flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (10/14/83)
Response to Tom Craver: On defining "to value" -- now I get it (I think!). You were defining held values (=wants), which you distinguish from actual values (which you define as = needs). Yes, I encourage you to use "wants" and "needs" instead of "held values" and "actual values". The reason is that it is rather presumptuous to *definitionally* reserve the term "actual values" for needs, just as it would be for a religion to use "faith" to mean only their own beliefs. What is needed is a third expression: "correct wants". You can then state your ethical viewpoint as "a person's correct wants = that person's needs." I can state mine as "a person's correct wants = everyone's needs." You ask "why did you spend so much time claiming that there is no need for a valuer ...". I didn't -- I couldn't, since I never understood your use of the word "valuer" until (I hope) now. I spent a lot of time claiming something slightly different, and I suspect you are confused because your understanding of the word "valuer" contains an ambiguity which you haven't noticed. I.e., you are trying to use one word (valuer) for two concepts, "beneficiary" and "evaluator". Can't I see that all my "basic goods" require a living person to do the valuing ...? You didn't specify held-valuing or actual-valuing. Since held-valuing = wanting, the answer if you meant held-valuing is no. Since actual-valuing = needing and needing supposedly = correct wanting, the answer if you meant actual-valuing is a qualified yes. Yes a needer is required, although it need not be a person (animals can feel pleasure). Yes a correct-valuer is *implied* (more accurate than saying required), in fact more than one is implied (unless the person is the only one in the world). Can't I see that they are only of basic value to the one experiencing them? I would say they only directly benefit the one experiencing them, but that's not the same thing. They are of basic value simpliciter as well as of basic value "to" someone (whatever that means). These experiences are "inextricably tied to life", 'tis true, but what is not separable may still be distinguishable (as you implicitly acknowledge when you say life is more fundamental). Yes life is more fundamental than these experiences in the sense that it can exist w/o them but not vice-versa, but the *worth* of life is not more fundamental but is *derivative* from these experiences. A *good* (or bad) life cannot exist w/o any good (or bad) experiences. My "list" of experiences is somewhat redundant: they have something in common (which is what makes them the list of "hedonistic" goods). Pleasure/happiness/joy are not essentially reactions to achievement of held-values (= wants). Although achieving one's wants is usually pleasant, it is not always (when one wants what one doesn't need!), and neither is it necessary to have wanted something to enjoy it. You are right that one can accept my "basics" as truly fundamental without *implying* (emphasis added) that they are valuable *to others* (whatever that means). You are even right that one can accept that without implying that they are "correct wants" for everybody. But you need to defend the idea that they aren't -- it isn't obvious. And now, time for an apology. You did, as you say, provide an answer to my question why you should want others to be selfish, independently of trying to refute my previous statements. Sorry for not acknowledging that. You say you don't agree that contributing to the public good is morally required. I thought you wouldn't, but I wasn't sure. Anyway, now that you admit a selfish person needn't contribute to public goods like scientific research, perhaps you will see why I say that other people's selfishness may sometimes work to your disadvantage. Only an Objectivist could think that selfishness-vs-altruism constitutes 90% of a person's rationality. People who perform well on every other measure of rationality are supposed to be 90% irrational if they show basic-level concern for others? Alas, now I must confess to having little idea how rational some of my best friends and favorite media personalities are -- I don't know how selfish they are. But now I must suspend judgement as to the rationality of brilliant scientists, philosophers or writers until they reveal their selfishness/altruism. Oh well, live and learn. --Paul Torek, U of MD, College Park (new address:) umcp-cs!flink