trc@houti.UUCP (08/23/83)
Response to Paul Torek: {more Objectivist morality}
You ask me to be more specific about the "interaction of humans and the
nature of the thing". Let me give an example of interaction: A rock has
a nature (eg it is hard, massed, but can be worn away), and flowing
water has a nature (it is moving, fluid, massed, etc), and when the two
come together, their interaction is slight friction (and other effects)
that has the result that the rock is slowly worn away. Analogously, a human
has the property of having needs (EG oxygen) and some things have properties
that can satisfy those needs (EG air). If the human and the thing are
separated, the thing will have *potential value*. If the two are together
enough so that the human knows of the thing, the thing has *observed* value.
If the human uses the thing to satisfy a need, it has *immediate* value.
A short definition of a value is "that which one will act to gain or keep"
(Ayn Rand). This is a *practical* definition - it describes a method of
identifying a value. (My attempt above at defining a value might be a
"descriptive" definition. I think both are true, and address different
aspects.)
You ask if I stand by "no values without a valuer", in light of your
definition of "one who thinks something to be valuable". No, not with
that definition. You are speaking of a different sense of "value". I
am speaking of *objective* values, while you are speaking of *subjective*
values. The experiences of sentient beings have value only to *them* (not
*intrinsic* value - that would mean the opposite of subjective - without
reference to the sentient creature). But while a plant does not have the
consciousness required to understand and appreciate the things valuable to it,
that does not mean that there are not things that are valuable for its life.
There is a difference between "imaginary" and "not absolute". I objected
to "imaginary", not to "absolute". Luxuries are things that are primarily
for pleasure, needs are things that are primarily to keep one alive, and
then everything else lies on a spectrum between those two ends.
In saying "living can be fun", I was merely pointing out that there is a
good cause to continue living. I was not trying to say that this *required*
one to go on living. If a person really doesnt want to, they should go ahead
and commit suicide. But if one accepts life as a good thing for one to have,
there are certain things that one must realize that life requires for
its continuation. One could not "go directly for the good experiences",
ignoring the needs of life, and expect to have good experiences for very
long. It would only be a couple hours before one got hungry, if nothing
else. If one then knew of a wonderful feast high on the mountaintop, but
had a bowl of nutricious but awful gruel at hand, you would be saying "start
climbing!". I am saying "eat the gruel, because you couldnt make it up the
mountain in your weakened state. Then, if you can rationally make it to
the mountaintop, start climbing - if not, work to survive until you can
get the means to get up the mountain". Of course, in real life, there is
no "feast" just waiting out there - one has to work to create it. The
really neat thing is that humans have the ability to *create* feasts,
and so to enjoy life.
Being a "jerk" *is* less basic that being a human being - just try pointing
out a few non-human jerks. In fact, in order to be a jerk, one must first
be alive, and have the capability to be rational, and then *selectively*
ignore that capability, and act like a jerk.
I have addressed the issue of rights in other notes. Murdering is not
*necessarily* giving up one's own humanity, but it is *denying* it, or
denying its nature. If one makes a habit of it - IE if one takes murder
as a permanent way of life, I think one could be said to have given up
any claim to humanity.
I will try to define some rules for claiming property - but these are
just my own thoughts, on what would be a reasonable method of doing it.
Possession is not a mystical quality added to material goods. Rather,
it is an *active process*. One must establish a purpose for some land,
and tend to its fulfullment. (EG one might establish a wildlife sanctuary,
and then build fences or patrol its borders to keep people out.) Note
that if no one has *any* prior claim to the land (as we are assuming),
then no one will object to this. The tougher cases are boundary cases,
where some small claims are made - EG to the scenic beauty of some land.
But in general, if no action has been taken to secure the benefits, there
is no valid claim for possession.
In your case of the water, one cannot say that the person owned all the
water flowing by. But one could say that the person owned the property
right to *use* of a certain amount of water from that stream. If they build a
water-wheel, they could claim a right to extract a certain amount of power
from the stream. That is the thing that they are using, and that they
have a property right to claim. In a similar manner, radio and TV
broadcasters should own the right to broadcast electromagnetic waves of
particular frequencies with a particular amount of power. They do not
own all the radio waves. Of course, this is not how we have historically
handled it in the US. The US government essentially claimed all the unclaimed
land as its own (it did not use it - just claimed it). It also did the same
for air-rights, electromagnetic waves, etc. It may have been just for it
to fix objective rules for claiming property - as in "homesteading".
Tom Craver
houti!trc