This is the idea of intrinsic value. There is no value apart from a valuer.
I was being brief in order not to have to go into points that I did not think were relevant. In the context of this conversation, the statement you quote should be interpreted as “I hold that people value money not because they recognize it to represent something, but because they recognize it to be something.”
You are saying in one breath that there is value in honesty and then in the next breath you say there is nothing wrong with using stolen property.
No, I’m not. What is unclear about “there is nothing wrong with a stolen tennis ball AS tennis ball”? I capitalized “as” in order to draw attention to it, in the hopes that you would not make the error that you did. What I meant is that the qualities of a tennis ball which make it valuable to a tennis player–its particular size, weight, elasticity, etc. which make it ideal for the game of tennis–are present in a stolen tennis ball as well as an honestly obtained tennis ball. Therefore, if I would rather have an honestly obtained tennis ball than a stolen tennis ball, it cannot be because I wish to have something which is better for playing tennis. Instead, I must have a more general desire for honesty.
First I would like you to acknowledge that this is the Objectivist viewpoint and that you are indeed arguing against it…[if so], then this discussion needs to be moved to the debate forum where you may be engaged by someone.
Whether or not my view is consistent with or contrary to the Objectivist viewpoint is not a major concern of mine. If the moderators wish to move this discussion to the debate forum, I’m fine with that. If you think they should, tell them.
If you know of no evidence to support a claim why wouldn’t you claim it to be wrong? More importantly: do you consider the evidence of your senses to be empirical evidence?
As I explained when asked about my own subjective experience of dishonesty, I should perhaps have said “scientific” rather than “empirical.” Basically, I am willing to entertain the idea because it is consistent with my own experience, and I know of no scientific study confirming or refuting it. What I would not do would be to count on it applying to everyone.
If principles are good for you why wouldn’t you just call them moral instead of pragmatic? Do you see some dichotomy between the moral and the practical?
I see no distinction. However, Objectivists often seem to act as though their motto on this matter is “We must reject the pragmatic in favor of the moral.” This is as incoherent as the motto “We must reject the moral in favor of the pragmatic.” In order to explicate this, I am emphasizing the practical side of principles, which never seems to get enough discussion.
No. Not at all.
Does this refer to the coherency of having no principles, or whether a success in a principled life is in part a matter of chance?
So in your opinion it is theoretically possible to come up with a non-emergency situation in which it would be in one’s rational self interest to violate the rights of others?
No. What I meant was that ignoring context was the mistake I always see in such analyses. Perhaps one could come up with a flawed argument which does not ignore context but makes some other mistake whose conclusion is that it is rational to violate rights.
So does the fact that you avoid drawing certain conclusions negate their truth?
No. I was thinking of something along the following lines:
Me: “Capitalism is moral. Additionally, capitalism will most likely lead to an unequal distribution of material wealth.”
A socialist: “Aha! You have made a contradiction!”
Me: “No, I haven’t. Had I drawn the conclusion ‘Therefore, capitalism is immoral’ from my second statement, I would have, but I didn’t.”
Socialist: “Just because you didn’t draw the conclusion doesn’t mean it doesn’t follow.”
Me: “Of course. It doesn’t follow because it doesn’t follow, not because I didn’t draw the conclusion.”
Socialist “ZOMG i r pwned!”