quote:I think you are using 'value' in two different senses, which is really bad for debate. One sense is 'moral values', one of which is that slavery is bad. (Incidentally, I still don't think this is somehow 'intrinsic' in the fabric of the Universe, as Lisa and you both seem to believe; I just don't feel like being a slave myself, and am willing to extend the same protection to others.) The other is monetary value, a completely different concept. How can you measure the intrinsic monetary value of anything? You can't, even in principle; therefore it doesn't exist.
I think what you are saying is that while somethings may have "intrinsic value", money does not. I will agree to that. Money is simply an instrument we use in an attempt to equate things which are not equivalent. Let's assume that I have ten oranges I'd like to trade to someone for something of equal value. Those oranges have the exact value of ten oranges. Unfortunately, that is a true yet utterly valueless piece of information since I am unlikely to desire to trade my oranges for ten identical oranges. As a result, we have invented this instrument we call money in an attemt to give equivalence to the value of things which aren't identical. So we arbitrarily say that ten organges are worth $2, and that perhaps 12 apples are also worth $2, and 1 gallon of milk is worth $2, and 2/3 of a gallon of gasoling is worth $2 which means that in some sense we have agreed that all of the these things have equal value.
My argument is that a trade is fair, if the monetary value we assign to things is proportionate to their intrinisic value.
Lisa's argument is that the concept of "intrinsic value" is obsurd. Things only have the value we agree to when we trade, therefore any price we mutually agree to is "fair".
Although, I frankly can't understand what "fair" means if nothing has intrinsic value. Randians stipulate that a trade is only fair if both parties agree to the exchange, (for example if you offered me $1 for my oranges, but I refused to trade at that price it would be unfair for you to simply take my oranges and leave the $1). This leads me to ask why "consent" is essential to a fair trade and the only conclusion I find satisfactory is that "free agency" has intrinsic value. If it doesn't, then I can find no logical reason to conclude that consent is crucial in determining the external value of an object.
There has been much debate amongst philosophers over what the "intrinisic value" is of any object and it is certainly not clear that we can define an currency which could adequately capture intrinsic value or that we can know an objects intrinsic value in anyway. Whether or not we can know an objects intrinsic value is however quite a different question from the question of whether any objects have intrinsic value.
Adam Smith maintained that the "intrinsic value" of any object was equal to the amount of human labor required to make the object. In essence Smith is arguing that human labor has "intrinisic value". So if it takes me "1 unit of labor" to make a dose antibiotic and it takes you "1 unit of labor" to write a story, then it would be a "fair trade" if I gave you a dose of antibiotic in exchange for a story. Smith maintained that free markets would ultimately lead to a system in which all labor was rewarded equally. That has never even come close to happening for two key reasons. First, Smith assumes that resources are unlimited which is simply untrue in the real world. Second, Smith does not recognize the distinction between true human needs and human desires and the inequalities that will always arise when needs and desires are exchanged. That inequality will result in instability of any market system because the more wealth you accumulate the more leverage you have to make trades which disproportionately favor yourself.
Consider my example of the dose of medicine and the story. If you are critically ill and require my medicine to live, I have an enormous advantage over you because while think I would really enjoy your story, I can easily live without it. As a result, I could probably demand "10 labor units" of stories, or perhaps even a hundred in exchange for my medicine and you will likely agree to the price. Smith maintains that if I make the price to exorbidant, you will simply make your own dose of medicine or find someone else who will trade you a dose for "1 labor unit of story."
That works because in Smith's world, the natural and human resources needed to make a dose of medicine are unlimited and so no one can effectively monopolize the knowledge and resources needed to make the dose of medicine. If I start to charge too much for the medicine I make, someone else will step in and start making it at a lower cost.
In the real world, people can very effectively monopolize knowledge and resources which makes free markets fundamentally unstable. The more wealth I accumulate, the greater my ability will be to coerce you to exchange your labor for my labor at a rate that is unfavorable to you. As soon as things get even a little off balance, I have a lever by which I can coerce you to work for me which drives the system perpetually away from equity.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. I didn't do anything to "earn" my life or my parent's love and care for me. I can take no credit that I was born without serious medical or developmental issues. I didn't create the strengths I have that have enabled me to have a nice life. I may or may not have improved on them, but I didn't create them. Whatever I have "earned" or created using those gifts, will always be dependent on something undeserved.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the more you write, Rabbit, the more you show yourself to be anti-life.
Can I ask that you show Rabbit a bit more courtesy, Lisa? I think we can safely assume that she's no more "anti-life" than you are.
If your definition of "pro-life" requires the recognition of property rights, it's fine to put it that way, like, "I consider your views to be inimical to life."
But since Rabbit clearly does not, any attempt to classify her as "anti-life" is at best going to be seen as insulting.
Saying that a person does not own his or her own life is inimical to life.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What intrigues me is not that I agree with almost everything that Rabbit has said in this thread. What intrigues me is that as best I can determine, Rabbit's position is completely consistent with Pirkei Avos.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that a person does not own his or her own life is inimical to life.
Lisa, Perhaps you could point out to me where I said that a person does not own his own life? I don't believe I have ever said anything of the kind and if you are interpreting my words to mean this then you are failing to understand most of what I am saying.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then why is it wrong for someone else to steal your life? Because it's mine. And the more you write, Rabbit, the more you show yourself to be anti-life. The anti-individual stuff is simply a special case of that.
There is no reason, it is simply "intrinsically wrong". Bloody hell. Don't ask a question if you aren't going to wait for an answer.
If was a rhetorical question and I normally it is considered rude to ask a rhetorical question unless you answer it yourself.
Your answer to my question is fundamentally equivalent to the one I gave. You say its wrong because it's wrong. I can rephrase the question as many times as you like. "Why is it wrong for me to take something that is yours?" "Because its mine, does not define this "wrongness" by its relationship to other things. You are just repeated that its wrong because its wrong, which is equivalent to saying that somethings have intrinsic value regardless of extrernal relationship to anything else.
And once again, since you refuse to recognize the point of this argument. I have never claimed nor do I believe that it isn't wrong to steal someones life. My claim is that this arguement requires "intrinsic value" to have any rational meaning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I think you might be conflating responsibility with ownership; the idea that someone "owns" himself, as property, is not necessarily a prerequisite to the assumption that someone is primarily or solely responsible for himself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept behind "owning yourself" is arbitrary conceptualization.
Wonderful rhetorical device, though. You could then get to term government coercions as theft, seizure, No Fair, what have you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lisa's argument is that the concept of "intrinsic value" is obsurd. Things only have the value we agree to when we trade, therefore any price we mutually agree to is "fair".
I'm saying that an orange has no intrinsic value. It may be of value to me. If so, that value may be quantifiable. It may be of value to you. If so, that value may be quantifiable. But it has no value in and of itself.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Although, I frankly can't understand what "fair" means if nothing has intrinsic value. Randians stipulate that a trade is only fair if both parties agree to the exchange,
Objectivists (not Randians -- that's a slur) don't really see any meaning to the word "fair". Fairness is utterly subjective. We care about justice; not fairness.
My daughter has a Blues Clues video. There's a scene in which Mr. Salt and Mrs. Pepper ask Steve to help them count their apples. Mr. Salt, it turns out, has 3 apples. Mrs. Pepper has 5 apples. For a total of 8 apples (in case you weren't paying attention).
Mr. Salt says, "But zat is not fair! We should both have ze same number of apples!" So Steve takes one of Mrs. Pepper's apples and moves it over to Mr. Salt's side. Mr. Salt is happy as a clam. I'm a lot less happy, of course, and have made sure, when watching this with Tova, to point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Salt having 3 apples and Mrs. Pepper having 5. And that she should never to let anyone bully her into giving something up just so that everyone has the same amount.
You and Mr. Salt, Rabbit, have the same attitude, it seems.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: (for example if you offered me $1 for my oranges, but I refused to trade at that price it would be unfair for you to simply take my oranges and leave the $1).
If I came in when you weren't there and left you a $100 bill for your oranges, it would be equally wrong. Those are your oranges. Only you get to decide whether to sell them or not, and if so, for how much to sell them. And who to sell them to, for that matter. And when. No one in the universe has any say over what you do with those oranges, so long as you don't throw them at my head or through one of my windows.
This isn't a matter of fairness. It's a matter of justice. And dictionaries to the contrary, those are not the same thing. I am not owed oranges. You are owed respect of your ownership of those oranges. If I want oranges, I can bloody well ask. And if I don't like the deal you're offering, tough on me.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This leads me to ask why "consent" is essential to a fair trade and the only conclusion I find satisfactory is that "free agency" has intrinsic value.
Blibber blabber. Without consent, you are violating someone's ownership of what is theirs. Without your consent, anything I do to those oranges is a violation of you. I'm not entitled to do that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If it doesn't, then I can find no logical reason to conclude that consent is crucial in determining the external value of an object.
No one said it is. You're mixing apples and oranges (I couldn't help that). Objects don't have intrinsic value. Not internal and not external. They only have subjective value. Subjective means "in relation to the subject". An orange can have a value to me. It can have a value to you. It can't have a value without a "to X".
Furthermore, it can't really have a value to me in a vacuum. It can only have a value to me in a context. An orange has a certain value to me when I'm hungry. It has less or no value to me when I'm in the bathroom. So a thing can only have a subjective and contextual value.
If I own oranges and I go to set a price for those oranges, I'm going to set the price that I think people will pay. But that's a higher order description. Dig a little more deeply, and you find that what I'm doing is gambling that enough people will find my oranges to have a sufficient value to them, and in the context in which they come into my store or the context in which they envision deriving benefit from those oranges that they will decide that paying my price is worthwhile for them.
If I've miscalculated, I'm not going to sell all the oranges I wanted to. Or perhaps they will all sell really fast, and I'll realize that I could have gotten more for them. In that case, by the way, I will have learned a lesson. But I won't owe my customers anything for that lesson. When I act differently the next time, it will be me acting differently. I won't owe my customers anything for the lesson.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Whether or not we can know an objects intrinsic value is however quite a different question from the question of whether any objects have intrinsic value.
Why is it a different question? If you want to claim that an entity exists, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it exists. We know from the real world that the same thing can have a different value for different people. Other than some Platonic nonsense, what basis is there to claim that there's some objective value for a thing? You have to demonstrate one, and you can't.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Adam Smith maintained that the "intrinsic value" of any object was equal to the amount of human labor required to make the object.
If so, then Adam Smith was wrong. Doubly wrong, because there's no intrinsic value to human labor, either. Only subjective and contextual value.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In essence Smith is arguing that human labor has "intrinisic value". So if it takes me "1 unit of labor" to make a dose antibiotic and it takes you "1 unit of labor" to write a story, then it would be a "fair trade" if I gave you a dose of antibiotic in exchange for a story.
Excellent example. Your example itself is proof that human labor cannot have intrinsic value.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Smith maintained that free markets would ultimately lead to a system in which all labor was rewarded equally. That has never even come close to happening for two key reasons. First, Smith assumes that resources are unlimited which is simply untrue in the real world. Second, Smith does not recognize the distinction between true human needs and human desires and the inequalities that will always arise when needs and desires are exchanged. That inequality will result in instability of any market system because the more wealth you accumulate the more leverage you have to make trades which disproportionately favor yourself.
No. He was wrong for the simple reason that labor doesn't have intrinsic value. None of the rest of that pertains.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Consider my example of the dose of medicine and the story. If you are critically ill and require my medicine to live, I have an enormous advantage over you because while think I would really enjoy your story, I can easily live without it. As a result, I could probably demand "10 labor units" of stories, or perhaps even a hundred in exchange for my medicine and you will likely agree to the price.
Because the value of that medicine to you, in the context of you needing it to live, is much greater than, say, the value of that medicine to someone who doesn't need it at all. It has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Only subjective and contextual value.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Smith maintains that if I make the price to exorbidant, you will simply make your own dose of medicine or find someone else who will trade me a dose for "1 labor unit of story." That works because in Smith's world, the natural and human resources needed to make a dose of medicine are unlimited and so no one can effectively monopolize the knowledge and resources needed to make the dose of medicine. If I start to charge too much for the medicine I make, someone else will step in and start making it at a lower cost.
In the real world, people can very effectively monopolize knowledge and resources which makes free markets fundamentally unstable.
But since no one is owed that medicine, none of that really matters. If you want it, you pay for it. Or you get someone else to pay for it. Or you get someone who has it to give it to you. And you do that by asking. By trying to convince them. Not by putting a gun to their head.
posted
The Rabbit and I part ways on several key points in this discussion and definitely think that there is an ethical basis for private property, but this exchange demonstrates why I find Rabbit's moral reasoning to be preferable in this thread:
quote:
quote:Then why is it wrong for someone else to steal your life?
Because it's mine. And the more you write, Rabbit, the more you show yourself to be anti-life. The anti-individual stuff is simply a special case of that.
The Rabbit is insisting that the entire moral universe is the proper subject of human analysis. She is asking that the most basic assumptions shared by most of us on the subject of morality be either declared as axioms or shown to derive solely from axioms.
It's not entirely clear from Lisa's response, but it seems that she is citing the question which embodies this insistence as evidence of Rabbit's "anti-life" status.
I, on the other hand, see it as evidence of Rabbit's recognition that any moral system has axioms and that recognition of these axioms is necessary for meaningful discourse about those moral systems.
This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yup. I didn't do anything to "earn" my life or my parent's love and care for me. I can take no credit that I was born without serious medical or developmental issues. I didn't create the strengths I have that have enabled me to have a nice life. I may or may not have improved on them, but I didn't create them. Whatever I have "earned" or created using those gifts, will always be dependent on something undeserved.
So. Your parents gave all that to you with strings attached? That's sad. My parents loved and cared for me without any strings. and that means that whatever I have earned or created using those gifts is 100% mine, and entirely deserved. None of which detracts the slightest bit from my gratitude to my parents.
It's not a zero sum world. They could have given those same gifts to me, and I could have thrown them away and be living under a bridge in a cardboard box. What I did with them is what I did with them. Only I am responsible for those choices.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So. Your parents gave all that to you with strings attached?
I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation of what you quoted. It's as though you are commenting on something completely different.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: What intrigues me is not that I agree with almost everything that Rabbit has said in this thread. What intrigues me is that as best I can determine, Rabbit's position is completely consistent with Pirkei Avos.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. And it's foreign to the rest of Jewish literature as well, Rivka. Ha-motzi me-chavero, alav ha-raaya.
In Pirkei Avot, we are told ofwe are told of four types of people:
One who says, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is yours" is a hassid (a person who goes above and beyond any obligation).
One who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" is a regular person. Others say that this is the behavior of Sodom.
One who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine" is an evil person.
One who says, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine" is a fool.
Now, to explain the Sodom bit. According to Jewish tradition, in Sodom, giving charity was actually forbidden. They would mark the money, and if you gave alms to a stranger, they'd see who did it and punish you.
So the two different views of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" are of someone who sees that as the norm (that's a normal person) and someone who requires that (that's the behavior of Sodom).
Rivka, you were the one who cited Pirkei Avot, not me. I wouldn't have done so, because calling Rabbit a fool or an evil person would be wrong. Particularly on Hatrack. But since that's what Pirkei Avot says, I'm kind of curious to know how you think that what she's saying is in any way consistent with what it says in Pirkei Avot.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit overwhelmed now by this thread, but I believe that people own their lives, but other people own part of their lives just by being intertwined in their threads. It's near impossible to live without getting entangled in someone's thread one way or another. It's impossible not to be responsible for other people or to have someone be responsible for you. Therefore your life is yours, but you have no right to take it because it also belongs to other people, just as someone doesn't have the right to take a life without good reason. That's my odd way of looking at things... I also believe in working hard to earn my keep in the world which is why I am typing this from my job and working overtime for the next two hours or more... I think people need to take care of each other for the corny reason that it really does make things better... things would be worse than they could be if people only looked out for their own and not for the whole, but if people just looked out for the whole of society and sacrificed their happiness (Mao comes to mind again)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So. Your parents gave all that to you with strings attached?
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that that isn't what Kate meant.
If you're going to constantly interpret other people's meaning based on your underlying premises, you are going to constantly be very wrong about what they meant.
Beyond that, your reply doesn't even make sense. Why does Kate's lack of deserving something mean that strings were attached?
quote:It's not a zero sum world. They could have given those same gifts to me, and I could have thrown them away and be living under a bridge in a cardboard box. What I did with them is what I did with them. Only I am responsible for those choices.
But you are not responsible for the vast majority of the environment around you that determined what the effect of those choices would be.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So. Your parents gave all that to you with strings attached?
I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation of what you quoted. It's as though you are commenting on something completely different.
She said "dependent".
So? Unless you can demonstrate what you did to deserve to be born, everything you do is dependent on something you didn't deserve - being born. That's not "strings attached."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Everything depends on what I was given. Without what I was given (by parents, God, fate, whatever), unearned, undeserved, I would not have been able to create, earn, or deserve anything.
Of course there were no "strings attached". If there had been it would have been a bargain or contract, not a gift.
edit to add: Thanks Dag and Porter for helping me clarify.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So. Your parents gave all that to you with strings attached?
I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation of what you quoted. It's as though you are commenting on something completely different.
She said "dependent".
Yeah. I read what you quoted the first time, including that particular word. Your talk of "strings attached" still doesn't make sense.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb: If it's a gift, with no strings attached, then Rabbit's argument of "Everything you have you owe to society" holds no water. There is no debt to pay. It was a gift, not a loan.
Rabbit, do you agree with KMB's statement that it's all a gift?
Lisa, Take a deep breath before you post. If you're still upset, don't post. And remember you can vent to me in email. I don't know if you're really angry or not, but some of the things you say are being read that way.
One who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" is a regular person. Others say that this is the behavior of Sodom.
So the two different views of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" are of someone who sees that as the norm (that's a normal person) and someone who requires that (that's the behavior of Sodom).
Not according to the Maharal. When we discussed this very mishnah in the weekly class I attend (this was probably 3 months back), we specifically discussed Ayn Rand, and that what Maharal described as midas Sodom was exactly consistent with Objectivism (well, my rav doesn't know the word Objectivism).
The Maharal says that the person with midas Sodom is the one who says, "I won't take anything from you, because that way, I can ensure that you will make no demands on me."
As it happens, I wasn't even thinking of that specific mishnah, but I'm glad you brought it up.
I was thinking of Ten lo mishelo, ki atah v'shelcha shelo.Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody exists outside of society and its rules. People who have control over a lot of resources (money, "stuff," the means to generate wealth) are in that position at least in part because of the context in which they live. If the rules were different, so too would their opportunities be. And, one assumes, their actions.
In a larger sense, and this is mainly a faith-based argument, all of life is a gift from God. If God were not, then we would not be either. If God had not willed creation, then nothing would have ever come into being.
These are not mutually exclusive viewpoints.
It seems to me that a rich person to feel no debt to humanity, or society is rather short-sighted. For example, there are all the people who sacrificed much to make America into the capitalist paradise it is. Without that prior sacrifice, what would there be for the Objectivist to work with here in the US?
Certainly a Rockefeller in Communist Russia might still rise to a position of power, but it was certainly easier and more rewarding to do so in the West, no?
I think it's equally short-sighted to deny that some people have more of what it takes to succeed in any given environment. For any given system, there are those who are ideally suited to exploit it, and those who are least able to exploit it.
Some people are going to excel in just about any environment. Some people are going to fail in just about any environment. But for everyone else, success or failure depends a great deal ln the rules in force for the society they live in.
An objectivist-leaning society would favor a certain type of person. I would call that person selfish and they would say "well, of course." Since the vast mass of people would not do well under the "rule" of objectivism, I suspect that the outcome of any move toward objectivist as a "state policy" would be wholesale rioting.
But then, I'm told I'm missing the point of Objectivism as being the only and best possible way for individuals to realize their true potential.
What I see is a justification for grabbing everything that isn't nailed down and claiming that possession is 100% of the law. At least, that's what I see as the real appeal of Objectivism's celebration of selfishness. The only barrier to outright criminality is supposedly the rational self-interest of the people. It makes me worried whenever anyone claims that rational (or as Lisa has stated "sane" people) would do x...especially since the vast majority of us don't agree with it.
Any philosophical movement that starts by claiming that the majority of the people it is trying to gain as adherents are currently not sane, or are being dishonest, raises red flags for me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In essence Smith is arguing that human labor has "intrinisic value". So if it takes me "1 unit of labor" to make a dose antibiotic and it takes you "1 unit of labor" to write a story, then it would be a "fair trade" if I gave you a dose of antibiotic in exchange for a story. Excellent example. Your example itself is proof that human labor cannot have intrinsic value.
No Lisa, the example proves only that market value and intrinsic value are not the same.
quote:Rabbit, do you agree with KMB's statement that it's all a gift?
Not exactly. I will agree that all of us benefit from things we did not and could not have earned, but my principal argument is quite distinct. I argue that we humans can not exist without a community. No human ever has and no human will ever be able to do so. We are born completely helpless. Without the help of others we could not live past birth. All of our basic skills including recognizing that hunger means we should eat, that thurst means we should drink, recognizing what can be eaten, what can be drunk, being able to walk, talk, recognize simple patterns . . . We humans are born with none of these skills, we have no instincts that tell us these things. We must learn them all from other humans. Whether other humans choose freely to care for us and teach us is effectively irrelevant, because we can not choose to refuse these connections. Even if, as an adult, you choose to move to a remote area, live in a hole and eat what you can forage, you can never escape the knowledge you carry with you from the community. You could not survive for even a few days without the knowledge that you gained from other humans. You can not choose to be independent of the society. Human beings can not survive without community any more than a kidney can survive without the heart, the lungs, the liver, and the mouth. Any philosophy that maintains that we are first and foremost individuals who have no obligation to community, does not understand the very basics of what it means to be a human being.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit and I part ways on several key points in this discussion and definitely think that there is an ethical basis for private property, but this exchange demonstrates why I find Rabbit's moral reasoning to be preferable in this thread:
Its curious what people have assumed about my position on private property, since I have never stated my position at all. All I have done is the question the assumption that "private property" is an inalienable human right.
I do see an ethical basis for privat property, but I view property ownership as a privilege and not a right.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can I ask that you show Rabbit a bit more courtesy, Lisa?
You can ask Tom, but your wasting your time.
And as I final note, I won't have time to return to this debate for at least three days. As provoking as I've found this discussion, I do have a life away from hatrack which has far greater intrinsic value than this debate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think I just did, actually.
Context?
I was referring to Rabbit's question :
quote:I am arguing that your claims that "Nothing has Intrinsic Value" and your claim that it is wrong for someone to steal your life are self contradictory statements. Please explain to me how they are not.
and referring to my post where I attempted to separate 'value', meaning money, from 'value', meaning the value we attach to a human life. Unfortunately another post intervened, so it wasn't quite clear what I was responding to.
quote:I think what you are saying is that while somethings may have "intrinsic value", money does not. I will agree to that.
Well, that's not at all what I was saying, so unfortunately the rest of your post goes off on a bit of a tangent. I am saying that 'the value of a human life' is a qualitatively completely different thing from 'market value', and that you are confusing them, which is really bad for the clarity of the discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the labour theory of value, I had the definite impression that this was Marx and not Smith. Not that it matters too much; whoever wrote it, it's plainly wrong since one hour of a skilled writer's labour can be a lot more valuable (even for some vague concept of 'intrinsic worth') than one hour of a bungling apprentice chemist's labour.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its curious what people have assumed about my position on private property, since I have never stated my position at all. All I have done is the question the assumption that "private property" is an inalienable human right.
I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. I thought you were taking the position that property is not an inalienable right, which I would consider to be a position on private property.
I do think it's an inalienable right. I don't think it means what Lisa claims it to mean, though. Not by a long shot. I also don't think that right must be expressed merely in terms of individual, exclusive ownership. There are all kinds of property ownership which are expressions of that right.
But I do believe that there is a state of being owned, and that once something is in that state, the owner has rights associated with it, and that those rights are inalienable in the same sense that liberty is inalienable. This leaves room for many restrictions within a society of laws.
(Also note that I don't believe that "inalienable" means absolute.)
I also think "ownership" is an appalling metaphor for human being, even for use as a person owning their own life. It's inaccurate on so many levels and tends to dull the distinction between things and people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: Different people's work is worth different amounts. This generally (GENERALLY) corresponds the supply (number of people who can do what you do) vs the demand(who needs/wants what you do)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of slavery and the possible immorality of owning things; pretty much anything that's owned at this time was built from 'stolen goods' at some point, right? Yet Lisa, apparently, definitely does not want this to be taken into account for some kind of compensation. On the other hand, I would assume that she does not object to freeing slaves, which are in some sense owned. (I appreciate that this is not 'real' ownership in Lisa's sense of the word, since the slaves' right to own themselves cannot be taken away, being built into the fabric of the Universe.) But what of the fruits of the slaves' labour? Shouldn't that also be taken away? (The slave owners, presumably, have no right to it, having coerced the labour out of their victims.) It wasn't in 1865, and I suspect Lisa would object if it were done now. So there is some limit in time at which stolen goods become really owned goods, right? But if so, it seems to me that Rabbit and Lisa disagree only on where the lie should be drawn, with Lisa putting it very close to the original theft, and Rabbit quite far removed in time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: All I have done is the question the assumption that "private property" is an inalienable human right.
What does being "an inalienable human right" mean? I would hold that the right to private property is an inalienable human right, but that the "right" to unlimited private property cannot exist because it interferes with other, more important, rights. An obvious example is that no one should be able to hoard all the food in the world, even if they earned this food in an honest manner, because this interferes with the most basic right, the right to life.
And the right to property can be given up, voluntarily by a very few who choose to live as monastics or otherwise communally, or involuntarily, by people whose criminal actions merit the seizure of (usually illegally obtained) property. I would love to see corrupt third-world politicians have their estates and limousines seized and auctioned to pay for hospitals and schools. They have voided their right to own by voiding others. Thieves have rights as do all humans, but the right to the property they steal is not one of them.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, that's not at all what I was saying, so unfortunately the rest of your post goes off on a bit of a tangent. I am saying that 'the value of a human life' is a qualitatively completely different thing from 'market value', and that you are confusing them, which is really bad for the clarity of the discussion.
Clearly, I'm not communicating well. I agree that the "intrinsic value" is qualitatively a completely different thing from 'market value'.
What I have meant by intrinsic value, is that somethings (although possibly not all things) have value without regard to their context. Somethings which might have intrinsic value include joy, love, beauty, peace, free agency, self determination or even private property. The key here is that if something has intrinsic value, then the question of why its valuable is obsurd. It has value because it has value. So when I have asked questions like "Why is slavery wrong", "Why is it bad for someone to steal your life", I have been intensionally asking questions which I know that Pixie and Lisa will find obsurd. My goal was to get them (or maybe someone else) to recognize that they do indeed recognize that somethings have intrinsic value. They see "free agency" and "self-determination" as having intrinsic value, so to them it is obsurd to even ask these questions. Unfortunately, as an objectivist StarLisa rejects the idea that anything has intrinsic value so rather than understanding the point of my question she simply accuses me of immorality for asking.
Now I need to explain why I keep trying to connect "intrinsic value" and "market value" which gets confusing because the two are not inherently connected. My argument is that the equity of any exchange depends on the intrinsic value of the items being exchanged and not their market value.
The "market value" of an object is nothing more than the price one can obtain for it in trade. This price is determined largely by supply and demand and there is no reason to believe that this price will bear any relationship to the "intrinsic value" of the objects being traded. Market value has no relationship to justice or equity or fairness. It is simply the amount one is able to get in trade. So in essence, if you are able to persuade someone to give you a quarter in exchange for 5 pennies, the the quarter has a market value (for this exchange) of 5 pennies.
So now let's imagine that two objects exist one of which has higher "intrinsic value" than the other. So suppose that you and I agree that I will give you the less valuable object in exchange for the object of greater value. Such an exchange is by definition "inequitable" or unfair. The objects being exchanged do not have equal value.
My arguement is that whenever the market value of objects is not proportional to their intrinsic value, then the market value is by definition inequitable. So when someone argues that it is "just" for them to own something because they have paid the market value for it, their argument can only have validity if there is some close correlation between market value and "intrinsic value" (which there generally is not).
The objectivist view point is that intrinsic value does not exist and so its pointless to even discuss it. Value is determined only by context. If two people consent to exchange two objects, the exchange is always equitable because the objects have no value outside of the context of the exchange.
Of course it is possible and consistent to believe that one thing, for example "self determination" has intrinsic value but nothing else does. If one held such a belief, then it would be consistent to believe that any exchange of objects which did not violate the "self determination" of the traders was just. But then of course one would need to justify the idea that "self determination" and only "self determiniation" has intrinsic value. If there are any other things which have intrinsic value, then we will have to check for the equity of each of these items in the exchange to determine if the exchange was just.
[ August 22, 2006, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to both Webster and OED, inalienable means: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. So if you believe that some right can be justly taken by society or forfeited for any reason, that right is by definition not an inalienable right.
Perhaps what you mean is that you believe that private property rights are "natural rights", which implies simply that there rights are inherent in the nature of the world rather than granted by any being.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to both Webster and OED, inalienable means: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. So if you believe that some right can be justly taken by society or forfeited for any reason, that right is by definition not an inalienable right.
I'm using "inalienable" in the sense that "unalienable" was used in the Declaration. Both words have similar dictionary definitions.
Under your definition, the "big three" of the Declaration are not inalienable - not life, not liberty, not the pursuit of happiness (or, as the Constitution put it, property) - so I agree with the contention that property is not an inalienable right under that definition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:About the labour theory of value, I had the definite impression that this was Marx and not Smith. Not that it matters too much; whoever wrote it, it's plainly wrong since one hour of a skilled writer's labour can be a lot more valuable (even for some vague concept of 'intrinsic worth') than one hour of a bungling apprentice chemist's labour.
Your objects indicate a misunderstanding of what is meant by "1 unit of labor". Smith explains it fairly well in Chapter five of the wealth of nations.
quote:EVERY man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.
The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What everything is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
and then later
quote:It is of difficult to ascertain the proportion between two different quantities of labour. The time spent in two different sorts of work will not always alone determine this proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity exercised, must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labour in an hour's hard work than in two hours' easy business; or in an hour's application to a trade which it cost ten years' labour to learn, than in a month's industry at an ordinary and obvious employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate measure either of hardship or ingenuity.
So in essense, Smith is claiming that labour has intrinsic value. That value is difficult and possibly impossible to precisely qualtify because it involves not only the time, but also the difficulty and skill involved. None the less, Smith is arguing that such a value exits in the abstract.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many who believe that life is an inalienable right. In fact, I believe that is the position of the Catholic church. The right to life can be violated (as all right can) but it can not be forfeited or taken from anyone.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
posted
All right; I have to say, Smith is rather better at explaining it than you were.
About intrinsic value; can you measure it? If not, it essentially doesn't exist. (And if you're going to measure it by some sort of average market value, why not simply use the market value in the first place? No need for an extra concept.) You did mention that it might be possible to believe that only self-determination has intrinsic value; clearly, then, not everyone agrees on what the intrinsically valuable things are. Further, there are plainly many things for which it is absurd to posit any such intrinsic value. For example, suppose I have a watch my father gave me; it is valuable to me because I value the memories; in other words, it gives me happiness. I suppose you would agree that it has intrinsic value, no? But it doesn't have that quality for anyone else, being rather battered and not very good at keeping time. What is the intrinsic value of this watch, that it has regardless of circumstances?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
One who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" is a regular person. Others say that this is the behavior of Sodom.
So the two different views of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" are of someone who sees that as the norm (that's a normal person) and someone who requires that (that's the behavior of Sodom).
Not according to the Maharal. When we discussed this very mishnah in the weekly class I attend (this was probably 3 months back), we specifically discussed Ayn Rand, and that what Maharal described as midas Sodom was exactly consistent with Objectivism (well, my rav doesn't know the word Objectivism).
The Maharal says that the person with midas Sodom is the one who says, "I won't take anything from you, because that way, I can ensure that you will make no demands on me."
As it happens, I wasn't even thinking of that specific mishnah, but I'm glad you brought it up.
I was thinking of Ten lo mishelo, ki atah v'shelcha shelo.
Fine, God owns us all. What does that have to do with this? B'dinei shamayim, any kinyan that any of us do is like the "ownership" of children, when their parents really own all of their things. L'Hashem ha-aretz u-melo'o. But you haven't addressed ha-motzi me-chaveiro.
And the medrash about what they actually did in Sodom sort of makes it clear what pshat in that mishnah in Pirkei Avot means. With all due respect to the Maharal's drash, you can hardly just set that aside.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Objectivists (not Randians -- that's a slur)
I'm curious, which do you see as a more serious slur. Randian or "anti-life".
It depends. I tend to think of a descriptor which is justified as less of a slur than one which is not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Speaking of slavery and the possible immorality of owning things; pretty much anything that's owned at this time was built from 'stolen goods' at some point, right? Yet Lisa, apparently, definitely does not want this to be taken into account for some kind of compensation. On the other hand, I would assume that she does not object to freeing slaves, which are in some sense owned. (I appreciate that this is not 'real' ownership in Lisa's sense of the word, since the slaves' right to own themselves cannot be taken away, being built into the fabric of the Universe.) But what of the fruits of the slaves' labour? Shouldn't that also be taken away? (The slave owners, presumably, have no right to it, having coerced the labour out of their victims.) It wasn't in 1865, and I suspect Lisa would object if it were done now. So there is some limit in time at which stolen goods become really owned goods, right? But if so, it seems to me that Rabbit and Lisa disagree only on where the lie should be drawn, with Lisa putting it very close to the original theft, and Rabbit quite far removed in time.
If I steal a hammer, and use it to build a building, the building is still mine. I owe the hammer to the real owner, and I owe whatever damages will cover the fact that the owner was deprived of the hammer for the amount of time that I had it. I don't owe him the building.
I hadn't even been thinking of the idea of slave reparations, but while I think that heavy reparations should have been paid to actual slaves, I don't for a second think that such a debt is hereditary. Nor that it is some sort of "societal debt". My family wasn't even in the US at the time that there were slaves, for example. And I suspect there are no remaining slaves, either.
And before you ask, because I know you, and I know you're going to, I'm opposed to Holocaust reparations to family members of Holocaust victims as well. Actual survivors is a different story.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: They see "free agency" and "self-determination" as having intrinsic value, so to them it is obsurd to even ask these questions.
No, I don't. They are rights. But it's interesting to see that you've backed down from some of your more absurd claims. If saying that you were being intentionally absurd in order to be provocative is a useful face-saving technique, I'm okay with that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, as an objectivist StarLisa
It's Objectivist (objectivist doesn't mean the same thing), and it's Lisa; not StarLisa.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: rejects the idea that anything has intrinsic value so rather than understanding the point of my question she simply accuses me of immorality for asking.
There's nothing immoral about thinking there's such a thing as intrinsic value. There's nothing immoral about thinking there's such a thing as the Tooth Fairy, either. It's where you go with it that's immoral.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Now I need to explain why I keep trying to connect "intrinsic value" and "market value" which gets confusing because the two are not inherently connected.
Nor can they be. One exists. One does not.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Market value has no relationship to justice or equity or fairness.
It has everything to do with justice and equity. It reflects a mutual meeting of minds. A free and uncoerced agreement between two sides.
There are ultimately only two ways that individuals can get something they want from someone else who owns it: Persuasion or coercion. Every single method of acquiring something from someone else boils down to one or the other of those options. There is no third option. And for all the grey in the world, this is a case where things are black and white. Coercion is always the immoral choice.
As a collectivist, you've made it very clear that you think some forms of persuasion are actually coercion. But words have meanings, Rabbit. If there is no threat to take away what's yours by right (including harming you and including reneging on an agreement), there's no coercion.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So now let's imagine that two objects exist one of which has higher "intrinsic value" than the other.
No can do, Rabbit. There's no such thing. Any two objects you could think of could have higher and lower values to different people in different contexts.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So suppose that you and I agree that I will give you the less valuable object in exchange for the object of greater value. Such an exchange is by definition "inequitable" or unfair. The objects being exchanged do not have equal value.
It's not inequitable or unfair, because both sides have agreed to it. It's a perfectly moral and just transaction. No one can claim that one or the other object has a higher "intrinsic value" both because there's no such thing, and because you literally have nothing objective that you can use to measure such a fictional quality.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The objectivist view point is that intrinsic value does not exist and so its pointless to even discuss it. Value is determined only by context. If two people consent to exchange two objects, the exchange is always equitable because the objects have no value outside of the context of the exchange.
That's correct. And unlike your view, there are no fictional quantities that need to be sought in order to make it work.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Of course it is possible and consistent to believe that one thing, for example "self determination" has intrinsic value but nothing else does.
No one has claimed any such thing. You've deliberately introduced such a claim as a strawman to knock down. Self determination doesn't have intrinsic value. It may be a value, but it doesn't have a value. When I go to work, I'm choosing to exchange a degree of my self-determination (within the bounds of my job) for recompense. Self-determination is, for me, a value. In my current context, making a living is a higher value, for me, than full self-determination. I can't take off in the middle of the day to go and see a movie. That's the choice I've made.
You've invented the premise that I (and Pixiest) hold self-determination to be an intrinsic value. I say again: there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Only subjective and contextual value.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If one held such a belief, then it would be consistent to believe that any exchange of objects which did not violate the "self determination" of the traders was just. But then of course one would need to justify the idea that "self determination" and only "self determiniation" has intrinsic value.
The question, though, is why anyone would want to justify such a thing. Just because Rabbit invented it and attributed it to us?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If there are any other things which have intrinsic value, then we will have to check for the equity of each of these items in the exchange to determine if the exchange was just.
You have no yardstick for such a thing. Just your personal feelings. And those have value only to you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to get involved in this conversation, Lisa, but the tone you're taking makes it less than compelling for me. Would you be willing to be marginally less hostile, so that I might feel more inclined to participate?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tom about the tone, but I will make one more attempt to explain what I meant.
The way I was taught Ten lo, which I realize is not the literal reading, but I thought was a common second reading, is:
Give to him (the poor person) what is his, because you and yours are His (God's).
That is, you are merely a steward of any wealth God has allowed you to amass. You do not actually OWN anything, and by failing to give money or goods to whoever God wants you to give them to, you are actually stealing from them.
Hamotzi me'chaveiro is a question of practical law, not necessarily of ethics. It also applies only between two individuals. You may not think that there exists such a construct as society, but it is clear that Chazal did.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
