RY
Here you once again confuse value with whim-based preference. Recall in my 11/13 response I said,
RY
I’m not making this stuff up. Yes, this is my value system, but it is not merely my value system. As I said previously, it is your nature to want to live and thrive. You agree. There are things that you should do in order to obtain that goal, right? Please respond to this. Do you agree or not? Then are these or are these not things that you ought to do? Should you or should you not do the things that allow you to obtain the goal of living and thriving? Would you respond to this please? If you say no, what basis do you have for saying no? And is ethics and morality about those things that you ought to do in an objective absolute sense, or is it about things that you choose to do based on personal whim? Please answer this. What am I missing here? This is an integrated system of objective morality. What are you proposing instead? What is its basis? I’m guessing you have no basis for your position, but I’m eager to hear you respond. Sorry to be so direct, but you do seem to be ignoring some key points, namely that values and morality aren’t whim based and they aren’t derived from some authoritative sky hook. They are rooted in rational self interest. This is the proper basis for why we act in any way. Given these key points, how could it be true that “Any value system could define things that way?”
RY
So again, stating one’s value system is not what validates a value system. Reality is. Our nature as defined by reality to want to live and thrive. So when you say,
I was pointing out that your statement,
"....Mine would be based on the fact that it is immoral to pursue a lesser value at the expense of a greater value (the valuer’s own living and thriving).....", means nothing more in regards to facts then what I described it to mean.
You added in, "the valuer’s own living and thriving", which is your value system. The fact that, "it is immoral to pursue a lesser value at the expense of a greater value", does not therefore mean that it is
also a fact that the greater value is one's own living and thriving.
runamonk quote
But if one had a different value system which held something higher than simply their own living and thriving, then it would be a "fact", that they are being inconsistent if they held their own living and thriving as the highest value, without regard to the value of others also "living and thriving".
RY
While an internal inconsistency in this case does in fact exist, the value system itself is flawed. Why? Because it confuses a lesser value (the living and thriving of others) with a greater value (one’s own living and thriving).....
This is simply a statement of yours that this is flawed because it contradicts your value system.
cont.
....Again, this (our preference to live and thrive) is not a consequence of one’s preference. Rather it is the given that is given by objective reality to us, the subjects, the valuers. Yes, there are other preferences given as well, but the others are not at the bottom of the value chain like the valuer is. Remember, values are only coherent in the context of a valuer. You say,
You keep saying
bottom, but it has not been proven that having another value system, which values principles beyond ones own living and thriving, becomes incoherent when existence ceases. In fact, dying for such a value system can be coherent, such as with MLK, which I brought up. The valuer, MLK, valued beyond his own living and thriving. This is a
hierarchy of values.
You state that values are only coherent when maintaining existence, but that is only in the case of what is valued.
That would be the logical outcome of already having oneself as the highest value in a hierarchy of values, and so would not be at bottom of a value chain, but at the top of the hierarchy of values.
runamonk quote
To choose one’s own living and thriving as highest value is not an objective natural law. To be objective one would look from outside as an alien and say that humans in general tend to value living and thriving, this is including individuals as well as groups. This fact does not make it objective to value your own personal living and thriving as the highest value, it is a subjective value, to value your own living and thriving as the highest value.
RY quote
Of course “choosing” is not “objective natural law.” But if by “objective natural law” we mean consistent conditions that occur in nature as a result of the way reality is, then our predisposed preference as organisms is. The alien looking from outside can observe this to be the case for organisms and even groups/societies. Yes, value is always subjective, but not merely so (by the way, I’m tired of having to say this ad-naseum). The alien may error though, in concluding that persons and societies are essential the same in this way, since it is only persons and not societies who have choices and who choose to act according to a system of values. And you say,
You may be tired of repeating this ad-nauseum but it is your system of values that I am saying is no more based in reality than mine. In fact, I accept the reality that others also value living and thriving, and so take this into account when thinking of fairer and more libertarian political and economic systems. I will also be so blunt and bold as to say that in doing so I am being objective in that I am not simply talking about my own person living and thriving.
RY
That’s a very good question. Rights reciprocity and the implicitly entailed contractual agreements is in principle and in fact in your best interest because you want others to recognize your rights, so this is your contract with others. To make a case for when you ought to diverge from that principle is to align to the pirates code, to steal when you can and trade when you must, and we all know what society does to pirates. The choice of harmonious being vs. pirate requires that we either honor our contract or we do not, and given our greater benefit to be realized by honoring the contract, we agree that this act of theft is not something that we ought to do.
The older lady would value her life and thriving as highest value. The water and food not being shared would be a
theft of her living and thriving. It isn't in her best interests, of living and thriving, to be concerned with contractual agreements when she may likely die of starvation or thirst. Her right to living and thriving is not being recognized or reciprocated if the water and food isn't shared. I would consider the contract, or lack there of so as not to share food, a theft of her life and so invalid.
You state the valuer needs to maintain existence to value. Why would she put contractual agreements above her highest value, living and thriving?
If you are talking to me, and all of us about "living and thriving" being the greater value, than how come this living and thriving isn't inherently recognized and at the top of the hierarchy of values, and higher than contractual agreements?
RY
The question then is, is it in your best interest, will you benefit most by breaking the contract in order to live? Some would say that this is an example of an emergency condition that supersedes or is not constrained by our normal guiding principles. I would say that this implicit contract entails the answer. If we state it explicitly it would say, “Because it benefits me most, I am an harmonious being who chooses to recognize the rights of those who agree to recognize my own, without exception.” The benefit then was tied to our very existence as an harmonious being. It is because of this benefit that life had an opportunity to emerge into us. Since this benefit is only realized by an overreaching rights reciprocity principle, it isn’t superseded by opportunistic conditions that contradict it. It would therefore be ignorance of this fact that would allow us to conclude otherwise.
You have a funny way of being explicit. This just looks like a bunch of words when you could have just been blunt because I don't really know what you are saying here for sure. If understood correctly, I get that you are saying the older lady would be more harmonious to accept and respect the contractual obligations that the others did or did not have for her. This would not benefit her at all. So again~
You state the valuer needs to maintain existence to value. Why would she put contractual agreements above her highest value, living and thriving?
In the hypothetical boat situation I would see harmony when the people on that boat recognize the value of each of other living and thriving and so share food and water.
And just as well, with society, those who suffer, or lack autonomy, caused by certain contracts or private property rights, would be acting immorally if they respected a lower value "at the expense of a greater value (the valuer’s own living and thriving)". And so, with this moral system, if consistent, would have as their option to find that the contracts and property rights which lessened or limited their greatest values, as immoral.
You are on here arguing to others that the greater value is 'the valuer’s own living and thriving' which means that you are accepting that others have that same value, otherwise I don't think it would be discussed. There's no piracy going on because the highest value is each person's living and thriving, and reciprocating that, rather than putting contractual agreements or property rights above their "living and thriving".
And even if there were pirating, if living and thriving is the highest value for oneself, and this is without reciprocation because others are not valued the same as one's own will to live and thrive, then where do you even get an appeal against pirating, or for reciprocating contractual agreements? Self interest? Well, as should be obvious, self interest does not inherently equate to valuing the other. Nor does all people holding themselves of highest value equate to all people being held in value. So, it sure seems to me that it makes no sense to appeal to morality of limiting a greater value (oneself) for a lesser value.