Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Value Depends On Valuer = Subjectivism?

Rate this topic


Rocinante

Recommended Posts

I have a question which I've not found a satisfactory answer to, after many many years of reading Ayn Rand's work, and other writers on Objectivism..

If value depends on a valuer, does that not make all values subjective?

I see this as being a crucial question, a lynch-pin on which the entire structure of Objectivism rests.

If all values are subjective, the structure falls apart. If we accept the basic tenant that life is a value in itself, and accept that *that* is not a subjective principle in and of itself, then the structure remains solid. But this one key question just keeps coming back and nagging me as being the weakest part in Objectivism.

I've heard the argument that objective values are those "which further/foster life" [paraphrasing here, I don't have any book in front of me at the moment] but even that is open to a lot of subjective interpretation.. What fosters life for some cultures can be/is detrimental to others.. Is "our" way of life superior to everyone elses (I'm not even necessarily talking about what we Westerners call crime here; yes I concede that murder/theft/fraud is a bad/wrong thing, but that's not the heart of my question. I don't want to quibble about the details, I'm talking about a very broad concept; I realize that "that which furthers/fosters life" encompasses all the peaceful actions one may take to attain that goal. My question centers only on the key concept of whether our valuation of life is, or even can be, trully objective, or is it subjective (if all value depend on a valuer, doesn't that by its very definition make it subjective?) I'll stop being redundant now and hope that my question is understood!))

This is a conundrum for me. I look forward to any replies which might help clarify this issue (hopefully concise answers! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question which I've not found a satisfactory answer to, after many many years of reading Ayn Rand's work, and other writers on Objectivism..

If value depends on a valuer, does that not make all values subjective?

No, it just means value are agent-relative. That doesn't make them subjective. Here's Rand on this point:

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.

I suggest you read or re-read pages 241-249 of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are misinterpreting what is meant by: All value depends on a valuer.

What this means is: In order for something to be a value, there has to be a person who values it.

Rational values are always objective. The reason values differ from person to person is that context of knowledge differs from person to person, and rational values are arrived at by a process of objective reasoning flowing from one's context of knowledge.

If two rational individuals were to hold the same exact knowledge (which is, of course, impossible), it stands to reason that their values would be identical as well.

All of this falls apart when applied to an irrational individual. But Objectivism is concerned with the rational, not any irrational, subjective whims one decides to call "values."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If two rational individuals were to hold the same exact knowledge (which is, of course, impossible), it stands to reason that their values would be identical as well.

As it pertains to *fundamental* moral values, yes. But in regard to a whole range of specific values, e.g. from choice of career to a whole range of personal preferences, they could in fact hold very dramatically different values. The choice of values rests on more than just knowledge. It also rests on your own personal background, abilities, and what you are realistically capable of achieving in a given context.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we accept the basic tenant that life is a value in itself, and accept that *that* is not a subjective principle in and of itself, then the structure remains solid. But this one key question just keeps coming back and nagging me as being the weakest part in Objectivism.

If I understand your concern, you are suggesting that life, as a standard of value, is subjectively chosen, and one could just as validly chosen otherwise. The simple answer to this is that there are only two fundamental alternatives -- life, or death.

If you choose death as a standard, then all value is meaningless. Therefore, it is only life which makes the concept of value possible. How much more objective than that fact can one get?

You might enjoy reading a small book by a wonderful Objectivist author, Tara Smith: "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality," Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If value depends on a valuer, does that not make all values subjective?

I see this as being a crucial question, a lynch-pin on which the entire structure of Objectivism rests.

First, the structure of Objectivism rests upon the metaphysics and epistemology, not the ethics.

Second, in your years of reading Ayn Rand, perhaps you came across this quote:

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life." ("The Objectivist Ethics")

Or this one:

"If one knows that the good is objective--i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind--one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value." ("What is Capitalism?")

Clearly, Ayn Rand did not believe that values are subjective. I suggest you pick up her books again.

Also, you say that this issue is "the weakest part in Objectivism." Well, after years and years of studying Ayn Rand, exactly how much of her philosophy do you have a problem with? I can't imagine that you accept much of Objectivism, if you think that the entire ideological structure rests on this one issue which you believe to be weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What fosters life for some cultures can be/is detrimental to others..  Is "our" way of life superior to everyone elses ...

Your view that values are subjective seems to have led you to entertain the teachings of multiculturalism. Do you accept multiculturalism? The idea that no culture is better than any other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question which I've not found a satisfactory answer to, after many many years of reading Ayn Rand's work, and other writers on Objectivism..

If value depends on a valuer, does that not make all values subjective?

No, it makes all values PERSONAL.

"Personal" means pertaining to one person only.

"Objective" means in accordance with the facts of reality.

"Subjective" means in accordance with the view that consciousness creates reality.

So ....

MY values are personal and objective. I chose them because they are in accordance with my nature as a human being and also in accordance with the facts about ME: my personal history, experiences, conclusions, preferences, abilities, etc.

James Taggart's values are personal and subjective. He chose them based how he felt and what he wished reality to be -- and the facts be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question which I've not found a satisfactory answer to, after many many years of reading Ayn Rand's work, and other writers on Objectivism..

If value depends on a valuer, does that not make all values subjective?

I think that technically speaking, Objectivist ethics would be subjectivist, but with a very strong emphasis placed upon the consequences of choosing a particular set of values. For instance, although an individual may be perfectly free to choose 'death' as a value, he is not free to escape the consequences of that choice.

Having said that Objectivists generally use the word 'subjective' to mean something quite different from its use in mainstream philosophy. As Betsy said, "subjectivism", when used in Objectivist discussions, is often used to refer to conscious-generated reality, so its probably best to use the word 'personal' to avoid confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your view that values are subjective seems to have led you to entertain the teachings of multiculturalism. Do you accept multiculturalism? The idea that no culture is better than any other?

That's not quite true - it's perfectly reasonable to state that certain values may foster life in some cultures while harming it in others, without being sucked into the 'all cultures are equal' claim. Different groups of people often face different challenges, and have to tailor their values in order to accomodate these - values are derived from reality remember, and a different existential state is going to cause the adoption of different values. The child rearing ethics of a country with vast amounts of free land and resources would cause overpopulation and possible starvation if implemented somewhere like China. It would be suicidal for a country living in a state of potential war, such as Israel, to adopt some values which might be beneficial to a country living in peace.

To take a concrete example, I've heard it claimed that some of the more absurd ethical pronouncements of the Bible actually served a pragmatic purpose at the time they were made. For instance, the 'no contraception' and 'homosexuality is wrong' parts are thought by some to have been created in order to increase the birth rate of the Israeli tribes. At the time, you had a group of people feeling they were being persecuted, and living in a constant threat of danger from others. The last thing they needed was large elements of their already small population choosing not to breed and produce healthy males, and their values evolved to reflect this. Continuing along the same lines, quite a lot of other traditional Jewish values (collectivism, work-ethic, productivity etc) are thought to have been formed as a means of surviving/fighting against their constant persecution throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it's perfectly reasonable to state that certain values may foster life in some cultures while harming it in others, without being sucked into the 'all cultures are equal' claim. Different groups of people often face different challenges...

That's quite true but the reason why values may differ in cultures is precisely because those cultures aren't rational. If one lives in a dictatorship or primitive culture of course that will affect the values you choose. But the value problem in this instance is that those cultures are irrational. (It's a somewhat separate question how to evaluate cultures of the past where one must consider that certain things weren't known or fully known.)

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite true but the reason why values may differ in cultures is precisely because those cultures aren't rational. If one lives in a dictatorship or primitive culture of course that will affect the values you choose. But the value problem in this instance is that those cultures are irrational. (It's a somewhat separate question how to evaluate cultures of the past where one must consider that certain things weren't known or fully known.)

You wouldnt say that people in a rational society that exists in a state of war (pretend Israel is rational and take that as an example) would have to adopt different values from people in a rational society that isnt under threat, in order to survive? I'm not meaning values such as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness' (although these too could be up for debate - some might consider it 'rational' to allow the government to invade the privacy of citizens to a greater degree in societies which are under threat - take the Patriot Act and so on), but more ones that pertain to choice of career, attitudes to having children, attitude towards the state, towards fellow citizens,towards immigrants, punishment of criminals, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that technically speaking, Objectivist ethics would be subjectivist, but with a very strong emphasis placed upon the consequences of choosing a particular set of values ...

Are you suggesting that anything can be a value to a man, as long as he accepts the consequences?

For something to be of value, it must objectively, in reality, benefit you. If it harms your life, then it is a disvalue.

If I decide that I enjoy a tablespoon of arsenic on my cereal every morning, that doesn't mean that this is a value to me, as long as I'm prepared to accept the affects. Arsenic in such doses is harmful to my life, and therefore it is a disvalue.

The value status of something is determined by reality, not you. This goes for all values.

Let's say you want to be a pilot. Well, then, flight lessons are a value to you. But that is not because you say so, or because you are prepared to accept the consequences of flight lessons. No, it's because, in reality, flight lessons will benefit you in your quest to become a pilot, which will earn you a living.

Technically, Objectivist values are objective, as Ayn Rand has made clear in her writings. And, frankly, I think it is silly for you to suggest that you know what Ayn Rand meant technically, especially when you are contradicting what she actually conveyed in her works. She was explicitly against subjective values, and explicitly for objective values.

Values are not subjective, in any sense of the term. They are not based in personal experience. They are based in reality. They are not particular to one subject. They are relative to many potential subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not quite true - it's perfectly reasonable to state that certain values may foster life in some cultures while harming it in others, without being sucked into the 'all cultures are equal' claim.

A value cannot be both beneficial and harmful. If something is harmful, then it is considered a disvalue, not a value.

Your statement indicates that you do not fully understand Ayn Rand's "objective theory of values." Something can be a value in one respect, while a disvalue in another respect. Whether something is a value or not is determined by the facts of reality, not by your arbitrary labelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep

It seems that it's easy to have a particular confusion on the concept of "value" that arises from equivocating on the concept, "value," on the one hand referring to the entire spectrum of "that which one acts to gain and/or keep," and on the other hand, using the concept, "value," to mean "objective value" or "rational value."

Hopefully not adding to the confusion, but objectively, a "value" is anything - rational or irrational, objective, subjective or intrinsic - that anyone acts to gain and/or keep, but not "anything that anyone acts to gain and/or keep" is an objective value. "Objective values" are a subset of the morally neutral concept of "values" (anything that anyone acts to gain and/or keep.) "Objective values" are those things which one acts to gain and/or keep ("values") which are objectively, factually positive in relation to one's rational self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldnt say that people in a rational society that exists in a state of war (pretend Israel is rational and take that as an example) would have to adopt different values from people in a rational society that isnt under threat, in order to survive? I'm not meaning values such as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness' (although these too could be up for debate - some might consider it 'rational' to allow the government to invade the privacy of citizens to a greater degree in societies which are under threat - take the Patriot Act and so on), but more ones that pertain to choice of career, attitudes to having children, attitude towards the state, towards fellow citizens,towards immigrants, punishment of criminals, and so on.

Yes, of course. But all you're saying is that your values will depend to a considerable extent on your context - and people's values rationally will differ considerably depending on a whole range of variables in regard to that context. If I had a pressing deadline of an important nature demanding my full attention, I wouldn't be posting on O-O. If I had just suffered from natural calamity such as life threatening illness, earthquake, tornado, etc. I would be making far different choices in my life right now and have very different priorities than I do now. And the same thing would be true if my country were at war and my freedom were threatened vs. if it were at peace.

But none of this implies or suggests that values are relative or subjective. In fact it is in crises that a rational approach to values is most important, since your very life itself may be endangered.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Objective values" are a subset of the morally neutral concept of "values" (anything that anyone acts to gain and/or keep.)

What is a "morally neutral concept of 'values'?"

How do you separate "values" from the realm of "morality"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
What is a "morally neutral concept of 'values'?"

How do you separate "values" from the realm of "morality"?

Simple. If someone acts to gain or to keep something, good, bad, rational, irrational, objective, subjective, "mama told me to," etc., they value that something. If you're chasing it, you value it. If you're holding on to it, you value it.

It's not that values are separate from the realm of morality; it's that the concept of value has to be broader than rational or objective values else you wouldn't need the qualifiers, rational or objective. It would just be that whatever anyone acted to gain and/or keep would be a proper value. Obviously, that's not the case; people do in fact value things that are not rational or objective.

The concept, "value," is morally neutral in the sense that it encompasses all values, not just rational values. That someone acts to gain and/or keep something doesn't tell you that it's a rational value, only that it's a value to them. (Example: seeking 70 virgins in the afterlife.)

Rand didn't define the concept of "value" as that which one acts to gain and/or keep but only if it is rational or objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The noun-concept value is logically based on the verb-concept to value. Valuing is an action, and as such presupposes the entity which acts (like exploding, catalyzing, absorbing, diffusing, falling). That makes it no more subjective than falling, however. The difference between them is in teleology, not subjectivity.

Objectivist ethics would be subjectivist

The Appendix to "Comments on Tara Smith's Viable Values" should enlighten you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Value, as a word, cannot stand alone. It therefore seems subjective. My cat values a dead mouse far differently than I will.

But Ayn Rand's pointed out that all humans share an identical cause of value creation: man, she said, "is a being of volitional conciousness."

This being shared by all men, objective values for men can indeed be determined, based on the seemingly simple (but actually revolutionary) concept of rational self interest.

So the question of objective values universally applied to all humans can indeed be answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A value cannot be both beneficial and harmful. If something is harmful, then it is considered a disvalue, not a value.

[...]

As others have pointed out, this depends on context. Clear-cutting, strip-mining and fur hunting were once considered valuable here in the US. Things changed, the "good thing" became too much, and so now considered a "bad thing." Has nothing to do with multi-culturalism (although I wouldn't disparage a culture simply for being different, but that's beside the point.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the structure of Objectivism rests upon the metaphysics and epistemology, not the ethics.

Whether life is a value in itself, is a metaphysical concept, is it not? And does not understanding that concept require epistemology?

>> Second, in your years of reading Ayn Rand, perhaps you came across this quote:

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life." ("The Objectivist Ethics")

This wasn't my question.

>>Or this one:

"If one knows that the good is objective--i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind--one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value." ("What is Capitalism?")

Also not relevent to my question.

[the rest of the flame bait deleted for brevity.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A value cannot be both beneficial and harmful. If something is harmful, then it is considered a disvalue, not a value.
]

 

I  smoke marijuana for medical reasons... i risk health effects, legal issues and more everytime i 'light up'... other medications for pain have interacted negatively with other prescrips, and so after discussing it with my doctor she has agreed to this round of treatment. I now can eat with immediately throwing up and can sleep without being hungover from sleep medications in the morning...

so is marijuana a disvalue? the positive effects outweigh the negatives in my life...

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...