It's a messed up world out there.

[Greebo]

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.

You were fine up till this point, and until this point, I was in total agreement with you.

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.

Ok, sorry, but I have to stop you there on logical grounds. You have jumped to a conclusion here. You have not explained WHY the purpose of sex is so much deeper, you have simply assumed/asserted that it is, and then gone on from there.

That sex is a higher moral value than just pleasure seeking is not axiomatic to Objectivists, therefore, it must be rationally proven to be asserted as true.

I'm looking for the rational argument that shows that sex, indeed, is more than a pleasurable act that serves to proliferate the species.

There is another thread here that goes through why masturbation, regardless of marital status, is moral, on the basis that one finds pleasure in it simply for the sake of physical pleasure.

Why, therefore, could not two consenting adults seek mutual physical pleasure, simply for the sake of such pleasure, without the claimed pre-requisite of low self esteem, provided that (if they are of opposite gender) they take adequate precaution against pregnancy?

[avgleandt]

You were fine up till this point, and until this point, I was in total agreement with you.

Ok, sorry, but I have to stop you there on logical grounds. You have jumped to a conclusion here. You have not explained WHY the purpose of sex is so much deeper, you have simply assumed/asserted that it is, and then gone on from there.

That sex is a higher moral value than just pleasure seeking is not axiomatic to Objectivists, therefore, it must be rationally proven to be asserted as true.

I'm looking for the rational argument that shows that sex, indeed, is more than a pleasurable act that serves to proliferate the species.

There is another thread here that goes through why masturbation, regardless of marital status, is moral, on the basis that one finds pleasure in it simply for the sake of physical pleasure.

Why, therefore, could not two consenting adults seek mutual physical pleasure, simply for the sake of such pleasure, without the claimed pre-requisite of low self esteem, provided that (if they are of opposite gender) they take adequate precaution against pregnancy?

What is in bold I will try to answer in more detail. Apart from bold part, i agree masterbation is moral. But masterbation is not sex.

Seperating sex from values would be a dichotomy of mind and body. I think sex as an act to proliferate the species is a good example of what sex is to animals but not to humans. I wish I had more proof at this moment but i currently do not. I am saying that this is sex's nature, and your asking me to explain logically why it is its nature, which would require me to have some expertise in psychology, or physiology which i do not. I do however believe that through introspection and observation my point can be proven. Just from a little observation I think it is evident that a person's sex life is shaped by their conclusions and value-judgments. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Saying that a person only wants sex for pleasure because his body creates a desire for him and makes a choice is a very good exapmle of body and mind dichotomy. I really don't know how I can explain it much further. I think if you follow the logical conclusion that sex is purely for pleasure you come to results that are contradictory to reality. If sex was just for pleasure, every man would desire every woman, and vise versa. This is obviously not the reality of our exsistence.

[Greebo]

What is in bold I will try to answer in more detail. Apart from bold part, i agree masterbation is moral. But masterbation is not sex.

Seperating sex from values would be a dichotomy of mind and body. I think sex as an act to proliferate the species is a good example of what sex is to animals but not to humans. I wish I had more proof at this moment but i currently do not. I am saying that this is sex's nature, and your asking me to explain logically why it is its nature, which would require me to have some expertise in psychology, or physiology which i do not.

Perhaps someone else can step in here?

I do however believe that through introspection and observation my point can be proven. Just from a little observation I think it is evident that a person's sex life is shaped by their conclusions and value-judgments. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Saying that a person only wants sex for pleasure because his body creates a desire for him and makes a choice is a very good exapmle of body and mind dichotomy. I really don't know how I can explain it much further. I think if you follow the logical conclusion that sex is purely for pleasure you come to results that are contradictory to reality.

I think the body/mind dichotomy line merits further investigation. Clearly one should not simply follow the whims of ones body without thought. To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged, when its a choice between your body and your mind, follow your mind. However, thats what I feel has yet to be established: The rational explanation why sex, which biologically serves one purpose: to reproduce, and physiologically gives a pleasurable result, has been elevated to this "expression of the highest values". Lacking a rational explanation based on solid premise, such a claim strikes me as either a rationalization of ones own personal feeling of connection between sex and values, or worse, a mystical elevation of the same thing.

If sex was just for pleasure, every man would desire every woman, and vise versa. This is obviously not the reality of our exsistence.

When did we go from non gender specific sex to gender specific sex (males)? However, I refer you to "When Harry met Sally", and Harry's remark about the "ugly chicks", to Sally, which was, "Nah, you pretty much want to nail them too."

While we wait for some more definitive input, let me try to explain the counterpoint from the foundation.

Mankind reproduces sexually.

The purpose of reproduction is to continue the species and the genetic makeup of the man and woman involved in reproduction.

The act of sex yields a pleasurable response, which serves to encourage reproduction.

Reproduction results in young which require extensive care and feeding in the earliest years.

Care and feeding of young is most efficiently accomplished when the mother's nurturing is supported by others - primarily the male mate - as the mother is hindered in her own ability to support herself by the need to care for the child.

Thus, some kind of long term relationship between parents is desirable, although in some cultures, this relationship was not 1 man 1 woman, but 1 man many woman, depending of course on the males ability to support many mothers of young children and infants.

Thus, as long as sexual activity had significant chances of producing offspring, it was rational for women to only be sexually active when a suitable supportive partner was found, and for a man only to be sexually active with a woman he was willing to support if she became pregnant.

Therefore, while reproduction was a likely result, resisting the sexual urge was rational.

Modern advances have made it possible to completely remove reproduction from the equation. The context has changed.

Now it is possible for sex to be engaged in with no risk of conception, and with proper protection, no risk of disease.

With reproduction no longer a consequence (provided adequate measures are taken), sex is now just an act which yields a pleasurable response.

Therefore, engaging in safe, protected sex with multiple partners can be a source of pleasure as valid and moral as masturbation.

Therefore, if one wishes to earn a living by providing others with pleasure, or one wishes to seek out pleasure by hiring such a professional, with no risk of disease or pregnancy, such an act is mutual trade to mutual benefit in pursuit of the interests of each, and therefore a moral act.

Now I acknowledge whole heartedly that some people feel a deep personal sense of connection to their sexuality, and as such, great intimacy is, for them, a requirement to sex. However, I don't see that, for those who simply find sex enjoyable (men AND women), any indication that justifies assumption of a "low self esteem" is justified.

Thus I conclude that Ms. Rand was expressing a personal opinion - or her personal value - of sex, and not stating a moral imperative.

[avgleandt]

Perhaps someone else can step in here?

While we wait for some more definitive input, let me try to explain the counterpoint from the foundation.

Mankind reproduces sexually.

The purpose of reproduction is to continue the species and the genetic makeup of the man and woman involved in reproduction.

The act of sex yields a pleasurable response, which serves to encourage reproduction.

Reproduction results in young which require extensive care and feeding in the earliest years.

Care and feeding of young is most efficiently accomplished when the mother's nurturing is supported by others - primarily the male mate - as the mother is hindered in her own ability to support herself by the need to care for the child.

Thus, some kind of long term relationship between parents is desirable, although in some cultures, this relationship was not 1 man 1 woman, but 1 man many woman, depending of course on the males ability to support many mothers of young children and infants.

Thus, as long as sexual activity had significant chances of producing offspring, it was rational for women to only be sexually active when a suitable supportive partner was found, and for a man only to be sexually active with a woman he was willing to support if she became pregnant.

Therefore, while reproduction was a likely result, resisting the sexual urge was rational.

Modern advances have made it possible to completely remove reproduction from the equation. The context has changed.

Now it is possible for sex to be engaged in with no risk of conception, and with proper protection, no risk of disease.

With reproduction no longer a consequence (provided adequate measures are taken), sex is now just an act which yields a pleasurable response.

Therefore, engaging in safe, protected sex with multiple partners can be a source of pleasure as valid and moral as masturbation.

Therefore, if one wishes to earn a living by providing others with pleasure, or one wishes to seek out pleasure by hiring such a professional, with no risk of disease or pregnancy, such an act is mutual trade to mutual benefit in pursuit of the interests of each, and therefore a moral act.

Now I acknowledge whole heartedly that some people feel a deep personal sense of connection to their sexuality, and as such, great intimacy is, for them, a requirement to sex. However, I don't see that, for those who simply find sex enjoyable (men AND women), any indication that justifies assumption of a "low self esteem" is justified.

Thus I conclude that Ms. Rand was expressing a personal opinion - or her personal value - of sex, and not stating a moral imperative.

I agree, not a moral imperative.

I like your comparison of sex for pure physical pleasure to masterbation. If it is possible for a person the complety seperate sex from value judgments then this comparison should be 100% accurate. Lets say person A, could be either male or female, is able to do this. Completely seperate value judgments from their sexual choices, and just seeks sex

to gain pleasure. Would you agree that this person would now have no preference wether they sleep with Howard Roark or Ellsworth Toohey, Dominique Francon or Catherine Halsey(Toohey's niece), or any other physically compariable people with stark differences in their character? Do you think it is possible to be so devoide of any preference?

I like your evolutionary explanation of sex and reproduction, and I agree with the fact that current male and female behaviours can be dervived from circumstances during evolution. You said that it would be rational for a man to be active sexually with a woman if he is willing to support her if she becomes pregnant. Well how does a man decide that, doesn't he decide that through value judgements?

I think the argument basically boils down to wether sex can be seperated from value judgments or not. My whole arugment is based on that it can't. Thus a person seeking sex just for pleasure is evading this fact, thus acting irrationally, thus acting immorally. However if it is possible to seperate then this person is still acting rationally and still acting morally. So what is your view on the questions I asked above?

Edited May 12, 2008 by avgleandt

[Greebo]

I agree, not a moral imperative.

I like your comparison of sex for pure physical pleasure to masterbation. If it is possible for a person the complety seperate sex from value judgments then this comparison should be 100% accurate. Lets say person A, could be either male or female, is able to do this. Completely seperate value judgments from their sexual choices, and just seeks sex

to gain pleasure. Would you agree that this person would now have no preference wether they sleep with Howard Roark or Ellsworth Toohey, Dominique Francon or Catherine Halsey(Toohey's niece), or any other physically compariable people with stark differences in their character? Do you think it is possible to be so devoide of any preference?

AH! NOW I think I begin to see your point, and you begin to persuade me! WELL done! I'm a stubborn mule sometimes.

No, I think a rational person would seek out physical companions whom they could respect.

I like your evolutionary explanation of sex and reproduction, and I agree with the fact that current male and female behaviours can be dervived from circumstances during evolution. You said that it would be rational for a man to be active sexually with a woman if he is willing to support her if she becomes pregnant. Well how does a man decide that, doesn't he decide that through value judgements?

Rationally, absolutely through value judgments - but don't forget that the willingness to support a woman is necessary because of the accepted responsibility of the risk of her becoming pregnant. If the risk of pregnancy is non existent - whether through natural means (menopause) or artificial (birth control or surgery), then the question of ongoing support no longer exists.

And still, one would expect a rational person who enjoys sexual pleasure simply for sexual pleasures sake to seek out like minded people with similar values on more than just the sexual front. Otherwise, such encounters would be unpleasant - as Dominque illustrated with her marriage to Peter as her own punishment.

I think the argument basically boils down to wether sex can be seperated from value judgments or not. My whole arugment is based on that it can't. Thus a person seeking sex just for pleasure is evading this fact, thus acting irrationally, thus acting immorally. However if it is possible to seperate then this person is still acting rationally and still acting morally. So what is your view on the questions I asked above?

I am somewhat persuaded, however at the same time, am not convinced that sex as an industry would vanish. It would, I think, change.

I think it would change into something like the Companions of Firefly (fiction - TV - Josh Wheedon - I've mentioned it before). In Firefly, a Companion was a highly trained, highly skilled artist who provided companionship, including sexual companionship, to her (or presumably his) clients. They carefully selected their clients, who had to meet their personal approval, and genuinely valued the time they shared with their clients.

Now imagine a widower, who has no desire to replace his wife in his life, but still desires companionship from time to time, sometimes sexual perhaps, sometimes just intimate in other ways, without a lifelong arrangement. If he found a Companion who could provide such closeness, whom he valued for more than just sexual pleasure, and in exchange for that fulfillment he gave financial compensation as well as enjoyment to the Companion, would that be the same thing as just seeking out sex for sexes sake?

[avgleandt]

AH! NOW I think I begin to see your point, and you begin to persuade me! WELL done! I'm a stubborn mule sometimes.

No, I think a rational person would seek out physical companions whom they could respect.

Rationally, absolutely through value judgments - but don't forget that the willingness to support a woman is necessary because of the accepted responsibility of the risk of her becoming pregnant. If the risk of pregnancy is non existent - whether through natural means (menopause) or artificial (birth control or surgery), then the question of ongoing support no longer exists.

And still, one would expect a rational person who enjoys sexual pleasure simply for sexual pleasures sake to seek out like minded people with similar values on more than just the sexual front. Otherwise, such encounters would be unpleasant - as Dominque illustrated with her marriage to Peter as her own punishment.

I am somewhat persuaded, however at the same time, am not convinced that sex as an industry would vanish. It would, I think, change.

I think it would change into something like the Companions of Firefly (fiction - TV - Josh Wheedon - I've mentioned it before). In Firefly, a Companion was a highly trained, highly skilled artist who provided companionship, including sexual companionship, to her (or presumably his) clients. They carefully selected their clients, who had to meet their personal approval, and genuinely valued the time they shared with their clients.

Now imagine a widower, who has no desire to replace his wife in his life, but still desires companionship from time to time, sometimes sexual perhaps, sometimes just intimate in other ways, without a lifelong arrangement. If he found a Companion who could provide such closeness, whom he valued for more than just sexual pleasure, and in exchange for that fulfillment he gave financial compensation as well as enjoyment to the Companion, would that be the same thing as just seeking out sex for sexes sake?

Yeah it deffently would not vanish. The business model you describe is very well possible.

[Greebo]

Yeah it deffently would not vanish. The business model you describe is very well possible.

So - in the context described - would it be moral?

[avgleandt]

So - in the context described - would it be moral?

Thats a good question. For the person who has lost his wife or husband and doesn't want anyone else as a partner would they be acting rationaly? Or more generally is there a context in which a person can still be acting rationally? For instance what if person is in love with the prostitute bc the prositute has other values that the person admires and finds more important. I am begining to think that a context like that does exsist, which would conclude that within that context it is moral. However, I am having a trouble imagining a context in which the prositute can still be considered as acting rationally and thus morally.

On the other hand, philosophy of objectivism describes a proper life a person should live, and as result shows what the proper role of sex should be in that life. When a person losses his loved one, they might not see a point why they should keep living any life. So if seeking out a prositute eases the suffering, just bc of sex or mabye bc the prostitute does have something that reminds them of their loved one can now be rational. Still i am having hard time to see how that can apply to the prostitute.

A person's actions in this matter would deffently have to be judged in their context. These actions would probably raise a red flag about the person's character that would need further investigation.

Edited May 13, 2008 by avgleandt

[Randy Morantes]

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've been trying to understand the Objectivist take on the concepts of "objective" and "subjective", but I found this explanation to be very confusing. How can I tell if my values are "correct" values (thus, "objective" values?). Also, how can I tell if my values are "incorrect" values (these would be "subjective" values?).

My best guess at this point is: "objective" values are those values which, based on one's observations of reality, one has deduced to be the values that are most likely to promote the value of one's life (the flourishing sort) when pursued. "Subjective" values are those values one has chosen for no particular reason. These values might be "correct" values in that they further one's life when pursued (unlikely, but even a broken clock is right twice a day), but they are still "subjective" values due to the random nature of their selection.

[RationalBiker]

These values might be "correct" values in that they further one's life when pursued (unlikely, but even a broken clock is right twice a day), but they are still "subjective" values due to the random nature of their selection.

If you think 'personal' as opposed to 'random' I think you are closer in the ballpark. Random suggests causeless, without reason. Objectivists use the term 'subjective' to indicate something whimsical or without reason. I can objectively point to the fact that I enjoy how motorcycling benefits my life. I can also objectively point to the fact that deep sea fishing does not help fulfill my life. I know what each activity is, how they each impact the fulfillment of my life, and I choose the one that works best for me. The fact that I choose one of those values to pursue over the other, or over millions of other activities, does not make my choice random or without reason.

Edit: Clarified italics "does not" - RB

Edited October 13, 2008 by RationalBiker

[Randy Morantes]

Hey RB, this is my understanding of your position:

- I prefer enjoyment to non-enjoyment.

- I am aware of the nature of deep sea fishing.

- I do not enjoy deep sea fishing.

- I am aware of the nature of motorcycling.

- I enjoy motorcycling.

- I will act to gain and/or keep motorcycling.

This is the logical continuation of your position, according to (my understanding of) Objectivism:

- If I value motorcycling, then I must value consciousness.

- If I value consciousness, then I must value life (the biological state).

- If I value life, then I must value existence.

- Existence exists.

The reason your position is "objective" is because you have a casual, logically consistent explanation as to why you value motorcycling, which can be traced all the way to the axiom "existence exists". To my knowledge, that is as fundamental as things get. On the other hand, if you were unable to explain your position past "I enjoy motorcycling", your position would then be "subjective" because in this case your desire to ride motorcycles is "whimsical". So, because the value of motorcycling can be objective or subjective, it would seem that values, in themselves, are neither objective or subjective.

Rather, values can only be objective or subjective within the context of how well they compliment a group of other values. Oxygen, by itself, is neither objective or subjective. But if one requires oxygen to live, and one wishes to live, things change.

Is this anywhere near correct?

[RationalBiker]

Hey RB, this is my understanding of your position:

The is pretty close to what I'm saying. However, here are some things that I would wish to qualify with respect to your understanding;

Without quibbling over terms too much, I would say fulfillment over enjoyment. Fulfillment carries with it a deeper meaning in that the particular value in question adds value to my life over the long term and satisfies a need. Enjoyment can be more range of the moment, more hedonistic sounding.

Second, the value that one seeks should actually add value to one's life (usually over the long term) for it to be objective (connected to facts of reality). For instance, a person might enjoy doing crystal meth, he/she may seek to pursue that as a value to add to their life. (GRAPHIC WARNING ABOUT FOLLOWING LINK) However, a year or two later when this has happened , it could be demonstrated that their value was not based on facts of reality (unless perhaps that person valued death over life). This doesn't mean that certain values don't come with risks though. Life comes with risks. Assuming risks, within particular contexts, can either be healthy or not.

The reason your position is "objective" is because you have a casual, logically consistent explanation as to why you value motorcycling, which can be traced all the way to the axiom "existence exists".

In a nutshell, yes.

So, because the value of motorcycling can be objective or subjective, it would seem that values, in themselves, are neither objective or subjective.

Yes, values require a valuer and a context. I love motorcycling. I do not love motorcycling in gale force winds. I do not love motorcycling in gale force winds unless that is the only way for me to flee from the incoming tidal wave. As the facts of reality change, how the valuer pursues his values 'should' change (is/ought). A rock, in and of itself, has no value. However, to a person being attacked by a knife-wielding opponent, if smashing that attackers head in with that rock is the only means to available to stop the assault, in that context the rock is quite valuable to him. If successful, he may even place in a display case on his mantle.

Oxygen is 'good' in the context of when I need air to breathe. Highly concentrated oxygen can be 'bad' for me when it is exposed to an igniting force. At times we need the warmth of the sun. At times the warmth of the sun can kill us.

Does any of this help your understanding?

Edited October 13, 2008 by RationalBiker

[Randy Morantes]

Does any of this help your understanding?

I think so. I'd like to elaborate, but I currently don't have the time/internet access to do so. I'll get back to you when I can!