The Validity Of Subjectivism

[JASKN]

I am not all that familiar with this forum and its procedures, so if anyone with the power deems it necessary to move my post to a more appropriate section, please do.

A brief summary of my background: I grew up religious, spent my late teens debating fundamental problems with theology, and eventually landed on Objectivism. A brief summary of my current thinking: Certain aspects of Objectivism do not seem logical, and I am considering viewpoints outside of the system.

Previously I was under the impression that Objectivism held the reason for living to be survival, without integrating the feeling of happiness. That became a problem for me, as I saw no reason to live miserably. However, perusing of this forum has led me to believe the contrary. I now understand Objectivism to hold happiness as the reason for living, and the ability to reason, along with every other aspect of the nature of man, should be used in order to achieve the greatest amount of happiness. If that is not Objectivism's stance, it is my own.

I have almost an insatiable interest in aesthetics, and consequently art, music, technology, and all things and achievements good and great. They make me happy. However, with aesthetics in particular, I see no objective standard with which to judge these things which make me happy, and to take it further, with which to judge happiness altogether. An incalculable number of things and combinations of things bring happiness to people, and I do not see how any can be applied to all people.

Thus, there is no moral ground on which to condemn any man as long as he is living in a way which makes him happy. Heroin addict, neurosurgeon, priest, jet engine engineer, they are all the same as long as they enjoy what they do. If the heroin addict believes himself to be happiest shooting up until his body is so decayed he slits his own throat, reflecting on how blissful the ten years of addiction were, how can I condemn him? If I spend eighty years perfecting my skills in the field of neurology, I will decay, reflect on my fortune of happiness, and die all the same.

Objectivism promotes a productive lifestyle, but for what purpose? How is it provable that a productive lifestyle is happier than a non-productive lifestyle? Personally, I enjoy roller coasters, exhilarating cinematic CGI, driving fast, and having sex. Non of those activities are productive, but they still make me happy. Maybe an Objective definition of "productive" would help. To produce material wealth? To produce happy emotional responses? What?

Furthermore, I am beginning to believe that every single desire I possess is alterable. I have been interested in things I no longer find interesting, I no longer enjoy previously favorite foods, I have gained a new interest in something I previously did not care about, etc. This unavoidably leads me to the conclusion: there is absolutely no standard by which to judge a human life.

Any and all ideas felt to be of benefit to me, I am extremely eager to read. If Objectivism is not going to be The Answer, I will make it up on my own.

[Maarten]

Previously I was under the impression that Objectivism held the reason for living to be survival, without integrating the feeling of happiness. That became a problem for me, as I saw no reason to live miserably. However, perusing of this forum has led me to believe the contrary. I now understand Objectivism to hold happiness as the reason for living, and the ability to reason, along with every other aspect of the nature of man, should be used in order to achieve the greatest amount of happiness. If that is not Objectivism's stance, it is my own.

I think this is essentially correct, but you have to be very careful not to make happiness the standard of value. I think the ultimate goal (as a reward) is happiness, but that doesn't mean that if something makes you happy, it is therefore good. (that is a subjectivist approach)

I have almost an insatiable interest in aesthetics, and consequently art, music, technology, and all things and achievements good and great. They make me happy. However, with aesthetics in particular, I see no objective standard with which to judge these things which make me happy, and to take it further, with which to judge happiness altogether. An incalculable number of things and combinations of things bring happiness to people, and I do not see how any can be applied to all people.

Thus, there is no moral ground on which to condemn any man as long as he is living in a way which makes him happy. Heroin addict, neurosurgeon, priest, jet engine engineer, they are all the same as long as they enjoy what they do. If the heroin addict believes himself to be happiest shooting up until his body is so decayed he slits his own throat, reflecting on how blissful the ten years of addiction were, how can I condemn him? If I spend eighty years perfecting my skills in the field of neurology, I will decay, reflect on my fortune of happiness, and die all the same.

I disagree, there are most certainly objective grounds for deciding if something is good or evil, so to speak. Someone should be judged on the basis of how many of the virtues they practice, and therefore how many objectively good values they can reach. You're basically proclaiming: Who am I to judge? which is the start of moral agnosticism.

Objectivism promotes a productive lifestyle, but for what purpose? How is it provable that a productive lifestyle is happier than a non-productive lifestyle? Personally, I enjoy roller coasters, exhilarating cinematic CGI, driving fast, and having sex. Non of those activities are productive, but they still make me happy. Maybe an Objective definition of "productive" would help. To produce material wealth? To produce happy emotional responses? What?

Furthermore, I am beginning to believe that every single desire I possess is alterable. I have been interested in things I no longer find interesting, I no longer enjoy previously favorite foods, I have gained a new interest in something I previously did not care about, etc. This unavoidably leads me to the conclusion: there is absolutely no standard by which to judge a human life.

Any and all ideas felt to be of benefit to me, I am extremely eager to read. If Objectivism is not going to be The Answer, I will make it up on my own.

Because man's life is the standard of value, and you need to gain and keep values in order to survive qua man, i.e. to live your life as a rational being. Because reason is the means of survival (as a rational being) you should use reason to determine what is good for you and what is not.

Productive work as a virtue is essentially man's main activity, the one that gives him a long term goal. That's why it's regarded as the main pillar holding your life together, and that's why all other things (like recreation and relationships) are secondary. Think about it, could you truly value someone who never bothered to do anything, and just sat around all day? Without productive work to give meaning to your life, in the sense that it allows you to create and improve upon your own character, you will not reach nearly the same heights of success in life as someone who is productive in that sense.

[DavidOdden]

I now understand Objectivism to hold happiness as the reason for living, and the ability to reason, along with every other aspect of the nature of man, should be used in order to achieve the greatest amount of happiness.

Objectivism holds that there is one fundamental choice -- to live, or to not live. Since this is the fundamental choice, you can't derive it from other reasons. One point that often eludes people is that "being alive" is not the same as "avoiding the morgue", to use Tara Smith's phrase. Living means flourishing, as opposed to slowly dying.

However, with aesthetics in particular, I see no objective standard with which to judge these things which make me happy, and to take it further, with which to judge happiness altogether.

Take the notion of musical dissonance (like this) or you you can stand it (it's horrible!) this. You are to judge, and so is any other rational human being. What you probably need is a read through Rand's The Romantic Manifesto. Just because there are legitimate aesthetic differences does not mean that there are no standards. The Greeks had ideas about decent music, and Helmholz provided a foundation for understanding why there is such a thing as good vs. bad music.

Objectivism promotes a productive lifestyle, but for what purpose?

To further your life. Short-term cheap thrills may get the adrenalin going and create a euphoric state that lasts for a while, at least until your head goes through the windshield. Are you seeking a cheap buzz rather than securing your own existence? Then you will die soon. Are you seeking to maximize your wealth with no concern for any other aspect of your existence? Then you are dying now.

[softwareNerd]

Jaskn, Welcome to the forum.

You say you like roller-coasters. You also ask why productiveness is good. Well, productiveness means: making roller-coasters, or making something else and trading it for a roller-coaster ride. The goodness of productiveness flows from the goodness of the roller-coaster ride.

[Proverb]

I have to say that the topic of your post JASKN should be the "Validity of Intrinsicism."

The reason I say that is that you concentrate on the concept of 'being happy as a standard.' In respect to Objectivism that's like saying, "I'm going to measure the length of a ruler with a tape measure."

"Happiness" is an emotional response to the fulfilling of a value. This is true in every person. The heroin addict is 'happy' when he shoots up because consciously or not consciously he holds that experience as a value to his life.

Objectivism comes in and says that your set of values should be based on the rational furtherance of your life qua man. Addiction to heroin is not a value to life qua man because it is demonstrably destructive to the human body and is wholly irrational (as in against the nature of reality) to hold it as such.

Rational values are the things that drive an Objectivist's life.

That's not to say that there is a list somewhere that say "Objectivist Values" on the top that every rational person should have. This is because the element of choice is part of human nature and thus 'the realm of rational values', as it were, is unique to each individual.

I am a musician because the very personal representation of my values through my music is an immense value to me. I am a handyman at my local library because I appreciate the use of my rational mind to some physical end. I am a computer enthusiast because I am able to talk to people with like minds across the span of continents, which has brought me to the level of rational precision and objective understanding that I hold today. These are values that fuel my life and they are not finite in there scope because my life continues and they bring me an exhaltant happiness that stems from the fact that I am the master of my life.

[Felix]

Objectivism promotes a productive lifestyle, but for what purpose? How is it provable that a productive lifestyle is happier than a non-productive lifestyle? Personally, I enjoy roller coasters, exhilarating cinematic CGI, driving fast, and having sex. Non of those activities are productive, but they still make me happy.

The thing is that all these things that make you happy require you to be alive. And since you want to live a happy life as long as possible, there are certain facts of reality you just have to accept. Like, if you want to live (happily of course), you have to eat, for example, or you can't just jump off a cliff. That would be stupid if your goal is to maximize your happiness, because you can't experience happiness when you are dead.

Objectivist Ethics is saying that there is a world out there that you have to live in and that it provides you with certain obligations if you want to go on living. That's why you have to lead a productive life. To sustain your life.

A heroin addict does feel good due to the drug, but it shortens his life to a degree that it makes it a bad choice if your goal is happiness. It's immoral precisely because it is stupid by the standard of a happy life.

[JASKN]

Maartan: My point exactly is that there is no standard by which to judge a person's happiness. Merriam-Webster online defines "subjective" as follows: "relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states[...] peculiar to a particular individual." Happiness is precisely subjective. For a person to be judged by his virtues, there must first be standard virtues by which to judge everyone. Because there is no collective mind regulating State Of Happiness, and because happiness is the standard of virtue, ie. this makes me happy and so it is good, no matter the duration of time, there is no standard of virtue. Virtue=happiness=subjective.

Because rationality is only one of many means to gain happiness, that is, I can enjoy a roller coaster ride completely devoid of reason, I argue that reason is not an end-all virtuous standard.

DavidOdden: Ok, so the Objectivist definition of "living" means "flourishing," or being happy while living. That says nothing of the duration of life, which means any kind of happiness is valid. I do not see why living a "long time," which is undefinable, is better than living a "short time," likewise. Also, your argument for an aesthetic standard is not valid because not everyone holds the same musical tastes as you describe. I enjoy dissonance, for example. Also, I am not arguing no standards, I am arguing no universal standards.

When you speak of furthering your life, it sounds like nonsense to me. Everyone dies. My point is that what you call "cheap thrills" another calls "reason for living." What gives you the right to judge for another person the extent of his happiness? Are you the judge that proclaims, "Nope. Not long enough. You're happiness isn't derived from a goal long-term enough, thus it isn't valid."?

And everyone is dying now, not just those who don't plan their lives for the duration of time you judge to be long enough.

softwareNerd: Objectivism, or Ayn Rand, holds that certain "thrills", or, degrees of happiness, are not valid. Of course a person must produce to survive, or at least someone somewhere must produce to maintain that person's life. There are men, however, who work during the day and shoot heroin during the night. Why is shooting up immoral? I argue that it is not if the addict decides it is not.

Proverb: You simply re-explained what I posted: there are things which make you happy, and thus they are valid. I think that because every man dies, there is no one value better than another if the goal is to maintain happiness. Living a long life is not the ultimate goal, because there is no universal duration of life.

I do not feel that my inquiries have been resolved.

[DavidOdden]

That says nothing of the duration of life, which means any kind of happiness is valid. I do not see why living a "long time," which is undefinable, is better than living a "short time," likewise.

What do you mean, a "long time" is undefinable? Here's a definition for you -- 85 years. Now you have a choice, enjoy 85 years of life, or kill yourself at age 25 for the sake of cheap thrills. Why not just blow your brains out right now to experience the ultimate high? You seem to have confused Objectivism with hedonism. There is one unfortunate puritanical trend among some Objectivists who believe that a miserable, joyless life that extends breathing for another week, month or year is better than a happy life that is a bit shorter -- that is a misconstrual of the ethical foundation of Objectivism. You have gone the other direction, which is equally wrong.

Also, your argument for an aesthetic standard is not valid because not everyone holds the same musical tastes as you describe. I enjoy dissonance, for example. Also, I am not arguing no standards, I am arguing no universal standards.

I don't take your claim seriously. I do understand how some elements of dissonance can have aesthetic value in context: I suspect you didn't even listen to my appalling composition, which is universally unpleasant.

When you speak of furthering your life, it sounds like nonsense to me. Everyone dies. My point is that what you call "cheap thrills" another calls "reason for living."

The difference is that some actions enhance your life, and others kill you. The fact that everybody dies does not mean that you should hasten the process; and the fact that some people evade reality and call their drug-addictions a "reason for living" does not change the fact that these people are committing suicide, some faster than others.

What gives you the right to judge for another person the extent of his happiness?

The same thing that give you the right to even ask the question -- free will. You should learn something about the Objectivist ethics: "judge and be judged", amongst other things. I have not just a right but a moral obligation to judge not only my own conduct but the conduct of others.

And everyone is dying now, not just those who don't plan their lives for the duration of time you judge to be long enough.

I disagree entirely. You may be dying: I on the other hand am living.

I do not feel that my inquiries have been resolved.

Your inquiries have been answered, but you didn't get the answer you were looking for. It seems to me that you are looking for a philosophical basis that will justify possible self-destructive tendencies. Roller coasters are in themselves harmless, promiscuous sex may kill you, and heroin addiction will kill you. Are you a drug user? If so, why? If not, why not. The answer to this question will probably tell you a lot about whether you really want to live.

[JASKN]

DavidOdden: I am not interested in engaging in Objectivist polemics. You do not take me seriously becuase I do not argue solely within the dogmatic realm of Objectivism. I am well aware of the Objectivist position on everything that I have posted, and I implied, and believe, that Objectivism has not been able to answer my inquiries.

I am interested in a logical explanation for everything, not an Objectivist explanation. I posted on this forum because Objectivists at least claim to be reasonable and logical. If you are incapable of doing that, I am not interested in what you have to say.

[softwareNerd]

There are men, however, who work during the day and shoot heroin during the night. Why is shooting up immoral? I argue that it is not if the addict decides it is not.

I'm sure you'll agree that a decision is not rational just because someone makes it. So, if one is investigating the rationality of the addicts action, one must ask: why does the addict do this?

To start with a ridiculous example, suppose someone takes a drug because he thinks doing so will make him sprout wings and by doing so he can save the air-fare on his vacation. Would that be rational? Of course not. So, if we assume that the addict is rational in shooting drugs, we have to assume that doing so is consistent with the ends he seeks to achieve.

The problem with the typical addict example is that it always posed by people who do not do drugs and simply assume that the addict must be happy about what he is doing, just because he does so. The idea is: if someone does something, I assume that he is happy doing so. Unfortunately that's not true. People are always doing things that they immediately regret, or regret the next day, or the next year. Politically, I would not question the addict's decision -- he can shoot drugs as long as it does not threaten me. However, that does not mean it is practical for him to do so.

The bottom line is that there could be rational reasons to take a drug and there could be irrational reasons.

Have you met a real addict who's happy with his addiction? or is this just a theoretical idea?

[Felix]

I do not feel that my inquiries have been resolved.

Maybe that's because you ignored my post.

[Proverb]

I am interested in a logical explanation for everything, not an Objectivist explanation.

They are one in the same. If you don't not understand why, you do not understand the nature of the Objectivist philosophy.

Though none of us here have the time to write a short expose` on ethics (which is usually required to attain a basic understanding) your essential issues have been lucidly addressed. The fact that you may not be happy with the answers does not change their relationship to reality.

It is often the case that well-meaning and self-confident individuals who are interested in Objectivism are set aback when someone tells them that they do not understand some concept when they thought they did. You, do not have a clear understanding of Objectivist ethics and I suggest you read, or re-read, The Virtue of Selfishness. I also suggest that you withhold judgement on these issues until you do better understand the concepts.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Proverb

[JASKN]

Felix: Your post did not say anything new. In replying to the other posts, I also replied to yours.

softwareNerd: Why are people rational? To achieve different kinds of values, or happiness, right? Usually those values are more difficult to attain, but that doesn't really matter, does it? Not if the point of living is just to be happy.

Proverb: I separate Objectivism and logic for the reasons I have stated in this post. There is nothing logical about happiness. Since I do not wish to live unless I am happy, my code of ethics must be based off of what makes me happy. Since any one happy thing for me is not a happy thing for all, there is thus no ethical standard.

As I said, I am well aware of the basic Ayn Rand position on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics, and many sub-topics in between. I am pointing out a blatant contradiction I recently discovered. That is: there is nothing objective about the feeling of happiness, and thus life. It is a question of psychology.

[Proverb]

Your are right, happiness is psychological. The problem you are exhibiting is that you are treating happiness as an end in itself. Happiness is a response, a psychological response to an either rightly conscious or partly subconscious set of values. Whatever they may be, what makes a person happy clearly reveals what they hold as a value.

It is true, you are free to choose any set of values you want. Yes it is true that any one person may hold anything as something that makes them happy. Objectivism holds that rational values that are in harmony with reality are the type of values that are proper to man qua man. But 'happiness' is and end to only the hedonist. To an Objectivist, happiness is simply icing on the cake. The end that an Objectivist pursues is life, a rich fulfilling life that takes reality by the horns in which happiness is the affirmation of that success.

[Spano]

JASKN - You say you are "aware of the basic Ayn Rand position". Which works of hers you have read completely?

[Felix]

Felix: Your post did not say anything new. In replying to the other posts, I also replied to yours.

If you think so, I'll try again.

Your notion boils down to absolute positivism. Whatever people do, they do it for being happy, therefore it is ethical. Your point is a rejection of ethics. Your basic point is: Who are you to tell me what makes me happy?! It's a valid question.

But all we are saying is that the short-term hedonism you are promiting is bound to fail in achieving its end: happiness. The reason for this is not that short-term thrills are not thrills. They provide you with real good feelings. The problem comes with the later results of your short-term focus. You sabotage yourself by engaging in that form of behavior.

If you take heroin, you will not only die earlier, but you will suffer a great deal of your time. How is that in accordance to your goal of happiness? And especially your psychology will suffer. You will hate normal existence, because it is painful. You don't get around that. You are right that I have no right to tell you what to do with your life. But you asked and we tell you that this approach is stupid because you sabotage your own goals.

You need ethics precisely to understand which things maximize your happiness and which actually destroy it.

If you spent all your money on drugs because you love getting high, the problem is not that you got high and enjoyed it, the problem is that you have no more money to buy food and may have failed to acquire the capabilities to make new money.

If you think that taking drugs and dying at an early age is a happy life, I have no right to stop you. I just think that you are selling yourself short on happiness, even in the short life you have chosen to live.

[Proverb]

I don't think he said he was a heroin addict Felix.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think he said he was a heroin addict Felix.

No, he didn't, but I did invite him to assert that he is not a drug user, for a reason. He has been skating at the edge of admitting to a self-destructive lifestyle, speaking approvingly of the bliss of heroin addiction, dangerous and probably threatening driving habits, and suggestions of reckless sexual promiscuity. My judgment is that he is seeking validation for a bad sense of life. We can dance around the question of whether there is anything wrong with promiscuity (who cares, if you use a rubber), dangerous driving (who cares, if you're a good enough driver), but nobody can possibly think that drug addiction is a valid way to live and that you can actually survive as a drug addict. So I think that is a very important question, and it is troubling that this young man has not directly answered the question.

[JASKN]

DavidOdden: I used extreme examples as a way to illustrate my points, and I resent your presumptuous assertion that I am looking to validate my self-destructive way of living. If you read my first two posts, I do not see how it is possible to conclude that I am a self-destructive drug abuser. Besides that, what were you hoping to accomplish with such a post? Assuming I do shoot heroin, does that somehow change the points I have made concerning happiness and Objectivism in these posts? Do you think you are going to change my destructive behavior? Am I supposed to answer to you? Please do not offer me any more advice.

Spano: As I said, I have read most of what Ayn Rand published, and some of what she didn't, but it is not necessary to read her volumes to understand her basic principles. The ARI's site itself provides adequate summaries.

Felix and Proverb: Ok, so pursuing certain happiness may also cause you to sell yourself short, meaning you will die sooner. What do you think about this: Since everyone will die, why strive to live as long as possible? Please feel free to develop your thoughts as extensively as you deem fit.

[Maarten]

I disagree, if you just read some summaries of her philosophy then you have a bunch of unvalidated conclusions. It takes quite a lot of effort to integrate it all into one consistent whole.

You should live as long as possible because Life is the standard of value. Without life there can be no happiness, nor can something be good or evil for you. Sure, if you had to choose between a short, meaningful life, and a long life without values then the first would be better, but this is a false alternative.

Your life is the standard by which to judge right or wrong, and it means life proper to a rational being through the whole of his lifespan (which is generally around 80? years for a human these days).

[Proverb]

Don't come to an Objectivist forum and say that the cursory explanations on the ARI website have brought you to a complete understanding of the philosophy when many of us have spent years integrating an understanding of the many facets of the philosophy.

It is clear that you do not understand Objectivist ethics nor any rational basis of such for that matter. We are simply trying to explain how you are displaying a hedonistic approach to morality and why that is wrong. We have developed the thoughts to a useful point and I think that you have simply failed to understand.

You would best be served by asking a specific question rather than sitting around and being short with anyone who has made an honest error to explain why you are mistaken when it comes to "happiness" as an end.

"Everyone Dies" is not a justification for anything.

What would be your evaluation if I were to pull a gun out and shoot you in the face and say "everyone dies" and shrug? (that's ignoring the fact that you would be dead)

[Felix]

I don't think he said he was a heroin addict Felix.

Me neither, but heroin abuse was one of his examples.

JASKN: My point is not only that you die sooner, but that your in your short life you will endure a lot of pain. That's why you feel pain. It's a biological adaption to show you that you work against your survival and directly experience it. If you wreck havoc with you health, you won't live a short but happy life, you will live a short and miserable life with short peaks of extacy due to repeated acts of hedonism.

[Proverb]

My above post should read "... honest effort..." not "...honest error..."

[DavidOdden]

Assuming I do shoot heroin, does that somehow change the points I have made concerning happiness and Objectivism in these posts?

No, your points remain invalid regardless of whether you use drugs. The only question that remains is whether you are in fact acting in complete contradiction to the Objectivist ethics or whether you sanction a complete repudiation of the Objectivist ethics. I don't believe that anyone other that yourself will change your destructive behavior.

[JASKN]

Proverb(/Maarten): The explanations offered by the ARI's site are not "cursory" just because it took you a long time to integrate Ayn Rand's ideas into your life. Yes, you have offered over and over again the same Objectivist jargon in an effort to explain to me why my ideas go against Objectvism, which I have stated explicitly myself. What you have not offered is why my ideas are logically incorrect. Simply stating this or that as "false" or that I have "failed to understand" does not mean that I have. Since I have logically presented my ideas and you have not logically provided a counter-argument, maybe you can understand my frustration.

Why do you think that the undeniable fact of death is not a justification for anything? I would say such a notion is insane, since I live for X and X values because I am going to die. And you did not answer my previous question, which is: why is it so favorable to live as long as possible?

Maarten, I did not state that the ARI automatically validates its summaries of Ayn Rand's ideas for you, I said it offers adequate summaries. I think it does.

I don't think these posts are getting anywhere. I think you all either do not grasp what it is you are saying or you do a very poor job of explaining it in a realistic context. I guess I will say that I doubt it is in your interest at this point to respond to me, and it is not in mine, so just do not respond.

If anyone else has some different way of saying things, and if you think you can find a way not to get pissed at someone who honestly thinks there is something wrong with Objectivism, I would really like to hear what you have to say concerning my initial inquiries, and also my inquiry as to the reason for striving to live as long as possible.