General

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

alimentarius — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:05:58 GMT

The sale of Ayn Rand books is skyrocketing in Norway these days. I don't know it that's a good or a bad thing from a libertarian perspective...

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

Eioul — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:45:57 GMT

(in response to I. Ryan asking why life is an objective value)

"If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible."

There are two general standards of value you can have. Life or non-life. Non-life would necessarily be death, in which case ethics is simply irrelevant. Humans *are* living entities. Life should be the standard of value because in fact that is the only way to value anything. Life (living, not just existing) is dependent on other factors. This is why ethics is an objective science, or at least it can be. It is because all things have a certain nature that is objectively true. Remember, this stems from metaphysical viewpoints, so if you believe the truth cannot be known for certain, then anything I just said proves nothing.

If your standard of value is death (really, that would be a contradiction), then okay, but ethics wouldn't matter at all and could not be applicable to any action taken.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

wilderness — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:52:39 GMT

I. Ryan:

Why is that "good"?

well. i'll tell you this. it's not bad.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

I. Ryan — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:12:13 GMT

wilderness:

ethics is logical due to implications and inferences in a relationship between two or more people. logic connects the dots between this, that, or over there, etc... and that's what the whole concept of an ethic requires. it's not a concept in a vaccum of one person. It deals with connections/relations between people.

secondly if ethics would deal with one person only that person would never initiate coercion against another person because there is no other person, which still meets a standard of what is good.

Why is that "good"?

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

wilderness — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:19:08 GMT

ethics is logical due to implications and inferences in a relationship between two or more people. logic connects the dots between this, that, or over there, etc... and that's what the whole concept of an ethic requires. it's not a concept in a vaccum of one person. It deals with connections/relations between people.

secondly if ethics would deal with one person only that person would never initiate coercion against another person because there is no other person, which still meets a standard of what is good.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

I. Ryan — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:25:15 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Life is a pretty objective value.

Why?

Justin Spahr-Summers:

but ethics itself is necessarily an objective science.

Why?

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

Justin Spahr-Summers — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:19:47 GMT

I. Ryan:
Justin Spahr-Summers:

Is there a such thing as an objective opinion?

1. No. But he, I think, used the phrase "subjective opinion" redundantly, not to contrast between a "subjective opinion" and an "objective opinion" but instead to contrast between a "subjective opinion" and an "objective fact".

I noticed, but I think it's pretty self-evident that someone who values their life could take it away if they realized that it wouldn't be of the same quality in the future.

I. Ryan:
2. I agree with AJ that the combination between that definition of rationality, "holding one's life as one's standard of value", and the connotation of any application of that definition, the implicit criticization of any person who fails to fit that definition, merely demonstrates a "subjective opinion".

Life is a pretty objective value. My thoughts on Objectivism and Rand's ideas are of course subjective, but ethics itself is necessarily an objective science.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

I. Ryan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:58:03 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Is there a such thing as an objective opinion?

1. No. But he, I think, used the phrase "subjective opinion" redundantly, not to contrast between a "subjective opinion" and an "objective opinion" but instead to contrast between a "subjective opinion" and an "objective fact".

2. I agree with AJ that the combination between that definition of rationality, "holding one's life as one's standard of value", and the connotation of any application of that definition, the implicit criticization of any person who fails to fit that definition, merely demonstrates a "subjective opinion".

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

Justin Spahr-Summers — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:21:31 GMT

AJ:
Justin Spahr-Summers:
Insofar as life would be unbearable otherwise, such a choice could still be made as a conscious valuation of one's life (i.e., valuing it so much that one refuses to settle for a lesser version of it, if you will).

That seems to just semantically reframe this situation. Who's to say that the above interpretation of value is the one the suicidal person actually has?

Nobody, but we're talking about rational beings. The Objectivist definition of rationality is holding one's life as one's standard of value.

AJ:
Justin Spahr-Summers:
I personally don't think such choices are rational, but they can be made by otherwise self-valuing individuals.

That seems quite a subjective opinion.

Is there a such thing as an objective opinion?

More to the point, we can't term every action as "rational" because then the word ceases to have any meaning. I think Rand provides a sound foundation for rational egoism.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

AJ — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:53:01 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Insofar as life would be unbearable otherwise, such a choice could still be made as a conscious valuation of one's life (i.e., valuing it so much that one refuses to settle for a lesser version of it, if you will).

That seems to just semantically reframe this situation. Who's to say that the above interpretation of value is the one the suicidal person actually has?

Justin Spahr-Summers:
I personally don't think such choices are rational, but they can be made by otherwise self-valuing individuals.

That seems quite a subjective opinion.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

Justin Spahr-Summers — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:18:44 GMT

AJ:
Ayn Rand:
...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.

Not true for anyone who wants to commit suicide, or a committed kamikaze in WWII, or anyone willing to sacrifice or substantially endanger their life for another cause.

Insofar as life would be unbearable otherwise, such a choice could still be made as a conscious valuation of one's life (i.e., valuing it so much that one refuses to settle for a lesser version of it, if you will). I personally don't think such choices are rational, but they can be made by otherwise self-valuing individuals.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

AJ — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:15:09 GMT

Ayn Rand:
...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.

Not true for anyone who wants to commit suicide, or a committed kamikaze in WWII, or anyone willing to sacrifice or substantially endanger their life for another cause.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

MB — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:44:20 GMT

Reason had a great posting in their Hit & Run Blog by Brian Doherty on this topic:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/04/the-value-of-ayn-rand-to-the-f

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:15:46 GMT

From "The Objectivist Ethics":

To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.

. . .

Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

. . .

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.

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. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

. . .

Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.

Re: Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

I. Ryan — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:29:50 GMT

Eioul:

That whether or not capitalism "works" is not justification enough for capitalism. The only reason to *advocate* capitalism is that it is a moral system which allows you to live your own life. Only egoism could justify capitalism. I'm not sure how much I want to get into that in a small post like this. "Neither does it indulge in judgments of value." That' s the main thing. Value judgments do matter. Some individuals honestly prefer force.

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Ah, but ultimate desires are open to analysis, and rightfully so. This is pretty much exactly what I'm trying to point out.

I erred when I quoted and adopted your phraseology, "open to analysis". I will first demarcate the problem and then I will attempt to reconcile it with the system of praxeology which Mises enacted.

In the system of Ludwig von Mises, you cannot criticize the ultimate desires of any other individual, even the ultimate desire of an individual to murder, steal or rape, without the criticization of atleast the autonomity of the individual or atmost the very existence of what defines the individual, what defines his consciousness, what differentiates him from other individuals. For, (a) if the "consciousness" of oneself formulates the ultimate desires of oneself freely, you cannot criticize, via reason, the ultimate desires of an individual without the criticization of the metaphysical, ultimate nature of their consciousness, a task impossible to us, you can only forcibly remove the influence on the physical world of their consciousness and, (b) if the "consciousness" of oneself is merely a passive observer and the physical arrangement of the material of oneself instead determines the ultimate desires of oneself, you cannot criticize, via reason, the ultimate desires of an individual without the criticization of the physical arrangement of the material of them, what defines them, their very existence.

If, as an example, (a) individual X were to view the sustenance or any intensification of the division of labor as a benefit to himself and therefore desire to see the division of labor be sustained and intensified and (b) were to view any acts of murder, theft or rape as an obstacle or detriment to such sustenance and intensification, he would therefore desire to stop any individual who desires to perform such actions before that individual actualizes his desire. But, as a continuation of the example, if individual Y, contrariwise, were to ultimately desire to murder, steal or rape, regardless of any other consequences, he would therefore desire to stop or ignore any individual who desires to stop him before he actualizes his desire.

From "Theory and History", Chapter 9:

"The human search for knowledge cannot go on endlessly. Inevitably, sooner or later, it will reach a point beyond which it cannot proceed. It will then be faced with an ultimate given, a datum that man's reason cannot trace back to other data. In the course of the evolution of knowledge science has succeeded in tracing back to other data some things and events which previously had been viewed as ultimate. We may expect that this will also occur in the future. But there will always remain something that is for the human mind an ultimate given, unanalyzable and irreducible. Human reason cannot even conceive a kind of knowledge that would not encounter such an insurmountable obstacle. There is for man no such thing as omniscience.

In dealing with such ultimate data history refers to individuality. The characteristics of individual men, their ideas and judgments of value as well as the actions guided by those ideas and judgments, cannot be traced back to something of which they would be the derivatives. There is no answer to the question why Frederick II invaded Silesia except: because he was Frederick II. It is customary, although not very expedient, to call the mental process by means of which a datum is traced back to other data rational. Then an ultimate datum is called irrational. No historical research can be thought of that would not ultimately meet such irrational facts."

In the passage above, Mises evidently realizes that the ultimate desires of an individual are indeed "open to analysis" but that to question the ultimate desires of an individual is to question the very existence of that individual, what defines that individual. Thus the obvious extrapolation of this realization is that one cannot criticize the ultimate desires of an individual via reason but can only "criticize" metaphorically the actions, to which the ultimate desires translated, via force.

In other words, partially of Mises, partially of me, in relation to my previous example, "no answer to the question why" individual Y ultimately desires to murder, steal or rape exists "except: because he [is]" individual Y. Thus to criticize that individual Y ultimately desires to murder, steal or rape is to criticize his very existence, his influence on the physical world.

Now, the question is: "Which of these individuals is "right" or "moral", which is "wrong" or "immoral"? How, if we cannot criticize the ultimate desires of an individual, can we responsibly or "justifiably" 'choose sides', choose who to endorse? If to criticize the desires of one of these individuals is to criticize the existence or autonomy of one of these individuals, how do we choose whose "existence" is worth more? How do we decide who does 'have the "right"' to exist and who does not 'have the right' to exist?"

The answer to that question is:

1.1. The metaphorical "desire" of the replicators which underlie us, our genes, is to perpetuate the existence of themselves.

1.2. If we do not survive, they do not survive.

1.3. Thus they impute to us the desire to survive.

2.1. To allow murder, theft and rape is to allow the division of labor, society, to unravel.

2.2. To allow society to unravel is to threaten our survival.

2.3. Therefore, we desire to disallow murder, theft and rape.