Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:38, 15 June 2008

Latest revision as of 03:15, 11 February 2020

(18 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{#REDIRECT [[Objectivism}}]]

:''Note: This is not to be confused with theories of economic value, which seek to explain why things have different market prices.''

The '''Objectivist theory of value''' is the [[ethics|ethical]] [[value theory|theory of value]] held by [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivists]], as propounded by the founder of Objectivism, [[Ayn Rand]].<ref name="Obligation and Value">{{cite paper |last=Rasmussen |first=Douglas |title=Ayn Rand on Obligation and Value |version= |publisher=[[Libertarian Alliance]] |date=28 December 1990 |url=http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn025.pdf |format=PDF |id=ISBN 1-85637-120-4 |accessdate=2007-08-25 }}</ref> Rand held that the best expression of the Objectivist approach to values was presented in ''The Objectivist Ethics''.<ref>Rand (2005c), p. 107</ref>

==Theory of value==

Ayn Rand explains in her work [[Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]] that the Objectivist theory of value holds the following:

*'''Reality exists independently of perception:'''

:::''see [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]]''

::Reality exists independent of human perception. If humans did not exist, reality would still exist. Reality has some properties that cannot be changed; but humans can observe, learn and know what these properties are. These properties are said to be [[intrinsic]] to reality.

*'''Humans have unique needs :'''

::By virtue of being alive, humans have needs, which may be unique to each individual. Humans do not exist outside of reality, and have wants and needs to continue living. Some needs may be universal, like water; some needs may be individual, like [[hearing aid]]s. Needs are [[Subjectivity|subjective]] because they may change from individual to individual.

*'''Value is an objective relationship:'''

::Consider the following example of a [[caveman]] in need of meat:

::*The caveman has a ''need'' for fresh meat.

::*The caveman ''observes'' that a rock falling on an animal kills it.

::*After many such observations, the fact that a rock has the property "kills animals", becomes part of the caveman's ''knowledge'' of reality.

::*Because of this knowledge, rocks become ''valuable'' to the caveman as a tool for getting fresh meat.

::The value of the rock as being able to kill animals, requires both the intrinsic and the subjective to be present:

::*The intrinsic property of the rock of being both hard and heavy have to be present. A piece of [[pumice]] will not work.

::*The subjective need for meat has to be present. A hard and heavy rock will be of no value to a vegetarian (although the rock may be of value as a [[grindstone]] to such a person).

::Therefore value is not a quality contained solely in the object, or solely in the mind of the human, but is a relationship between the intrinsic facts of reality, and the subjective needs of humans. The value is said to be ''objective'' because for one particular human, under one particular set of circumstances, the value of an object will always be the same ''to that human''.

==Necessity of value==

In ''The Objectivist Ethics'', Rand begins her description of the Objectivist theory of value by arguing in favour of the necessity of value,<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 13</ref> explicitly stating the importance of opening with the question 'Why does man need a code of values?' and rejecting the immediate question of 'What particular values should man accept?'<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 14</ref> She argues, quoting [[John Galt (Atlas Shrugged)|John Galt]], the [[Randian hero]] in ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]'',<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 16</ref> that actions can only have value to living entities, and that it is the ability of living entities to hold goals that allows them to have value.<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 17</ref>

The best-known of the statements on this subject holds:<ref name="Obligation and Value" />

{{cquote|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''.<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 17</ref>}}

Rand considers life to be metaphysically removed from other values, as it is not a value by choice, but a value by its nature.<ref name="Obligation and Value" /> Rand thus continues to claim to have solved the '[[is-ought problem]]' posed by [[David Hume]],<ref name="Is-Ought Problem">{{cite journal |last=O'Neil |first=Patrick M. |year=1983 |month=April |title=Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem |journal=The Journal of Libertarian Studies |volume=VII |issue=1 |pages=pp. 81–99 |url=http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 |accessdate= 2007-08-26 |quote= }}</ref> writing, "The fact that a living entity ''is'', determines what it ''ought'' to do. So much for the relation between 'is' and 'ought'."<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 18</ref> Hence, Rand determines, an objective system of morality is both possible and necessary.<ref name="Is-Ought Problem" />

Rand argues that this necessity is pressed by the greater potential of [[human]]s to [[concept]]ualise, and the inability of humans to rely entirely on [[instinct]].<ref>Rand (2005b), pp. 19–20</ref> She compares the distinction in this respect between humans and [[animal]]s as similar to the distinction between animals and [[plant]]s; she argues that plants rely on [[Stimulus (physiology)|stimuli]] and are incapable of instinct, just as animals rely on instinct and are incapable of conceptualisation.<ref>Rand (2005b), pp. 19</ref> Rand holds that it is the faculty of reason and the process of thinking that allow humans to survive by analogy.<ref>Rand (2005b), p. 22</ref> Humans have no instinctive [[precept]]s (unlike the plant), yet constrained by the necessity to hold life as the standard of value, and so must use their reason to determine the values that best advance their ultimate standard of value: life.<ref>Rand (2005b), pp. 23–4</ref>

==Aesthetics==

In Objectivism, [[aesthetics]] are seen as a "recreation of reality according to [the artist]'s values".<ref>Rand (2005c), p. 181</ref> The worth of art stems from the Randian interpretation of the questions 'what could be' and 'what ought to be'.<ref>Rand (2005c), p. 181</ref> The fundamental Objectivist belief in the [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objectivity]] of [[reality]] demands that art 'could be' possible, whilst Objectivist value theory dictates that the art be a representation of the best of all possibilities, with what is 'best' being derived from the values of the artist.<ref>Rand (2005c), p. 181</ref> The worth and beauty of the art is then assessed according to the values of the beholder.<ref>Rand (2005c), p. 227</ref> As such, Rand describes Objectivist aesthetics, as expression of value, as being consistent with the [[romantic realism|romantic realist]] school of art.<ref>Rand (2005a), pp. 104–5</ref>

==See also==

*[[Intrinsic theory of value]]

*[[Subjective theory of value]]

*[[Capitalism]]

==Footnotes==

{{reflist}}

==References==

* {{cite book |first=Ayn |last=Rand |authorlink=Ayn Rand |title=[[The Romantic Manifesto]] |origdate=January 1971 |year=2005a |publisher=[[New American Library]] |___location=New York |isbn=0-451-14916-5 }}

* {{cite book |first=Ayn |last=Rand |authorlink=Ayn Rand |title=[[The Virtue of Selfishness]] |origdate=November 1964 |year=2005b |publisher=[[New American Library]] |___location=New York |isbn=0-451-16393-1 }}

* {{cite book |first=Ayn |last=Rand |authorlink=Ayn Rand |editor=Robert Mayhew |title=Ayn Rand Answers |year=2005c |publisher=[[New American Library]] |___location=New York |isbn=0-451-21665-2 }}

* Tara Smith: Viable Values. A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, 2000.

==External links==

*[http://www.aynrand.org The Ayn Rand Institute official website]

[[Category:Value theory]]

[[Category:Objectivist philosophy]]