Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:16, 14 December 2008

Revision as of 22:00, 22 December 2008

Line 23:

==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 name="Rand 2005b, p. 17">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> name="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" />

Line 32:

==Aesthetics==

In Objectivism, [[aesthetics]] are seen as a "recreation of reality according to [the artist]'s values".<ref name="Rand 2005c, p. 181">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> name="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> name="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==

Line 47:

* {{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 }}

* {{cite book |first=Tara |last=Smith |authorlink=Tara Smith (philosopher) |title=Viable Values. A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality |year=2000 |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |isbn=0-847-69761-4 }}

==External links==