Code of Values

[Hazmatac]

I was wondering, can someone help me concretize what is referred to when someone says "Code of Values?" I don't know what this is referring to, and apparently it is pretty important in especially in the first chapter of "The Virtue of Selfishness." I just don't understand what it means really because I don' t understand what it refers to.

When I was trying to learn Causality I didn't know it was set up in a certain format, such as "Cause = X," "Effect = Y". That made it simpler to understand. So I am wondering if there is any formula like that to learn or anything. Thanks for your help.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I was wondering, can someone help me concretize what is referred to when someone says "Code of Values?"

Basically, it's an integrated system of what you ought to pursue in life while you are alive. If you just went after specific values and that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be a code, like a code of conduct. A code means that the abstract parameters have been thought out and someone came up with a moral system. Ayn Rand ties this directly to values, since a code of values accepted by choice is a morality. In other words, what you consider to be important and valuable in life is the basis of your morality, and keeping all of them together intellectually is a code of values.

[Hazmatac]

Basically, it's an integrated system of what you ought to pursue in life while you are alive. If you just went after specific values and that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be a code, like a code of conduct. A code means that the abstract parameters have been thought out and someone came up with a moral system. Ayn Rand ties this directly to values, since a code of values accepted by choice is a morality. In other words, what you consider to be important and valuable in life is the basis of your morality, and keeping all of them together intellectually is a code of values.

Thank you for your response Thomas, but my grasp of code of values isn't any better. I was hoping for a concretization. For example: could you provide me with a sample moral code, or part of one, to see what she is talking about? Thanks

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Thank you for your response Thomas, but my grasp of code of values isn't any better. I was hoping for a concretization. For example: could you provide me with a sample moral code, or part of one, to see what she is talking about? Thanks

Sure.

Christianity (Augustine) advises you to pursue salvation after death by renouncing everything this earth has to offer. Don't enjoy this life because its really a veil of tears and only temporary. Do not seek to gain anything, neither material wealth nor human happiness, because these will prevent you from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Seek only the spiritual value of union with God. The standard of value is The Bible, the word of God. Follow God, not your own wishes or desires.

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) advises you to live life on earth to the fullest. Seek those values that are actually good for you and will enhance your life on earth. Gain wealth and happiness, purpose and self-esteem. As to spiritual values, these are accomplished via art and self-thinking about the world. Make sure your values are connected to what you are as a living, conscious, self-actualizing entity. Human life is the standard of value. Understand this using your own mind, and direct it towards understanding existence.

In a sense, it is the self-consistency of the code of values that makes it a code, rather than just a list of things to pursue. The self-consistency comes from one principle that guides one to pursue certain values and abstain from others.

[Hazmatac]

Sure.

Christianity (Augustine) advises you to pursue salvation after death by renouncing everything this earth has to offer. Don't enjoy this life because its really a veil of tears and only temporary. Do not seek to gain anything, neither material wealth nor human happiness, because these will prevent you from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Seek only the spiritual value of union with God. The standard of value is The Bible, the word of God. Follow God, not your own wishes or desires.

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) advises you to live life on earth to the fullest. Seek those values that are actually good for you and will enhance your life on earth. Gain wealth and happiness, purpose and self-esteem. As to spiritual values, these are accomplished via art and self-thinking about the world. Make sure your values are connected to what you are as a living, conscious, self-actualizing entity. Human life is the standard of value. Understand this using your own mind, and direct it towards understanding existence.

In a sense, it is the self-consistency of the code of values that makes it a code, rather than just a list of things to pursue. The self-consistency comes from one principle that guides one to pursue certain values and abstain from others.

What is the essential for moral code? What is the deciding factor, when you look at a sentence and say, "ah yes, that is part of a moral code?"

[KurtColville]

What is the essential for moral code? What is the deciding factor, when you look at a sentence and say, "ah yes, that is part of a moral code?"

If it benefits man's life, by his nature as a rational being.

[phibetakappa]

What is the essential for moral code? What is the deciding factor, when you look at a sentence and say, "ah yes, that is part of a moral code?"

One clue, which I find helpful, is a statement from Galt's Speak in Atlas Shrugged around page 936:

The moral is the chosen

When we look at a given sentence in our daily lives most often it will not be explicitly part of a moral code, but will be derived from some moral code and/or a certain moral code will be implied in a given statement; however, what you will notice is

*the statement is "prescriptive", advising a certain course of action; advising a certain guide to action; advising a certain way to lead your life

*the statement contains words like, should, ought, must, good, bad

*the statement is often evaluative, expressing something is "good" or "bad", often there is a reason given for why

*the statement will have some explicit and/or implicit standard its based on

*the statement is often "for" a particular purpose or goal (which may be the standard being used)

*the statement is often ultimately benefiting someone or something (aside from explicit Kantian moral statements)

Warning, in our modern era many people work to obfuscate their statements. Also, most people will make perscriptions, telling you what they think we should do, while not explicitly knowing themselves what moral standards they are basing their statements on. This may cause us to work like a detective to figure out the underlying moral standards at work.

Regards,

Edited July 22, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Grames]

Remember what values are, something that "one acts to gain or keep". They can be tangible as in objects or intangible as in virtues.

Try not to end up with a list of random stuff you like, such as suggested by this webpage. Perhaps one could start off that way, but the point of a code of values is that it has thought in it, ordering from top to bottom, and you know why everything listed and why it has its place. It doesn't need to be done all at once, and if you start young it will change over time, and should change over time.

A list of single words is not even in good form, complete sentences are far better. "Should"s and "Ought"s are bad; use simple declarative or imperative forms.

The Three Laws of Robotics as invented by the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov form a primitive code of values:

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

What is bad about this is it reads like a short form 'ten commandments' for robots, and prohibitions and negative statements do not belong on code of values for humans. It is supposed to be a code of values, not a code of dis-values or your own private legal system.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

While it is possible to conceptualize a code of values in one sentence, a code of values is not just one sentence or a list, as others have mentioned. It has to be a coherent whole based on a principle of action of what to gain and to keep. One can say he likes reading, ice cream, jogging, debating, praying, girls, and smoking; but this is just a list and doesn't really tell you what his code of values is -- what principle is behind his selection of values. Someone with such a list may not even have a code of values, it could be a mismatch from different codes of values (some pragmatic and some Christian and maybe even some rational). For it to be a code of values it must be retained as an abstraction that guides one to select certain thing in reality and to dismiss others based upon that principle. Man's life as the standard is the guiding principle of Objectivism; and his long-term rational self-interest; and will use the heroes of Miss Rand's novels as a guide. A pragmatist will go for short-term gains and not worry so much about the long-term perspective; and really has no guide. A Christian will focus on what he thinks God wants him to be and to do; and will use Jesus as a guide.

[Grames]

Man's life as the standard is the guiding principle of Objectivism; and his long-term rational self-interest; and will use the heroes of Miss Rand's novels as a guide.

Those are far too abstract to be useful when you have to act. They are also generic and universal, a particular person should have a fairly unique code of values based not just on philosophic principles but the circumstances of his own life and interests.

"Howard Roark: Architect" is a good condensation of everything Roark stood for, it is Roark's implementation of "man's life as the standard", a particular kind of life.

edit: See also "What is a central purpose in life?" at Burgess Laughlin's blog.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Grames

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

edit: See also "What is a central purpose in life?" at Burgess Laughlin's blog.

While I agree with what Burgess wrote about a central purpose in life, I don't think my original statement was too broad to be effective. Broad principles are the root of a rational philosophy, and then one needs to apply those principles to one's own life -- which gets one down to the central purpose. Or inductively, starting with observations about life in general and formulating principles from which to guide future actions. Saying the principle is too broad would be like saying e=mC^2 is too broad of a statement, when it is a guide to many observations in physics. Similarly, one has to realize that a broad philosophical statement is not just "empty air" (not saying this is Grame's position), but rather subsumes a wide range of proper activities geared towards the life of a rational man.

I may say more after this weekend, but I may not have access to a computer for many days.

[Hodges'sPodges]

what you ought to pursue in life while you are alive

As opposed to what you ought to pursue in life while you're not alive?

Sorry, just ribbing; I'm not really that pedantic in life (not in life though, who knows how pedantic I might be?).

Edited July 23, 2009 by Hodges'sPodges

[Jas0n]

A code of values should be considered as a heirarchy. Values do not exist in a vacuum and for this reason, it's important not only to identify a given value correctly in and of itself, but also why it is a value.

The primary value should be that man has a right to his own life as a rational animal - you, in your code of values, will be the first in line. Every other value you hold will follow from there, say, on to your value for property rights qua property rights. Then, eventually, you'll get more specific with things that are important to you, but not important in the same way that philosophical values are important. Presumably you value man's right to property much more highly than you value your computer... which follows, since you can't value your computer (correctly) without acknowledging property rights.

So I see two ways to go about codifying your values - you can start with a simple value that you hold, and work backwards until you reach "man has a right to his own life" or whatever... OR you can start with "man has a right to his own life" and work outwards until you discover for yourself what you value, exactly, and why you value it. There isn't an easy formula, but hopefully having the notion that man's right to life underpins everything should help you to develop your code of values.

I'm totally shooting from the hip here, by the way.

[phibetakappa]

The primary value should be that man has a right to his own life as a rational animal

*I am not trying to be pedantic here:

If this statement is attempting to apply O'ism, then there are, at least, two errors with this statement, one explicit, one implicit.

Obviously its your choice to make your primary value the "right" to your own life, but a right is technically a certain kind of meta-political declarative statement. A 'right' is a tool to make explicit, a necessary condition for any given individual man, which must be kept if men are to sustain and/or enhance their lives when they are living among other men in a social setting. See Ayn Rand's definition of "right":

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. (VOS, 93)

See: Ayn Rand Lexicon: Individual Rights

Rights can be thought of as gateways into politics and law. If a man lived his existence on a desert island he would have no need for rights, but he would still need to choose a code of values, and he would still need a standard for selecting each item in that code.

But the moment mankind contemplates living among other men, the necessity for defining just what conditions need to be maintained for men to flourish must be made explicit, and needs to be communicated, known and agreed upon by all.

We can think of rights, like the resulting document that would come from a bunch of people showing up on the same island and who start considering living together. A declaration of rights is like the people getting together and saying, "Ok if we are going to do this, if we are going to live together, then we need to get a few things straight. Here are all the conditions I (we) need to absolutely remain in place for 'this' proposed society to allow us all to live together and flourish..."

As such the “right” to life is dependent upon the entire subject of morality/ethics. Rights are not the basis of morality, nor are they the proper basis for use as a standard for selecting/sorting one’s hierarchy of values.

The primary value should be that man has a right to his own life as a rational animal

Secondly, the implicit issue I have with your statement, which may not have been intended when it was written:

The way it is written seems to suggest that the phrase “as a rational animal,” is the warrant or justification for the first part of the statement, i.e., that “man has a right to his own life.”

As if one could rewrite the statement as, “man has a right to his own life, because man is a rational animal.”

It is true, man is a rational animal, but outside the context of him living in a society, such a fact does not provide a warrant or motivation for the definition of his rights.

Man has a right to his own life because such a right is an absolute condition, which must be maintained for any men living (flourishing) in a society with other men.

Now, what facts of reality give rise for man’s need of the concept of rights, and the need for explicit declaration of those rights and absolute adherence in the founding of a society?

The answer to this is provided by the entire science of the O’ist morality, starting with exactly where Ayn Rand started: what are values and why does man need them? (VOS)

The progression of thought (if you are a genius like AR), will lead us to the recognition that the concept of value is genetically/conceptually dependent on the concept life. It will lead us to the identification of an “ultimate value,” in AR’s words:

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. (VOS, 17)

This “ultimate value,” when translated to apply to man’s life, and to man’s specific kind of nature as a living being, will translate into a particular, abstract standard and a purpose he can use to guide his life and/or to use to select the specific choices and values, which he can use to form his particular code of values.

The progression of thought from the recognition of the fact that there is an “ultimate value,” until the recognition and acknowledgement of man’s particular nature is a very long one. E.g., if you take VOS, and Ayn Rand’s own words, it is not until 8 pages later when she explicitly states the importance of reason to man and its application to selecting a standard of value:

The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.

Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. (VOS, 25)

Finally, it is not until two pages later where she states the explicit application of the “ultimate value,” to man’s particular nature, and thus expresses the proper standard of value for man:

The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.

Regards,

Edited July 29, 2009 by phibetakappa

[phibetakappa]

So I see two ways to go about codifying your values - you can start with a simple value that you hold, and work backwards until you reach "man has a right to his own life" or whatever... OR you can start with "man has a right to his own life" and work outwards until you discover for yourself what you value, exactly, and why you value it.

*JasOn, not trying to single you out or discourage you, but I'm afraid your 2 proposed methods are not going to lead you very far; and I get the sense that you really take ideas seriously, so "I feel for you."

An easier method is to choose our career as the central purpose of our life, and using it as the standard, then integrate all our other choices of values/purpose/goals around it. E.g., examine: food, clothing, shelter, friends, family, romantic love, art, rest/relaxation in terms of our career choice, and select appropriately based on that career, i.e., based on the central long-term productive activity across our life time.

We can think of our career as our central long-term productive activity across our entire life time. Production is how we create the values we will need for our life, and our career choice is the choice of "how" we will spend the vast majority of our life producing.

There are many, many choices of career available to us, i.e., so many ways to "make a living." Given we live in a division of labor society, and we have such great tools to facilitate trade, the easiest way to make a living is to go into business (working for someone or yourself), specializing in the production of some good or service which people want.

After we've selected a long-term productive purpose, i.e., a career; then its pretty easy to integrate and explicitly define the rest of our values around it.

For example starting with our basic needs/values: food, clothing, shelter

*money from your career gets the means to trade for food, clothing, shelter

*where are you going to live, near your base location for facilitating your career, i..e, near your job, near the airport or whatever location which facilitates your career.

The values/purpose you select to pursue, which you will prioritize and keep in mind, are ultimately going to be what you can afford. By afford I mean that which your own particular productive ability can produce directly or indirectly.

*Should I get a car? Can I afford it? Meaning: can I build an individual mode of transportation or can I trade to get it given my particular long-term ability/capacity to produce?

And your particular productive ability/capacity across your life-time is what is meant by a career.

In other words, choose your long-term work, use it as a standard for selecting and integrating the rest.

An interesting exercise is to imagine a career, then imagine selecting values which would conflict or contradict with it? What happens to your life?

It will quickly disintegrate, crumble...

Or select a value "higher" than career: What will happen to your life?

E.g., select romantic love and place it higher than career. Select video games, reading, eating, studying, anything higher than the expression of your long-term productive activity... what will happen to your life?

If you can find some value/purpose/goal/end, which when explicitly place "higher" than career, still makes it possible for us to achieve success, happiness and facilitates flourishing across our life time, please let me know.

[Note: I just did a search and found a great quote from Ayn Rand which should be helpful]

In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose . . . A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find.

“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

Ayn Rand Lexicon: Career

Edited July 29, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Jas0n]

By all means, correct my errors if I make them. I appreciate any criticism of an argument I may make... if I'm wrong, presumably I'll see my error and can correct it or bear it in mind for the future and if I believe I'm right, I'll just argue with you.

But for as long as I've been reading Rand and trying to apply her philosophy to my own life (and the lives of others, by way of this kind of setting), I've had very little opportunity to have my arguments criticized vis a vis Rand's work, aside from the scrutiny to which I myself subject my posts and so forth. So this is good.

I think what I did in the first place was conflate rights and values. I'm not even sure why that would happen.

[phibetakappa]

I think what I did in the first place was conflate rights and values. I'm not even sure why that would happen.

One of the greatest ways to understand O'ism and to facilitate applying it, is to use one of its greatest pieces of epistemological advice. That is...

Concertize your abstractions by finding as many examples as you can of a given abstractions referents, i.e., what it is supposed to refer to in reality.

For example, in the case of the abstraction "value", create a list of as many, real values as you can, and try to form a definition of the concept first hand. Choose the best genus and differentia as you can, and continue to gather examples and revising your definition.

Start with basic values such as: food, clothing, shelter, then move on to more sophisticated and complex examples, such as friends, lovers etc... finally, move on to abstract values, such as freedom or virtues like independence.

Soon, you will hold the concept of value in your mind with as much clarity as you hold the concepts table, car, car etc.

I highly recommend reading the short section on the subject in both of Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction books, as well as listening to Harry Binswanger's course on logical thinking.

AR Bookstore: HB: Logical Thinking

I think what I did in the first place was conflate rights and values. I'm not even sure why that would happen.

The good news is that "rights" are a certain kind of value, so you can put them down as a so-call 'concrete' instance of value when working on the above exercise.

Rights are an indespensible value for man when living in a social context. He should prize them and protect them, because they protect him, i.e., rights keep other man's hands off of him, as-well-as provide the basis for objective laws, which are a HUGE value.

But we warned, don't try to start with "rights" as your first set of examples, it is far, far too abstract. Better is to start with the kinds of values man would need alone in the wilderness and then, much later bring in society and all the goods and services it provides etc. Then start trying to integrate really abstract values as "concrete" instances of the concept of value.

Regards

Edited July 31, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Start with basic values such as: food, clothing, shelter, then move on to more sophisticated and complex examples, such as friends, lovers etc... finally, move on to abstract values, such as freedom or virtues like independence.

I don't mean to be too picky here, but the virtues are the means by which one achieves one's values consistent with reality; they themselves are not values, unless you meant it in the sense of someone who has those virtues is a high value. The abstract values in Objectivism are reason, purpose, and self-esteem.

And I'm not sure making a list is the right approach, because you might make a list of those things you value without referencing to man's life as the standard. In other words, not everything you want or achieve is necessarily a rational value; so if you merely list those things as a grab bag, it won't work.

[Grames]

I don't mean to be too picky here,

You are being too picky. 'Value' and 'rational' are two different ideas that ought to be studied separately before the combination 'rational value' can be understood.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

You are being too picky. 'Value' and 'rational' are two different ideas that ought to be studied separately before the combination 'rational value' can be understood.

My point is that rationality, the primary virtue, is the means by which one achieves the gaining or keeping of one's objective values. Is it valuable to be rational? Well, it depends on how you look at the issue. I certainly consider my rationality to be good -- that is it is good for me, so in that sense it is a value; but the primary meaning of rationality is the means by which one stays connected to reality in order to achieve those values necessary to maintain one's own life. One can certainly strive to be rational in all things, in the abstract consider it to be a value in that sense of gaining something that is good for you.

It's a little like saying walking is a value or a virtue -- walking to get something one wants is a virtuous action taken, but one can also isolate out the walking and realize it is good for you (as in exercising). So, walking is a means of getting something (as opposed to staying put) and it is a value in that it keeps one healthy.

[phibetakappa]

I don't mean to be too picky here, but the virtues are the means by which one achieves one's values consistent with reality

That is true, but they are themselves values. They are capacities which need to be acted for, to be gained and kept.

Habits are not just formed out of thin air, they are must be chosen and acted for, gained and/or kept just like any other value.

Edited August 1, 2009 by phibetakappa

[phibetakappa]

And I'm not sure making a list is the right approach, because you might make a list of those things you value without referencing to man's life as the standard. In other words, not everything you want or achieve is necessarily a rational value; so if you merely list those things as a grab bag, it won't work.

It won't matter. If one is honest, the list will contain mostly objective values, especially if on starts with the most simple necessities and works more complicated. It's only corrupt adults who later invent 'values' such as "self-sacrifice" and its variants, and try to get people to adopt them.

If there are contradictory items being claimed as "values/goals/ends" they will be self-corrected.

In other words, not everything you want or achieve is necessarily a rational value

"not everything," has to be a rational value, when we start out. Expecting that every item has to be identified as a "rational" value, subsumes one knows what "rational" means, prior to knowing what a value is. Rational is a concept of consciousness, it is very complex, much more complex than the basic values need for sustaining and/or enhancing one's life.

The vast majority of people choose mostly objective values in their everyday life. They choose values within the context of their life using a basically rational process.

Further, children can understand basic values without understanding what "rational" entails, or what a rational value is in opposition to a non-rational value. Even savages have a basic idea of what values are, what they should do to stay alive and what they shouldn't, even if they don't explicitly know it. In other words, basic values are much lower in the hierarchy of knowledge, i.e., much closer to first level concept than concepts like rationality are.

Having "everything" in a set being all of the same kind is not a requirement for coming to a proper classification. We can start with a basic definition in our own terms and improve it over time as more information comes available to us.

If one puts something that does not belong by accident or by ignorance, one will figure it out as one's definition becomes refined revision after revision.

So, in this specific case of classification one need only start with a list of one's best candidates for values/goals/ends and work from there.

Edited August 1, 2009 by phibetakappa