ayn Rand-

[Greebo]

Free exchange of values would not be immoral. But can sexual gratification be considered a value?

Who is anyone to determine another's values? Values are subjective.

Or more concreatly can sex be considered a value?

Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response.

Sex in it self is not a value but an expression to of a persons sense of his own value. For a person who lacks his own value sex then becomes an attempt to fake it, or gain an illusion of value. Further would you consider prostitution equally moral an industry as for example medicine? I would not. Personaly I do not find pornagraphy or prositution very immoral.

Sex is different things to different people. The question of comparing values - comparing medicine to prostitution - is as invalid a question as comparing the morality of making cars vs. making airplanes. Values are subjective.

Here is a quote from what Ayn Rand said about sex.

"Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important." -Ayn Rand-

And Ms. Rand is absolutely entitled to form and state her own views on sex, but if taken as anything OTHER than a statement of her own personal belief about sex, such a statement would instantly become an attempt to infringe another's liberty to make their own choices regarding value.

The morality of prostitution argument is an old one, and I don't think we'll cover any new ground here rehashing it, but beneath the morality of prostitution is a deeper moral issue: Does anyone have the right to tell another what their values are? As an Objectivist, I think the answer should immediately be clear.

I believe that Objectively, one may ONLY judge a things morality by one standard: Does it infringe upon the right of another to live as they see fit. I'm pretty certain I've never seen anything in Rand's work that contradicts that core principle.

[Zip]

In most cases, I can think of 2 people for each teen: The Parents.

Having two daughters I can appreciate this statement, however, I also know that I can not watch my daughters 24/7 and I know that they will experiment with their sexuality. The one and only thing that a parent can do, to quote the old song is, "teach your children well".

As for the remainder of your question I'm not sure I have the answer, JS Mill used the phrase "a person in the maturity of their faculty" but how does one measure that maturity?

Is the arbitrary prohibition the only moral choice a society can make in this situation?

I for one would have a huge problem with a society that allowed 12 year old girls to be sexually active with 36 year old men, no matter how mature or self-aware the 12 year old claimed to be.

The word adult requires a legal definition even in the freest society.

[avgleandt]

Free exchange of values would not be immoral. But can sexual gratification be considered a value?

Who is anyone to determine another's values? Values are subjective.

Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response.

Sex is different things to different people. The question of comparing values - comparing medicine to prostitution - is as invalid a question as comparing the morality of making cars vs. making airplanes. Values are subjective.

And Ms. Rand is absolutely entitled to form and state her own views on sex, but if taken as anything OTHER than a statement of her own personal belief about sex, such a statement would instantly become an attempt to infringe another's liberty to make their own choices regarding value.

The morality of prostitution argument is an old one, and I don't think we'll cover any new ground here rehashing it, but beneath the morality of prostitution is a deeper moral issue: Does anyone have the right to tell another what their values are? As an Objectivist, I think the answer should immediately be clear.

I believe that Objectively, one may ONLY judge a things morality by one standard: Does it infringe upon the right of another to live as they see fit. I'm pretty certain I've never seen anything in Rand's work that contradicts that core principle.

I will address one of your statements because its is there that our whole disagreement lies.

You said. "Who is anyone to determine another's values? Values are subjective.

Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response. "

Your philosophy that values are subjective is where the main problem lies. Values are not subjective but objective. That is one of the main principles of objectivism.

You say " Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response. "

This is a doctorine of Hedonism. Objectivism is profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral. Pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality.

Edited May 9, 2008 by avgleandt

[softwareNerd]

I realize this is not the focus of this thread, but when you bring others into the equation you are in the domain of social-system and politics. As Rand classifies things, Ethics applies in those areas, but also -- more widely -- to non-social decisions. Therefore, the following is not accurate:

I believe that Objectively, one may ONLY judge a things morality by one standard: Does it infringe upon the right of another to live as they see fit. I'm pretty certain I've never seen anything in Rand's work that contradicts that core principle.

For instance, if I rationally think that I ought to stick to some course of medicines to cure some disease that I have, then ethics is involved in that. It is involved in a rules like: think through what is best for you in this situation; figure out how to stick to the course of medication; etc.

If one considers the three primaries -- Reason/Rationality, Purpose/Productiveness and Self-Esteem/Pride -- one can see that they are relevant even outside of social relationships.

[Greebo]

I will address one of your statements because its is there that our whole disagreement lies.

You said. "Who is anyone to determine another's values? Values are subjective.

Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response. "

Your philosophy that values are subjective is where the main problem lies. Values are not subjective but objective. That is one of the main principles of objectivism.

See, I don't think that's what Rand was saying. If Values are objective, philosophically, then a value is always a value, everywhere. To quote wiki on objectivity: "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.".

For values, Rand says:

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it. “Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? “Value” presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

If the question "of value to whom and for what?" is a valid question, and I believe it is, then values can differ between individuals. One may value building railroads, another motors, another building majestic new buildings, and yet another may value anti-life (tho that conflict must be resolved, obviously).

You say " Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response. "

This is a doctorine of Hedonism. Objectivism is profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral. Pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality.

Hedonism is the doctrine of "if it feels good, do it" - that pleasure is the ONLY value that matters, and that is not the same thing as "and it harm none, do as thou wilt", or in Objectivist terms, "rational self interest".

I am by no means advocating following irrational whims as a standard of behavior, but that one *may*, quite rationally, conclude that they wish to experience pleasure with another person for a brief period, be it physical or social or the like, without wishing to establish a long term connection to that other person, and that another also may find great value in bringing those moments of pleasure to others. I'm thinking, to bring an example, of the "Companions", as illustrated in Josh Whedon's series, "Firefly".

In any event, my real point in the question was one not of the morality of prostitution, but the complex issue about age of adulthood and when can a person be considered old enough to engage in consensual sexual activities.

[EC]

See, I don't think that's what Rand was saying. If Values are objective, philosophically, then a value is always a value, everywhere. To quote wiki on objectivity: "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.".

Yeah but in the context of this forum we use the Objectivist definition, not a dictionary definition, and definitely not a wiki definition. Man-made facts are only valid within a certain context, not regardless of any context. Hope that helps.

[Greebo]

Yeah but in the context of this forum we use the Objectivist definition, not a dictionary definition, and definitely not a wiki definition. Man-made facts are only valid within a certain context, not regardless of any context. Hope that helps.

Ok, then what is the objectivist definition of objective? I'm finding the idea that objectivists have to redefine the language to make it work somewhat disturbing, if thats what you're implying.

[avgleandt]

See, I don't think that's what Rand was saying. If Values are objective, philosophically, then a value is always a value, everywhere. To quote wiki on objectivity: "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings."..

Exactly, productiveness remains a value wether you think it is or not.

For values, Rand says:

If the question "of value to whom and for what?" is a valid question, and I believe it is, then values can differ between individuals. One may value building railroads, another motors, another building majestic new buildings, and yet another may value anti-life (tho that conflict must be resolved, obviously).

Different people can have a different combination of values. However, what is a value and what is not still remains the same. Anti-life is not a value even if you value you it. This would mean that you value death, and death is the exact opposite of value. In fact in objectivism the standard for all values is a mans life.

Hedonism is the doctrine of "if it feels good, do it" - that pleasure is the ONLY value that matters, and that is not the same thing as "and it harm none, do as thou wilt", or in Objectivist terms, "rational self interest".

I am by no means advocating following irrational whims as a standard of behavior, but that one *may*, quite rationally, conclude that they wish to experience pleasure with another person for a brief period, be it physical or social or the like, without wishing to establish a long term connection to that other person, and that another also may find great value in bringing those moments of pleasure to others. I'm thinking, to bring an example, of the "Companions", as illustrated in Josh Whedon's series, "Firefly".

Yes this is hedonism which objetivism rejects

In any event, my real point in the question was one not of the morality of prostitution, but the complex issue about age of adulthood and when can a person be considered old enough to engage in consensual sexual activities.

I explained in my orignal post how that matter would be resolved. I said that the only grey area in this matter arises because different individuals can become congnitivly competent at different ages. The government can then pass a law as a guide rule, ex: person becomes an adult at the age of 18. However the cases would still be handled in individual manner, bc it still remains possible for a 16 year old to be more aware then a different 20 year old. Also the government would have a process by which an individual younger then 18 could become an adult through some judiciary process, and evaluation.

Edited May 9, 2008 by avgleandt

[K-Mac]

This is another example of what we live in.

This, I disagree with completely. This is not what we live in and that's why the stories are so sensational...because the average person (most people) can't fathom it. These are a small minority of people doing extraordinarily awful things that sell newspapers and get television stations big ratings.

Since the media is constantly putting stuff like this in our face, it becomes hard to keep it in perspective. I found myself starting to feel very bitter towards society in general, so I have stopped watching televised news altogether. I usually get my daily dose of current events from the internet, and even then I'm largely looking for sports and weather...news I can actually use. But when I do come across stuff like this, I remind myself to keep it in perspective...this is certainly not how most people treat children.

[avgleandt]

This, I disagree with completely. This is not what we live in and that's why the stories are so sensational...because the average person (most people) can't fathom it. These are a small minority of people doing extraordinarily awful things that sell newspapers and get television stations big ratings.

Since the media is constantly putting stuff like this in our face, it becomes hard to keep it in perspective. I found myself starting to feel very bitter towards society in general, so I have stopped watching televised news altogether. I usually get my daily dose of current events from the internet, and even then I'm largely looking for sports and weather...news I can actually use. But when I do come across stuff like this, I remind myself to keep it in perspective...this is certainly not how most people treat children.

yes I agree with you. we do not live in a nightmare view of existence, we are not trapped in a universe where disasters are the constant and primary concern of our lives.

Ok, then what is the objectivist definition of objective? I'm finding the idea that objectivists have to redefine the language to make it work somewhat disturbing, if thats what you're implying.

Actually the wiki deffenition was pretty good.

Edited May 9, 2008 by avgleandt

[EC]

Ok, then what is the objectivist definition of objective? I'm finding the idea that objectivists have to redefine the language to make it work somewhat disturbing, if thats what you're implying.

This is all taken from The Ayn Rand Lexicon. There is nothing "disturbing" about giving accurate, objective, technical definitions for philosophical purposes. Dictionary definitions are usually not fully accurate and colloquial. Wiki definitions can change at any time on anybody's whim.

Objectivity

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

“Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”

The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, 7.

Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 110.

It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 76.

Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer.

“Philosophical Detection,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 16.

[Greebo]

Ok, so I don't see an incongruity between objective as Objectivists define it and objective as the wiki description defined it.

For the record, having done some Wiki editing myself, wiki descriptions can change rapidly, and anyone CAN change them, but they do tend to be pretty much on the mark.

As for dictionary definitions - if we can't rely on a dictionary definition, then on what? Language changes, but generally speaking the meanings of words *are* objective.

So - back to values: If Values are objective, then what I think I'm hearing is that for something to be a value to someone it has to be a value, universally.

That seems self-evidently false. I am not convinced that values are not subjective. I still think values are chosen by individuals.

I will say I think *some* values are automatic to rational people. Our own lives and liberty are values, naturally. Respect for others lives and liberty is also a common value among the rational.

But other values are, I think, most definitely subjective. The things which one acts to gain or keep are determined by the individual. One person may value operating a railroad, another programming computers, and a third digging for oil. The railroad operator may run trains of coal, and not need oil, and use manual switches, and not need computers. The programmer may live in a self-imposed dungeon, running on solar and wind power. The oil digger may ship all of his oil to a refinery using a pipeline built by hand. Each, in that case, has values neither of the others share, but may derive deep personal satisfaction from pursuing their own values. One may even say they find pleasure in their chosen tasks.

Hedonism certainly is doing what feels good, but its doing what feels good regardless of the affect it has on others, or ones self. Drink, drugs, overindulgence to excess, as long as it feels good, no matter whether its in a destructive way in the long haul.

But to go back to prostitution, and sexual indulgences - what determines that engaging in sexual activity for the sake of sex is hedonistic, or for money is immoral? For Ayn Rand, clearly, sex was deeply personal, and so naturally, her statements about sex are true *for her*. But does that mean that nobody can consider sex simply as recreational? Does that mean that *nobody* can enjoy sex and enjoy giving sexual pleasure to others, and thus provide it as a service for a fee? I don't think so.

[avgleandt]

Ok, so I don't see an incongruity between objective as Objectivists define it and objective as the wiki description defined it.

For the record, having done some Wiki editing myself, wiki descriptions can change rapidly, and anyone CAN change them, but they do tend to be pretty much on the mark.

As for dictionary definitions - if we can't rely on a dictionary definition, then on what? Language changes, but generally speaking the meanings of words *are* objective.

"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.".

This is a correct deffenition of truth, wether you think it is or not, wether wiki changes it in the future or not. I hope that clearifies things for you.

So - back to values: If Values are objective, then what I think I'm hearing is that for something to be a value to someone it has to be a value, universally.

Yes your hearing correctly.

That seems self-evidently false. I am not convinced that values are not subjective. I still think values are chosen by individuals.

Offcourse values are choosen by individuals, but wether what they choose as a value is actually a value in reality is objectivily determined. Example: I value life, in reality life is a value. Therefore life is to be valued and I have made a correct choice.

Example 2: I value you death, in reality death is not a value. Therefore death is not to be valued and I have made the incorrect choice.

I will say I think *some* values are automatic to rational people. Our own lives and liberty are values, naturally. Respect for others lives and liberty is also a common value among the rational.

There is no such thing as automatic values. It is true that rational people value life and liberty. But these values do not come automatically to them, they are rationally choosen by using reason.

But other values are, I think, most definitely subjective. The things which one acts to gain or keep are determined by the individual. One person may value operating a railroad, another programming computers, and a third digging for oil. The railroad operator may run trains of coal, and not need oil, and use manual switches, and not need computers. The programmer may live in a self-imposed dungeon, running on solar and wind power. The oil digger may ship all of his oil to a refinery using a pipeline built by hand. Each, in that case, has values neither of the others share, but may derive deep personal satisfaction from pursuing their own values. One may even say they find pleasure in their chosen tasks.

All the the things you mention here are values. They are the value of productivity. No one is saying that people cannot choose different professions, or have a different combination of values. What is being said is that values can be objectevily judged to determine if they are in actually a value.

Hedonism certainly is doing what feels good, but its doing what feels good regardless of the affect it has on others, or ones self. Drink, drugs, overindulgence to excess, as long as it feels good, no matter whether its in a destructive way in the long haul.

We have described hedonism many times now, all decently correct deffinitions. Objectivism rejects hedonism so lets just stop talking about it.

But to go back to prostitution, and sexual indulgences - what determines that engaging in sexual activity for the sake of sex is hedonistic, or for money is immoral? For Ayn Rand, clearly, sex was deeply personal, and so naturally, her statements about sex are true *for her*. But does that mean that nobody can consider sex simply as recreational? Does that mean that *nobody* can enjoy sex and enjoy giving sexual pleasure to others, and thus provide it as a service for a fee? I don't think so.

They can, if you would like to do that and be a prostitute in an objectivist society no one would stop you, and no one would stop your customers either. But your profession would be considered immoral. Why? Because sex is not a value in its self. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem, a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion. Honesty is one of the most important virtues in objectivism. Honesty is defined as not faking reality in anyway. Trying to fake self-esteem would be a breach of honesty.

But before we can discuss any of this, we must first discuss values. If you believe values are subjective then talking about anything else is pointless. Your arguments will always lead to the same premise that values are subjective.

Edited May 11, 2008 by avgleandt

[Greebo]

But before we can discuss any of this, we must first discuss values. If you believe values are subjective then talking about anything else is pointless. Your arguments will always lead to the same premise that values are subjective.

No, I think you've convinced me.

BTW: By automatic value, what I meant was, if you are rational, the only rational choice for you between choosing life and choosing death is to choose life, so a rational person will choose life by nature of their volitional choice to be rational.

Ok, lets talk more about sex.

...sex is not a value in its self. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem, a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

This is a conclusion.

Please outline the premises and postulates that lead to that conclusion?

[avgleandt]

No, I think you've convinced me.

BTW: By automatic value, what I meant was, if you are rational, the only rational choice for you between choosing life and choosing death is to choose life, so a rational person will choose life by nature of their volitional choice to be rational.

Ok, lets talk more about sex.

This is a conclusion.

Please outline the premises and postulates that lead to that conclusion?

Ok so one of the premises is that you can determine objectively what is a value and what is not. In objectivism everything depends on reality and on nature, man's nature in this case, because the concept of values is useless with out man. What I mean is that values are only important to man, values are not important to rocks, tree, or animals.

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. I assume you agree with this. So what does a man that goes to a prostitute seeks to gain through sex? You would probably say pleasure. And you would ask, whats wrong with trying to gain pleasure? I would answer, there is nothing wrong with trying to gain pleasure. If for instance this man went to get a massage from a massous to gain pleasure there would be nothing wrong or immoral with that. But what is the point or purpose of a massage? The point or purpose of a massage is pleasure. Therefore a man seeking pleasure from a massage is not faking anything. However, the point and purpose of sex is much deeper then just pleasure. The purpose of sex is to celebrate the love between two people in a physical form. Love is a response to to values, the response of the man's highest values that he finds in the other person. When two people in love have sex, they know that the other person is having sex with them because they find their high values in them. When a person seeks a prositute he is trying not only to gain pleasure, but to gain this feeling of self worth, self-esteem, and of value. Since in reality he is not really gaining any of these values he is faking them. Faking is what is immoral about this process. There is nothing wrong with seeking sex just for pleasure, but its impossible to seperate these other things from sex, because such is the nature of sex. Observe that some girls without self-esteem tend to become promiscuous, but being promiscuous doesn't ever solve their problem of low self-esteem.

Edited May 12, 2008 by avgleandt