Objectively defining "exploitation" and "sacrifice&quot

Questions about Objectivism
1

These words appear alot in our world. So its important to objectively define them and their use.

(definitions taken from dictionary.com)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation

Exploitation –noun

  1. use or utilization, esp. for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.

  2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.

  3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

By definition 1. we can argue that exploitation is a good thing. Same with definition 2? Is that not just confusing. I assume selfish utilization implies cheating on your friend but that is not objectively defined.

How can one use these words without some real hard definition when they are brought up all the time concerning things like children “exploitation” in factories. From the socialist perspective “exploitation” seems to imply cheating, “greed”(evil by socialist standards), corruption, selfishness.

From the Objective perspective then would “exploitation” be a good thing? Selfish utilization as seen in definition 2. Workers who could not make as much money they make in factories anywhere else are “exploited”.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice

Sacrifice -

  1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.

  2. the person, animal, or thing so offered.

  3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

  4. the thing so surrendered or devoted.

  5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value.

  6. Also called sacrifice bunt, sacrifice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter’s being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner.

–verb (used with object)

  1. to make a sacrifice or offering of.

  2. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.

  3. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit.

  4. Baseball. to cause the advance of (a base runner) by a sacrifice.

–verb (used without object)

  1. Baseball. to make a sacrifice: He sacrificed with two on and none out.

  2. to offer or make a sacrifice.

Objectivism gives a wonderful example of values by giving you an option. Buy a wonderful hat or save a child. If you save the child it is not a sacrifice as you value the child more, but if you value the hat more and you give it up then it is a sacrifice. Definition 3 seems to cover the saving the child example as sacrifice even if you value the child more. So what is all this fuss about sacrifice?

I seem to be confusing myself, but there are so many definitions of words how can we Objectively define and claim what is the proper definition?

2

So its important to objectively define them and their use.

(definitions taken from dictionary.com)

I disagree with your starting point. The first statement implies that your use of words is basically arbirtrary, and that you can say whatever you want as long as you’ve defined the words appropriately. But the second part, pointing to a dictionary, implies that the words already have proper definitions and that you should use words according to those deinitions. These are two totally different approaches. The implication of the first is not just wrong, it is actively evil – you should not create definitions for words. Instead you should use the definitions that already exist. (To keep things brief, I’ll just leave it at that, and you can inquire if you don’t see why you should not create definitions for existing words). Now to the definitions:

Exploitation –noun

  1. use or utilization, esp. for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.

  2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.

  3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

The second problem is the authority of your source. Here’s a competing definition of “exploitation”.

The act of systematically using something as a tool for a purpose

Much simpler. Which one is correct? What is your basis for deciding that a definition is correct?

Anyhow, web definition 1 is the closest to correct, and definition 2 is wrong. Well, in fact, it isn’t even a definition, it is simply an example of how the word can be combined with other words to form a sentence, so we don’t need to consider it further.

How can one use these words without some real hard definition when they are brought up all the time concerning things like children “exploitation” in factories. From the socialist perspective “exploitation” seems to imply cheating, “greed”(evil by socialist standards), corruption, selfishness.

The meanings of concepts are the actual things referred to by the concept – the denotation of the word – and not the attitude junk – the connotation – that grows up around words like weeds. Socialist ideas about capitalism are irrelevant to determining the meaning of words. You can simply replace “exploit” with “use”, and see whether the problem arises because of the special word “exploit”, or whether the problem (if there is one) has to do with whether it is a virtue to “use” a person towards some end. The answer lies in what you think the literal meaning of “use” is, whether trading with a person literally involves using the person. I don’t see that it does, but if you have an argument that trading with a person is using the person, I’m listening. I would conclude that using people as mindless tools is not a virtue, but engaging in trade with another mind is a virtue.

The barrage of entries for “sacrifice” from that web page are pretty inept, in my opinion. There should be special entries to cover its technical use in baseball, and an indication that it can be a noun or a verb, and as a noun can refer to the act of sacrificing or the object being sacrificed. Then the correct definition is “the destruction of an item of value as a religious or philosophical obligation, for the sake of a being held to be more important”. The fuss over sacrifice is the fact that it implies that you are the lowest, vilest being in existence, and that everything else deserves the fruits of your labor more than you do. Thus if you have $100, you should not spend it on a nice new hat for yourself, you should give it to some poor starving child in Africa.

The thing to keep in mind is that unless you’re creating a new concept and need a word to identify the concept so you name your new invention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk, words are already defined. A definition is correct only if it actually identifies the things that the concept refers to. If you don’t speak the language, it can be a problem to figure out what that is, but as an adult speaker of English, this is something you learned inductively by speaking and reading.

3

I don’t think exploitation or sacrifice is ever a good thing. Dr. Andrew Bernstein asserts that the two contrasting moral theories throughout history are self- sacrifice and cynical egoism (which he renames as cynical exploitativeness because it is not egoism at all). The former obviously urges the individual to place something (God, state, others) over one’s self, and the latter makes it morally permissable to use, abuse, and misuse others in the pursuit of one’s own happiness. Objectivism repudiates both these theories and instead supports rational egoism. In this way, exploitation is never a good thing because it requires the sacrifice of others to your self and self-sacrifice vice versa.