[RationalBiker]

Evan, on Feb 12 2006, 03:11 AM, said:

I think Perseverance is a really weak value on the negative because it isn't naturally something that is valuable. Perseverance is a value that is dependent upon other values...it is not a primary value. Thus, it isn't inhererently valuable.

What values do you think ARE inherently valuable without consideration of 1) to whom and; 2) for what purpose?

[AmbivalentEye]

RationalCop, on Feb 15 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

What values do you think ARE inherently valuable without consideration of 1) to whom and; 2) for what purpose?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but wouldn't the only inherently valuable ones be:

1) Pride
2) Independence
3) Honesty
4) Productiveness
5) Integrity
6) Justice

and

7) Rationality


I had seen this in another discussion a while back and it stuck to me. I really like it. They seem to encompass anything that truly matters to me and what I think should be the primary aims of society.

-J.

[RationalBiker]

AmbivalentEye, on Feb 15 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

They seem to encompass anything that truly matters to me and what I think should be the primary aims of society.

That doesn't answer the question. In the sentence above, you tell me 1) to whom (you); and 2) for what purpose (should be the primary aims of society). Inherent (or intrinsic) means without such context, that those values are valuable in and of themselves.

All of those values presume a greater value (and therefore are not primary); one's life.

[AmbivalentEye]

RationalCop, on Feb 15 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

That doesn't answer the question. In the sentence above, you tell me 1) to whom (you); and 2) for what purpose (should be the primary aims of society). Inherent (or intrinsic) means without such context, that those values are valuable in and of themselves.

All of those values presume a greater value (and therefore are not primary); one's life.

hmm...

I was just making a statement at the end, but I guess I see why I'm not supposed to apply it to myself. I forget that language is so technical here.

So are you saying I should have just chosen Life alone?

[RationalBiker]

AmbivalentEye, on Feb 16 2006, 09:24 AM, said:

So are you saying I should have just chosen Life alone?

Well, not everyone chooses life as a value either, some choose death (and in rare cases justifiably so). What I'm saying is that there are no intrinsic (inherent) values. Nothing has value in and of itself. Value is always contextual to 1) whom and 2) for what purpose. With that in mind, you would have to frame those values in a context; for instance - For those who value living a happy life, these are almost without exception the most important values. One might be able to improve on the wording to make it more accurate, but that's generally what I mean. With a little thought, I could provide examples of when it may be in one's best interest to abandon each of those values based on a specific context.

Viable Values by Tara Smith is a great read if you don't have it. It has a whole chapter addressing intrinsic value.

Quote

I forget that language is so technical here.

I think of it as being accurate, but technical could apply I suppose.

[Evan]

RationalCop, on Feb 15 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

What values do you think ARE inherently valuable without consideration of 1) to whom and; 2) for what purpose?

Ah. I see where you are going with this. You are correct, there are no such things that are valuable without context.

Here is my statement:

Quote

I think Perseverance is a really weak value on the negative because it isn't naturally something that is valuable. Perseverance is a value that is dependent upon other values...it is not a primary value. Thus, it isn't inhererently valuable.

The point I was making was that in a debate context it is desirable to pick a value that is more difficult to swing "both ways." The term "primary value" is a debate specific term for that reason. For example, take something like "democracy." As a concept by itself, democracy isn't valuable. Democracy can lead to "A" and "-A" (where A is valuable and -A is not) through the examples that democracy elected Hitler. Democracy could also elect *good* representatives as well that recognize the good for what it is and swear to protect it. In such an instance, the results of democracy are dependent upon the education and values of the people involved. Same thing as perseverance.In the case of something like holding "rights protection" as a value, that is a value whose context is really difficult to twist around like that unless you play with defintions (debate the context itself). For example, if you define rights as including both positive and negative rights, then "rights protection" means that you are protecting peoples "right" to welfare (which is a load of crap). However, if you take rights in their proper context (as Ayn Rand defined them) there is no way that I can imagine where "rights protection" could be anything BUT valuable. I think of someone who is a true rights protector as a man like Judge Narangasett in Atlas Shrugged. Concepts like "Ethics" or "rights" have specific contexts. The way a person like Mary Ann Glendon (or John Rawls) defines rights is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY different than Ayn Rand which is why contextual definition is absolutely critical. The system of ethics posed by Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand are also 100% different. As a debater, if you are to hold something like "ethics" to be valuable (which is what it means to claim something is a "value"), you MUST define the context. However concepts like "democracy" or "perseverance" don't really differ in defintions, yet their results vary substantially. Democracy is literally "rule by the people." In such open and shut cases, you generally don't find people seriously positing weird conclusions based on contradictory defintions because the definitions are pretty straightforeward and easy to understand.
As a debater, it doesn't matter how you define the concept "democracy" (if you define it screwey, it will be incredibly obvious to everyone in the room) to still critique the fact that any values obtained from democracy aren't from the concept "democracy" but rather how it is applied whereas any values gained from "rights protection" are gained (or lost) due to the way in which the concept is definined (which by nature, determines the form any potential application. I also agree 100% with the fact that all values stem from

Quote

What I'm saying is that there are no intrinsic (inherent) values. Nothing has value in and of itself. Value is always contextual to 1) whom and 2) for what purpose. With that in mind, you would have to frame those values in a context; for instance - For those who value living a happy life, these are almost without exception the most important values. One might be able to improve on the wording to make it more accurate, but that's generally what I mean. With a little thought, I could provide examples of when it may be in one's best interest to abandon each of those values based on a specific context.

Yes, I agree 100%.

If someone doesn't value life and instead actually values pain and misery, their values will be chastity, groveling, self-deprecation, etc.

Context is absolutely important.

Quote

All of those values presume a greater value (and therefore are not primary); one's life.

Yes, the only truly "primary" value is life. However, in the context of debate (given the time constraints and other factors), all debates aren't centered around life. To really make such a debate work with a value of life, you would have to work backwards through a process of reduction to really make your case and that just isn't possible given the time constraints.

Values should be chosen with the topic in mind and frankly...some topics are worded really badly. Some topics are also worded with invalid concepts in them (for example the topic "A lesser developed nation's right to develop ought to take priority over its obligation to protect the environment").

In such cases, one side or another will critique the wording itself or the concepts imbedded in the wording (like the "obligation to protect the environment" clause).

In the context of debate, values are chosen with respect to the topic and the side that is being debated.

Life would work in any context, but it wouldn't be the most strategically viable way to debate.

Does that sort of make sense?

This post has been edited by Evan: 16 February 2006 - 01:07 PM

[hunterrose]

Evan, on Feb 12 2006, 02:11 AM, said:

I think Perseverance is a really weak value on the negative because it isn't naturally something that is valuable. Perseverance is a value that is dependent upon other values...it is not a primary value. Thus, it isn't inhererently valuable.

I haven't read all of the quoted post (Evan always makes such god-awfully long posts ) but I'm assuming he simply used the wrong words to make his point. I'm guessing Evan (and/or AmbivalentEye) meant that perseverence isn't a "prime virtue" (e.g. rationality, honesty as Objectively defined are held to always be beneficial, whereas perseverence's value would depend on what one was persevering at.)

RationalCop, on Feb 15 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

What values do you think ARE inherently valuable without consideration of 1) to whom and; 2) for what purpose?

*continued from the School of Nitpickery*

Some people might consider a value with the "whom" but without the "purpose" to also be an inherent value, albeit an inherent value for a particular being as opposed to being a universal inherent value.

Or not.

[Evan]

Quote

I'm guessing Evan (and/or AmbivalentEye) meant that perseverence isn't a "prime virtue" (e.g. rationality, honesty as Objectively defined are held to always be beneficial, whereas perseverence's value would depend on what one was persevering at.)

Yes, exactly! Exactly exactly exactly.

What is important to note though, is that in debate jargon...I didn't use the incorrect terms. In a wider context, I did.

In debate language, a primary value is synonymous with the Objectivist primary virtues.

In the greater philosophical context, the ONLY primary value is life.

That is an important distinction. Thank you for saving the day, hunterrose.

[AmbivalentEye]

Hmm. I found a couple relative excerpts that also link into the Communitarian philosophy I'm now analyzing for my constructive.

It said:

"The Argument From Intrinsic Value: Each ethno-national community is valuable in and of itself since it is only within the natural encompassing framework of various cultural traditions that important meanings and values are produced and transmitted. The members of such communities share a special cultural proximity to each other. By speaking the same language and sharing customs and traditions, the members of these communities are typically closer to one another in various ways than they are to those who don’t share the culture. The community thereby becomes a network of morally connected agents, i.e., a moral community, with special, very strong ties of obligation. A prominent obligation of each individual concerns the underlying traits of the ethnic community, above all language and customs: they ought to be cherished, protected, preserved and reinforced. "

"Communitarians can reply by casting doubt on the view that choice is intrinsically valuable, that a certain moral principle or communal attachment is more valuable simply because it has been chosen following deliberation among alternatives by an individual subject. We ordinarily think of ourselves, Michael Sandel says, ‘as members of this family or community or nation or people, as bearers of this history, as sons or daughters of that revolution, as citizens of this republic’, (Sandel 1981, 179) social attachments that more often than not are involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing, rational choice having played no role whatsoever.
Most important is not choosing our own life-plans; rather, liberalism founded on the value of self-determination requires only that we be able to critically evaluate our ends if need be, hence that ‘no end or goal is exempt from possible re-examination’ (Kymlicka 1989, 52; Dworkin 1989, 489; Macedo 1990, 247)"

All this from: http://plato.stanfor...ationalism/#3.2

[RationalBiker]

hunterrose, on Feb 16 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

*continued from the School of Nitpickery*

Some people might consider a value with the "whom" but without the "purpose" to also be an inherent value, albeit an inherent value for a particular being as opposed to being a universal inherent value.

Or not.

Well yes, they might, but then why is it a value to one individual? To answer that would give you the purpose. Also, would it remain a value to that person regardless of any other context? What people consider and what is possible are often two different things.

However, even given that it is "inherently" valuable to one person, you have removed that value from the "in and of itself" category. Intrinsic (or in and of itself) means a value separate from who and purpose, value existing in the "thing" itself.

This post has been edited by RationalCop: 16 February 2006 - 04:13 PM

[dondigitalia]

hunterrose, on Feb 16 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

*continued from the School of Nitpickery*

Some people might consider a value with the "whom" but without the "purpose" to also be an inherent value, albeit an inherent value for a particular being as opposed to being a universal inherent value.

Or not.

Some people might, but they'd be wrong (although not horribly so). An intrinsic value is a value absent any standard. A value which has a "whom" always has an implicit standard, which is that person's life. If the person says, "It's a value because it's a value," then you have an instance of intrinsic value. If they say, "It's a value to me, because it's a value to me," then they are implicitly making use of some purpose--themselves.

In otherwords, it's not really possible to have a value with reference to a valuer, but absent a purpose.

[dark_unicorn]

RationalCop, on Feb 15 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

That doesn't answer the question. In the sentence above, you tell me 1) to whom (you); and 2) for what purpose (should be the primary aims of society). Inherent (or intrinsic) means without such context, that those values are valuable in and of themselves.

All of those values presume a greater value (and therefore are not primary); one's life.

I agree that one's life is the primary value, for it is the one thing from which any other value can be possible. It's first derivative value would be the right to liberty, meaning the right to act upon one's own value of life in what way one sees fit. Property being another that would mean the right to sustain one's life by attaining what one needs and desires through their actions by right of liberty.

This of course is the summation of John Locke's revolutionary system of ethics, which is undeniably axiomatic, though not fully and consistently implemented philosophically until Ayn Rand developed her philosophy.