Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

the nature of values

Rate this topic


draken12

Recommended Posts

A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, but is the pursuit of something that is not good for you still a value?

For example; if I was addicted to cigarettes and I acted to pursue a pack, would that pack be a value to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a very strict, literal sense, it would be. A value is not an absolute good, though, so holding self-destruction as an intermediate value is not rational if your ultimate goal is to exist. Given the purpose of values, satisfying an addiction to cigarettes does not do what values are supposed to do (assuming you haven't decided to smoke yourself to death). See "The Objectivist Ethics" p. 31 "If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer", indicating that there are rational and irrational values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you can hold irrational values, since the only criteria of something being a value is that you act to gain and/or keep it, why can´t the immortal robot hold values?

Life is the only thing that can go out of existence, the alternative of life or death is the basis for our normative "shoulds" (pre-supposing the choice to live). Our needs for furthering our lives are what determine our objective values, so without the alternative of life or death no values are possible. Its kinda a big jump, but when you think about what values are, its not too hard to see the relationship they have with life. Its also important to note that an immortal being would not really be "alive" in the true sense of the term. "Life is a series of self generated, self sustaining actions", immortality means that theres noting to sustain, survival is guaranteed.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a good question, and it could be fleshed out a lot more concretely than in my post above. For example, why do some people "value" cigarettes? Theyre unhealthy, but in certain contexts people would risk their health because cigarettes make them feel good. That leads to the question, "good" by what standard? good to whom and for what? The answer may be, good because they releive stress. What is stress? Its an emotional response to our value judgements in certain situations, when our values are attacked, we get stressed, angry etc. Being in that state is not optimal for making life furthering decisions, its ultimately bad for our lives. So which is better for our survival, unhealty cigarettes or unhealthy stress? Thats where context comes in. All moral decisions in Rands egoistic ethical theory come down to this. Never evading the context , and weighing all choices holding life as the standard of value.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dual senses of "value," that you note derive from several facts about man's nature. Life's being an active process is one of those. Living things must act, or die. Vegetables act in one, relatively passive way, and animals act more complexly, including, especially, the ability to locomote, subserved by sense-perception. Humans share the vegetative and animal levels of life, and those requirements to act.

Come the conceptual level of cognition, action includes alternatives and deliberation no other animal faces. At that level, choices of goals are explicit. At that level, we contemplate our goals, and we need rules and principles to guide us. The same freedom that our intellectual capacity gives us complicates our valuing.

As an animal, we must act, and whatever we act to gain is a value. But as the intellectual being we are, our chosen actions are not automatic, not set for us by appetite, etc. Whatever we act towards is a value on the behavioral definition. Only if it is chosen in light of knowledge and reason is it a value "qua man."

Just as we can fail to act above the animal level, we can fail to value above that level. To value as a man, we must refer to a standard, identify a standard, and decide to use it.

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a good question, and it could be fleshed out a lot more concretely than in my post above. For example, why do some people "value" cigarettes? Theyre unhealthy, but in certain contexts people would risk their health because cigarettes make them feel good. That leads to the question, "good" by what standard? good to whom and for what? The answer may be, good because they releive stress. What is stress? Its an emotional response to our value judgements in certain situations, when our values are attacked, we get stressed, angry etc. Being in that state is not optimal for making life furthering decisions, its ultimately bad for our lives. So which is better for our survival, unhealty cigarettes or unhealthy stress? Thats where context comes in. All moral decisions in Rands egoistic ethical theory come down to this. Never evading the context , and weighing all choices holding life as the standard of value.

j..

It is interesting how frequently cigarettes/smoking comes up in these kinds of questions.

I don't know that smoking can be considered objectively a negative just because of the risks.

So many of the risk factors have as much to do with genetics and other externalities that I have trouble considering it automatically negative. Disclaimer- I smoke so of course I have a stake in thinking that smoking cigarettes isn't irrational.

I'd say if you are in good health and have no family history of medical conditions associated with smoking that smoking (in moderation of course) is the same as any other enjoyment value that taken immoderately can be bad- television, fatty foods, wine, hazardous sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that smoking can be considered objectively a negative just because of the risks.

Agreed. It was an attempt to show 1) the contextual nature of values, and 2) the relationship values have with life, in a half assed semi-concrete example. The point should have been that nothing can be considered automatically negative without reference to some relevant context, and you cant even talk about value as apart from life.

I smoke also, by the way.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, but is the pursuit of something that is not good for you still a value?

For example; if I was addicted to cigarettes and I acted to pursue a pack, would that pack be a value to me?

Yes. The main question which Objectivism asks about good and therefore valuable is “good for what or for whom?" Suppose, you know that your smocking habit will reduce your life span say by 10%, but you enjoy your smock, it gives you a pleasure. In other words you trade the quantity of your life for its quality. As long as you made such a conscious decision, pack of cigarettes is a value for you. But suppose you've changed your mind and now you're smocking only because you are an addict. In such a case there is no value in smocking and you should kick the habit out as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The main question which Objectivism asks about good and therefore valuable is “good for what or for whom?" Suppose, you know that your smocking habit will reduce your life span say by 10%, but you enjoy your smock, it gives you a pleasure. In other words you trade the quantity of your life for its quality. As long as you made such a conscious decision, pack of cigarettes is a value for you. But suppose you've changed your mind and now you're smocking only because you are an addict. In such a case there is no value in smocking and you should kick the habit out as soon as possible.

In other words - there are values, and there are viable values... and only the latter enhances the well-being, the flourishing, of the person...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words - there are values, and there are viable values... and only the latter enhances the well-being, the flourishing, of the person...

No, Anon, I believe you missed JayR's excellent point. Smoking might reasonably be the lesser of two evils, because it does in fact tend to relieve stress, which involves some threat to others of one's values. It is better to smoke and cope than give up on life. It is, in this scenario, smoking that "enhances the well-being, the flourishing, of the person..."

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since the only criteria of something being a value is that you act to gain and/or keep it, why can´t the immortal robot hold values?

I thought the answer to this was a little unclear. The robot can act to gain and/or keep things since it can move around. But does that mean that it can pursue values? No. Because values have to be acted on to be attained by living things, thereby they are values, and the robot is not a living thing. There I think your full answer is.

Edited by patrik 7-2321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...