Hierarchy of Values

[DancingBear]

How can equally rational people have different hierarchies of values?

[agrippa1]

Are you asking why some people drink fruit-flavored beers, or did you have something more profound in mind?

[TLD]

Are you asking why some people drink fruit-flavored beers, or did you have something more profound in mind?

That addresses the point that one's fundamental values are objectively derived and would not differ; other things we value are subjective and need not be the same for all.

[Hairnet]

How can equally rational people have different hierarchies of values?

Different contexts in short.

I am in a desert for instance, I need water, i would gladly exchange diamonds for water.

I am a jeweler, my well being is based on having diamonds, I wouldn't trade a diamond for a bottle of water.

This can be extended to something more abstract. For instance, some people are just math people and others are English people. So it makes sense for a math person to go into a career doing what they enjoy, where someone who is really good at writing and who enjoys it shouldn't attempt to be a computer scientist (I made that mistake).

The variation of rational values among different individuals is easily explained by the differences in their situation and their nature.

Nature - It might not be a good example now because we are living in an industrial society where one does not need to conform to any gender roles in order to survive, but men and women at one point in history had to seek different specific values in order to live.

I have had it explained to me that there was a sexual division of labor. Men hunted, women gathered food and raised children So women had to learn to be stationary, make goods, and watch over toddlers all day, where as men had to be able to be strong, throw spears, and run really fast.

Situation - An extreme example would be something like being a child soldier, while normally it would be bad to kill people because one was told do so, the only option the child soldier has it to do everything in his power to survive until escape is possible, even it it involves rape and murder.

[DancingBear]

I'm specifically thinking of differing values as they relate to choosing a career. For example, while one man may choose to be a composer of music, another chooses to practice the science of physics. Two very different choices, yet I think Ayn Rand would argue that they are equally viable. How does this work in Objectivism? If there is a right and a wrong, then why don't people all practice physics and philosophy? Everything else seems extraneous to reality.

A good point was made with the different flavor drink example. Yes, it's quite common to prefer different flavors than others, but is there not a RIGHT choice? In other words, wouldn't one flavor be more in concert with a rational hierarchy of values, however negligible?

[OCSL]

If there is a right and a wrong, then why don't people all practice physics and philosophy? Everything else seems extraneous to reality.

Right and wrong does not apply to an individual's occupation, but to the way the individual conducts themselves in their chosen work. If two people approach work with productivity as their goal in two separate careers, such as physics and philosophy, they are equally rational.

[Eiuol]

A good point was made with the different flavor drink example. Yes, it's quite common to prefer different flavors than others, but is there not a RIGHT choice? In other words, wouldn't one flavor be more in concert with a rational hierarchy of values, however negligible?

What you are basically asking about is optional values. To start, why anyone would have different values is because everyone is born in a different context and his different experiences. Some people may grow up with lots of music in their life, for instance. Even genes can influence some values; if you're colorblind to red, you cannot react or even perceive a rose like someone else. While you can say everyone should put themselves on top of their hierarchy of values, because of the extent no two people can live identical lives, there are options. If I started painting when I was five years old, I may have have more aptitude than someone who only started painting at fifteen. (Then again, I might hate painting because my parents forced me to paint). The "right" values to pursue often depend on the individual's context considering different values get incorporated into life at different points than other people.

Also to keep in mind is that emotions can also play a role in optional values. Remember, emotions are automatized evaluations of things or events, which can help quickly identify what is the most beneficial for your life. If you don't have any reason to suspect your emotion is the result of some irrational premise, anyway. If vanilla ice cream gives you more pleasure compared to chocolate or coffee, then that probably is the right option for you. There may be various reasons why you prefer vanilla, but those reasons are often so inconsequential that it doesn't matter much beyond you felt like eating vanilla. This isn't a matter of subjectivism overall, because you can still evaluate what sort of value vanilla ice cream is. It's probably less of a value than a career goal.

Career is a little different, but the idea is still the same. Whatever makes you feel better is the choice that you'd want to make. Physics is valuable, philosophy is valuable, but is anything about those necessarily better than architecture or car mechanics or hair styling? If being a car mechanic makes you happy, go for that, because more than likely such a feeling is due to maybe even your proficiency at either working with cars. Objectivism is about using principles first and foremost, and applying a generalization to various contexts. While studying Objectivism can indicate that productivity is a virtue, since everyone is unique in some manner, WHAT is proper to be productive with varies.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Eiuol

[DancingBear]

So unlike pride, productiveness, and rationality, which are values logically chosen, ones career or choice of beverage is illogical, or at least, not logical. These latter choices can be the result of whims or subjective desires or the nature of the choser. Is this the case?

[claire]

Dancing Bear, simply because there are philosophical abstractions doesn't mean that life doesn't offer a variety of choices. Those choices, for the most part, are neither right or wrong. Are you seriously thinking that there is only only logical occupation, one logical food to eat, only one logical music to listen to. Come on.

[Eiuol]

So unlike pride, productiveness, and rationality, which are values logically chosen, ones career or choice of beverage is illogical, or at least, not logical. These latter choices can be the result of whims or subjective desires or the nature of the choser. Is this the case?

No, you are misunderstanding. The point is choosing a particular value often has to do with personal context. Humans do have a certain kind of identity, meaning that things like the reason and morality apply to ALL people. There are other important attributes of people, such as the need of food to survive. However, aptitude in painting does not apply to ALL people. Everyone does have the potential to paint well, sure, but not everyone begins painting at the same age, if at all.

Acting on whim is different, because whim is a matter of acting on emotion WHATEVER the reason for the emotion may be.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Eiuol

[icosahedron]

I find interesting to the question at hand the fact of different spoken/written languages that can each tell more or less the same story, but in different ways, based on different representational hierarchies of the (essentially) same reality.

- ico

[Dante]

So unlike pride, productiveness, and rationality, which are values logically chosen, ones career or choice of beverage is illogical, or at least, not logical. These latter choices can be the result of whims or subjective desires or the nature of the choser. Is this the case?

No, this is not the case. The cardinal values are extremely abstract expressions of fundamental requirements of human living. They are categories of things which must be pursued by someone, if he is to live a life in accordance with his identity as a human being (a life of man qua man). However, the specific incarnation of these values is different for every person. For instance, the value of purpose, corresponding to the virtue of productivity, might be present in my life in the form of my career, my friendships and relationship, my hobbies, etc. Everything that I purposefully pursue and maintain in my life is a particular incarnation of the general value of purpose.

Thus, it is not the case of logical and necessary versus illogical and unnecessary. If a value, in a general form, is characteristically human, then it must be pursued in some concrete form in my life. It is the particular form that I choose that is not part of a general ethics, because it depends on the particulars of my preferences and personality.

Now, just because the Objectivist ethics can't say anything that doesn't apply to all men, doesn't mean that there's nothing more for me to know about how I should live my life. If I know that I have a passion for studying the human body, but hate working with machines, I should choose to be a doctor rather than a mechanic or engineer. I should not make this choice by reference to whim. However, I must make it with reference to my own personality and nature; these are objective features of reality that I must take into account.

[DancingBear]

So humans are born with a nature or personality. Can anyone direct me to any work by Ayn Rand that explains this or otherwise explain it themselves? I think I read somewhere Rand saying that humans are born without knowing anything and I took this to mean that natures are developed.

[TLD]

So humans are born with a nature or personality. Can anyone direct me to any work by Ayn Rand that explains this or otherwise explain it themselves? I think I read somewhere Rand saying that humans are born without knowing anything and I took this to mean that natures are developed.

A lack of knowledge at birth has nothing to do with man's nature.

While you may be trying to learn Objectivism, you show that you have read little or none of Rand's works. I would suggest that, before asking more such questions, you get a copy of Peikoff's OPAR and get a general understanding of Objectivist principles.

[Dante]

So humans are born with a nature or personality. Can anyone direct me to any work by Ayn Rand that explains this or otherwise explain it themselves? I think I read somewhere Rand saying that humans are born without knowing anything and I took this to mean that natures are developed.

Moral character is indeed developed by the individual through thinking and acting. A person's nature in general, meaning their preferences and predilections, is a product of several factors. One should not confuse the denial of innate knowledge (Ayn Rand's interpretation of tabula rasa) with a denial of any individualized factors at birth. A person's nature is due to various environmental and genetic factors in addition to their thoughts and decisions.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Or to put it much more briefly: Objectivists do not believe in inborn knowledge for humans, but personality and behavioral traits might be a different story.

[DancingBear]

Ok thanks. I think those last two posts really cleared up the issue at hand. Although I'm poorly informed on the actual science of genetics and skeptical of the breadth and depth of their role in human development, that explains how people could have different preferences. Thanks!