Objectivity in Truth and the Good

[Grames]

Objectivity is the essence of Objectivism, so it pays to understand what it means. The tack taken here is to compare and contrast objectivity to other possibilities.

Ayn Rand describes three theories of the good in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

Intrincism is wrong because it omits the relationship of value to valuer, which I will describe as an impersonal theory. Subjectivism is wrong because it omits reality, identity and causal relatonships, so its assertions are necessarily arbitrary. Objectivism includes both the personal relationship of valuer to value and recognition of causal relations that create value. It struck me that there was one combnation missing that would complete the taxonomy of possible theories: a combination of an impersonal theory of value and causal relations. Is there is any actual theory that has these perspectives? Yes there is, we call it determinism.

Determinism is not an actual theory of the good so Rand was correct to omit it above.

The evaluation above takes these ideas at face value, i.e. literally. In actual implementation practice does not match the theory. For example, there is no such thing as an actual intrinsic value even though there are intrinsicists. The things intrinsicists assert to be intrinsic values are arbitrary, which makes them subjectivists. There are such things as subjective values, for example the relationship of a drug addict to his drug is one of valuing. Valuing is an action which if not willfully directed to be objective will default to being subjective. Subjectivism creates values which are good in theory but not in practice by evading identity and causality. Determinists are rationalists spinning a theory from an arbitrary starting point in science; the arbitariness relegates them to a species of subjectivism.

A diagram:

The perspectives and methods of thinking described above can be fleshed out with concrete examples of content compatible with each for other fields of philosophy. (Given in epistemlogical/ethical/political order.)

Impersonal/arbitrary: intrinsicism

revelation

holy relics/religious duty

divine totalitarianism

Impersonal/caused: determinism

empiricism/skepticism/reductionism

dialectal materialism/evolutionary psychology/social duty

scientific totalitarianism

Personal/Arbitrary: subjectivism

primacy of emotions/whims

hedonism/criminality/conformity

anarchy and then obedience to a totalitarian

Personal/caused: Objectivism

perception/integration/contextual knowledge

personal values/virtues

rights/capitalism

Objectivity is a personal perspective on causal relations. Objectivity rests on you identifiying the causal factors that make something true or valuable or lawful. Impartiality or the third-person perspective is not necessary to objectivity and will actually make objectivity impossible to apply to your own life.

[whYNOT]

Most instructive, and easily applicable; thanks.

[John McVey]

I covered my thoughts in depth here. What I have written has since been edited, but the essence is unchanged.

I identified that values are either objective or non-objective. Objective values are divided into rightly-identified values, mistaken values, and also potential & latent values. Non-objective values are divided into irrational values and pre-conceptual values.

It's not that subjective values are bad, but that subjective values do not exist at all. Certainly, irrational values are as close as men can get to subjective values, but they never actually get there because at root there are still causes as to why someone values X over Y (Dr Beuchner formulated this argument, not me, but I do subscribe to it). There are always causes, hence never any subjective values. Don't confuse the source of values with the methodology used to follow through on them.

When men's values are irrational, the key to not mistakingly calling them subjective is to identify the fact that there is no such thing as a causeless emotion, that they are not subjective in the proper meaning of the word either. A large part of the problem in considering the word subjective is the switch in its usage from the full philosophic meaning (the wholly uncaused creation of the subject, which you've correctly identified) and the slacker vernacular (that which changes from individual to individual and has causes we may or may not think well of). It pays to stick strictly to the philosophic meaning.

Similarly, to the extent that someone's capacity to form abstractions is non-functional their valuations are pre-conceptual. Their values begin to approach those of animals, to whom the entire idea of epistemological status does not apply. They either have values or they don't, where whether the values are helpful or not has no bearing on their status as values or the fact that concept of epistemological status doesn't apply.

JJM

Edited November 18, 2009 by John McVey

[Grames]

I covered my thoughts in depth here. What I have written has since been edited, but the essence is unchanged.

Where is your link supposed to go?

[John McVey]

Woopsidaisy! Fixed

JJM

[Grames]

I identified that values are either objective or non-objective. Objective values are divided into rightly-identified values, mistaken values, and also potential & latent values. Non-objective values are divided into irrational values and pre-conceptual values.

It's not that subjective values are bad, but that subjective values do not exist at all. Certainly, irrational values are as close as men can get to subjective values, but they never actually get there because at root there are still causes as to why someone values X over Y (Dr Beuchner formulated this argument, not me, but I do subscribe to it). There are always causes, hence never any subjective values. Don't confuse the source of values with the methodology used to follow through on them.

I approve of the objective or non-objective value analysis as a more accurate classification of what actually exists. But if you'll notice I do not distinguish here between the caused and the uncaused, but between the caused and the arbitrary. These two terms do not form a mutually exclusive jointly exhaustive pair such "A" and "not-A" would, but they are descriptive of the key features of the theories being classified. The distinction is intended to be methodological, so falls within epistemology. In the form of a pair of contraries within epistemology, caused and arbitrary can be understood as justified and non-justified. Psychological causes for non-objective values do not provide justification, so this analysis stands.

Providing the theory of justification I used is beyond the scope of what I wanted to cover here, but it is the objective version of the correspondence theory.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Grames