RoR: Forum

Tibor, thanks for the input. I agree that virtues are a key component to this issue of rational self-interest. By abstracting the methods of achieving values, and putting those into practice, you have a means that isn't limited to the short-term or the long-term.

I don't think that's enough, though. Without some unified moral standard to judge individual values or actions, the virtues can't be very effective. For instance, you can aim to be productive and put that into practice, but if you're producing "values" that are less optimal or even wasteful, how would the virtues guide you away from it? Take an example of a young college graduate that has to decide how to spend his time. Say he takes two significant values. The first one is career. If he spends a lot of time up front, he can really advance his career. Whereas if he gets distracted, he may find himself categorized as a certain kind of employee, and it'll be much harder to advance later. Like if he doesn't take the time now to really get good at his job, he'll gain a reputation as a sub-optimal employee who can't be trusted with much responsibility.

Now for his second value, he wants romantic companionship. Maybe to pursue that, he needs to spend time making lots of friends and networking. Maybe he needs to practice his social skills. He might decide he needs to get plenty of exercise and some interesting hobbies. Or maybe he just needs to experience "life" so he'll have something to talk about. All of these could help him improve his chances of finding the right girl. If he puts this stuff off, he may have a harder time later. He won't get to date younger girls because he'll be too old for them. Or he won't have the opportunities he has at that point (a common complaint people make).

And now let's rule out the happy medium, because it's too convenient.

So how does he choose? Both examples are consistent with the virtues, and in fact probably take all of the virtues to put into practice. Simply being virtuous isn't a solution.

I'll be the first to admit the problem is difficult. I present it to try to show what kind of tool is needed. To make that kind of choice, you need some way of weighing the two options. You need a moral standard that's clear enough that you can measure these complex choices against it. You need to be able to look at the values and costs involved with the choices, and try to select those that are more important to the kind of life you envision for yourself. I'm convinced this has to be done by having a view of your life that has the elements so well integrated that you can see clearly what it is you're aiming towards, and weigh these complex choices against it by seeing which one gets you closer to where you want to be. It's difficult, but it's the only way I can see to getting a real solution.

I also think the virtue based approach doesn't make sense without this kind of moral standard. I've argued elsewhere that virtues are deeply contextual, and they always require thinking and understanding to put into practice. They highlight important causal connects, and steer you away from bad methods and hopefully towards useful methods, but it still requires plenty of value judgments. So while I agree that virtues are a powerful tool, they still need a moral guide to give them proper direction.

I think if you have a very fuzzy view of what you want out of life, the virtues can be a powerful tool to keep you out of too much trouble and will basically lead you in pretty much the right direction (assuming your fuzzy view isn't too far off).

Post 21

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 6:05am

Speaking of virtues, Tara Smith's latest is coming out in paperback in a month, thus enabling a reach to wider audience and greater critique......

Post 22

Friday, March 16, 2007 - 2:28pm

A virtue based approach rest on the moral standard of one's human life. Thus, given the virtue of rationality, which is central to living such a life, a career choice needs to rest on who and what one is. The former is highly individualized and needs to be identified by each individual (with a little help from family and friends), the latter is of course one's human nature and sets limits by why of rights and such on what is proper for one to choose to do.

Post 23

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 10:06am

"Yes, there is no hope in treating ethics in terms of particular interests, short or long term. But there is a sense in which virtue ethics, which identifies guidelines to living, secures one's rational self-interest. Because this sense of "interest" is not cashed out in terms of distinct, particular items--this car, that insurance policy, this hug, that vacation--but in terms of a method for living--honestly, courageously, prudently, productively, generously, and so forth. The moral virtues, when diligently practiced, secure for one (even through their practice, not only by way of the results) a happy life, which is an ongoing, continuous, self-generated process." - Tibor

Tibor, I have no disagreement with the need for virtues, which I see as the form of an ethical and happy life. But your dismissal of interests (if I may use the term dismissal) seems to me to mean ignoring the substance of life. I see form and substance as inseperable. As an analogy, I see your argument as saying something along the line that a chemist should strive for accuracy and precision in his measurements, he should consistently pay attention to significant figures, and should use just one system of measures such as metrics, but whether he works with carbon or fluorine, or benzene or ethanol really doesn't matter. I am curious where you think one's specific values arise? Do people have values which they must then either integrate or discard according to principle? Or are you saying that if one is simply rational and ethical then values will arise on their own, as a consequence? The fact that a chemist uses the metric system and strives toward accuracy wouldn't seem to imply to me that he would then know what products he would wish to synthesize and which reactants would be necessary means toward that end. And, of course, babies have values (not convictions - but things which they "act to gain or keep") long before they are capable of ethical thought. Are you not advocating form without substance?

Ted Keer

Post 24

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:48pm

The former is highly individualized and needs to be identified by each individual (with a little help from family and friends),

Mr. Machan if a person is a rational person, he should be able to identify what he is with-out the help of friends and family, unless he is a very young person! Don't you agree!

Ciro

Post 25

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 1:16pm

But at times he or she can make use of their insights--it can even be efficient, even if not imperative.

Post 26

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 10:55am

Joe,

I liked your original article, but I don't find your example of the person having to choose between investing the time to establish a reputation as a good worker and spending time looking for (or preparing oneself) for a romantic relationship to be a good one, for a number of reasons:

In today's advanced economy in which most jobs (even quite challenging ones) are forty or at most fifty hours a week, there is plenty of time for the active and thorough pursuit of both productive career and romantic love. And it's unrealistic to think either that the rational employer is going to think only the person who puts in seventy hour weeks is the only good worker. Plus in most fields, one can switch jobs and find another employer - there is a huge job market and no one indispensable, lifetime job. Also, what one did just out of college or for a portion of one's early career can be erased by good work, successes later on. You're allowed to make some mistakes, to find your own niche, even switch careers in most lines of work . . . in fact the latter is becoming more and more common.

With regard to the romantic value: On the one hand, time spent developing, for example, one's social skills / people assessment and physical fitness itself can make one better at one's career. The first gives you a better ability to deal with your coworkers, your boss, choose between different companies. The second gives you more energy, physical alertness, blood flow to the brain, etc. to get more out of each hour of work. And finding the right person can make you happier and better adjusted and more energized, all of which can make you better at work. (Of course, it works in reverse, the productive hard-working, intellectually engaged with work person is more attractive to the right kind of woman, the kind he needs in the first place, than the person who drifts or has no high and consuming goals.)

This supposed concrete "clash" between values is actually an example of your point about the need not to balance incompatibles or clashing values (or in this case, to exclusively choose one or the other for a major portion of one's life) but to integrate the two. Which is what my discussion here is trying to do. The integration, of course, does involve a trade-off: in this case the limited variable is -time-. You have to figure out the most sensible amount of time to put in at your career (there is reading and thinking outside of the forty hours in some more demanding careers) and at the romantic side.

I'm sure you were not advocating this, but the big mistake so many people make (and I find this a lot among "perfectionist" or obsessive types, including many Objectivists) in choosing how to pursue multiple important values is to think it is either-or, all or nothing, one choice done perfectly will not allow any time spent on the other. So many people are workaholics or romanceaholics or partyaholics or gymrataholics.

They go overboard, either enjoying one alternative so much or thinking it is so overriding a value needing all one's focus, that they don't realize that if you are wise and judicious you -can- have it all. Not in terms of concretes (the entirely perfect, unflawed job; the romantic relationship with physical perfection and no annoyances). But in terms of fundamental values and goals.

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/18, 11:19am)

Post 27

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 2:21pm

Scott,

I'm having a hard time understanding a lot of your post. Perhaps you're speaking with a terminology I'm not familiar with, and your lack of examples prevents me from deciphering it. Or it could be that I just disagree with a lot of what you said.

For instance, you say that you believe the majority of people adhere to a unified value system. I don't see that at all. I see intrinsic values dominating the moral landscape. Things like:
1.) Other people. (Altruism)
2.) The environment. (Environmentalism)
3.) The life of animals. (Vegetarianism)
4.) Having faith. (Christianity)

Not that some of these can't be legitimate values in some contexts, but they're accepted as moral values without purpose or reason. You can't have a unified value system when you include random intrinsic values. And there's a much longer list of intrinsic disvalues, like working on the Sabbath, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, pornography, etc., etc.

And if these unknown people really had a unified value system, wouldn't they all be Objectivists? How can their value system be unified when they accept altruism into the mix, which if they were consistent, would lead them to death? Hell, they'd be better than Objectivists, since they've figured out all the little details about how to integrate the various aspects of their life into a single unified value system. Sounds amazing to me. So I'm entirely confused by what you think "unified value system" means.

Also, you talk about "moderation" or "balancing" as a kind of filter. But I don't see how they could be. From my understanding of the terms, they come about when someone has two ways of judging their values, neither of which makes sense. Another example is the political left and right. Both are severely flawed, so "moderation" is deemed as good. This isn't a filter. A filter within the context of a unified value system would mean something that focuses you on the most important values. This moderation intentionally steers away from the most significant of either extreme. It is a way to undercut both standards and try to steer somewhere between them where there'll be less damage. Moderation literally means "avoidance of extremes". It assumes there are more than one. In a unified value system, the term couldn't even apply.

Another problem I seem to have is your emphasis on happiness, or emotions. While emotions can act as a short-cut when you've already reasoned something out, as you mention, they don't work beyond that context. You can't use them to solve calculation problems. That is, you can't use them to decide your value hierarchy. They are the product of it. By trying to use them in the place of a rational process, you just obscure the problem and become a slave to out of context emotional reactions.

Similarly your discount rate could work if you are comparing emotional states. The specific discount rate you'd pick is arbitrary, and there's a serious problem of being able to compare your emotional state now with your expected emotional state in the future. But these are minor problems. The major problem is that it centers around decision making by emotions.

Post 28

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 4:28pm

Steve,

My "Time and Value" speech isn't available online. I'd have to dig it out, which I guess I will at some point.

I want to be clear that this article isn't really trying to address the bigger issue of integrating short and long term interests. That was just an example. I'm really just trying to point out the kind of problem that stems from having two standards, and the fact that the "solution" of balancing them doesn't fix anything.

In terms of integration, the wider point is that if you can combine the two distinct standards into some more ultimate standard, you can suddenly make rational trade-offs between the two. Or by integrating the best parts of both standards into a new standard, you can shrug off false dichotomies. In the question of the open-system vs. closed-system, for instance, we may find both sides unsatisfactory. The closed side may require an orthodoxy and ruling body to protect the system. The open side may let each individual decide what is and isn't Objectivism, and won't put up any fight if it gets distorted and abused. There are many other possible characteristic of each side, but this one shows the point. You don't want to find a "balance" between the two. How would it work? Be dogmatic and literal about some things, and completely non-judgmental about others? Or have an orthodox ruling body who is limited on what they get to decide is the truth? Balancing just doesn't work. But integration can. You can integrate the goals. You can hope to promote Objectivism and let it grow without letting it get distorted. You can recognize that some ideas are integral and fundamental, and others are more ambiguous and debatable.

Integrating emotions and rationality is another example. Since emotions are intimately connected with our value-judgments and past reasoning, we can indirectly tune them to be more rational. We don't have to choose one or the other since we can work to align them. It may not always work, and it may certainly not be easy, but it is rewarding and life-affirming.

Now do I understand your comments? Are you confused about this process of integration in general, or are you really focused on the integration of short and long-term values. I take it your comments are mostly about the latter?

I've had three speeches that approached this issue. Only one is online. That's my Meaning of Life speech (on this site). Each is an attempt to more fully integrated a person's view of their life, so that it can be used to weigh more choices. The premise behind it all is that if life is our standard of value, our conception of this life must be robust enough to deal with all of the different kinds of decisions we need to make.

In the "Meaning of Life" speech, I promoted the view of life as a process instead of as a state. I gave a number of examples where the "dynamic" view of life is superior to the "static" view. Part of the integration there was integrating the methods with the results.

In "Time and Value", I point out this issue with short and long term values. I try to show various ways of integrating the two. The goal is to establish a view of your life as a whole. You see it not just as a process, but as a progression. And once you think about it in those terms, there are new tools you can use to judge it. Things like having a plan, or judging a rate of progress. Nothing revolutionary in these ideas, but understanding them as tools for solving this problem is interesting and useful.

The last one on the topic was "The Story of Your Life". The goal was to go a step further by trying to have an even more integrated view of your life, and I offered the idea of thinking of your life as a story, focusing on the most important elements, but seeing how all the other details support those larger elements. I'll try to make that available as well.

These are just my own attempts at trying to establish this more comprehensive and integrated view of your life. It seemed I had gotten to the point where I didn't have an interested audience, or it required too much background reading, so I haven't pursued it much since then.

I know that's probably not enough of an answer, but hopefully it outlines my approach some more so you can see where I'm coming from. I certainly don't want to try to tackle such a huge problem in a forum post.

Post 29

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 4:53pm

Thanks for the comments, Phil.

I want to slightly disagree with what you've written. But before I do that, I want to point out that the example is not supposed to be a common one. It's supposed to highlight the idea of having two very legitimate values, but having to make serious trade-offs between them, potentially even abandoning one. The virtues themselves won't help you decide, as they are necessarily abstract. To make this kind of trade-off, you need a clear vision of what you want out of your life, and how you are planning on achieving it. Given the importance of both values in the example, I think it does a good job of showing the need for a very informative standard of judgment.

Now the slight disagreements. You mention that if you work harder later in life, you can recover. There are a number of obstacles, though. Once you have a relationship, it's harder to put in those 80 hour weeks, for instance. Also if you've got a track record of being a mediocre employee, I know I personally will not want to hire you in an important role. For instance, if I interview someone with 15 years of experience, but he's not much better than someone with two or three years, I won't want to hire him. As people get older, they tend to put less work into the job, preferring steady hours. Or they may be lazy about details, whereas a young person will work very hard to not miss anything. I don't think I'm exceptional in making this kind of judgment. So even if we agree that late in life you can make a big change, there are definitely costs associated with it. You may find it take much longer to grow in your career later in life than earlier. And with high turnover rates in some industries, going to find a job somewhere else means finding someone who worked with you when you were lazier, and they may recommend against you (or limit your position in the new company). There are countless ways delaying taking your career seriously can hurt you. And we haven't even gotten to the question of whether older people are capable of learning as quickly as younger people.

Also, what if you're in a position with continual growth opportunities. If you delay when you're really going to get going on your career, you'll always be behind the curve. Is it better to invest the time upfront where the returns will be highest? If you don't, you have to admit that there is a cost associated with your decision.

So while I don't think normally it's an all or nothing kind of situation, it should be clear you can't have everything without costs. You can choose a career that does no more than 40 or 50 hours a week, but you may be ruling out many other possibilities.

I do agree that some people try to be "perfectionists", abandoning every field except one so they can really devote themselves to it. That's certainly not what I'm suggesting or encouraging. But I also wouldn't go down the path of suggesting them to try to have it all when it can easily undermine there more important values. We have a value hierarchy so we can pick the most important ones, and adjust our values accordingly as we achieve them. But then to keep this value hierarchy rational, we need that moral standard to keep it all in perspective.

Post 30

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 10:40pm

> the example is not supposed to be a common one

Joe, with the above qualification, I don't think I'd disagree with anything in your last post. With regard to possible costs you mention of starting to 'get serious' later, you list many penalties or costs one can incur which -could- have a heavy impact on someone's life.

I would just want to add, however, that it seems that it depends a lot on the field of endeavor, the job or career. In certain fields and contexts the barrier or cost may vary or not apply:

In fact, there are fields where wise employers -prefer- people who have 'bounced around, had a breadth of experiences or more than one kind of work, taken a while to get serious, etc. and they legitimately may not equate that in all cases with being a mediocre employee in general. Now if someone is -in fact- a mediocre employee and it goes deeper than just "finding himself", then that can be a different matter. Or if the job is a professional one (brain surgeon or classical pianist, to take one extreme, as opposed to forest ranger or stevedore) which objectively may require decades and/or a certain number of hours per week across a long period to master . . . Lots of possible different contexts. Corporate mold. Entrepreneurial mold. Self-employed. Part-time worker who works half a week and studies or pursues a new or second career or other interests the other half.

(This very detailed chewing of only one type of example of 'balancing' considerations may be taking us a bit afield from your essay - whose purpose was to advocate integration . . . so I don't want to beat to death the productive effort/romantic effort concrete and hijack your thread.)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/18, 10:52pm)

Post 31

Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:07pm

Phil, I agree. The costs I mentioned are specific to one area, and probably don't generalize well. I imagine there are different costs or benefits in other areas. As you suggest, sometimes getting a wider level of experience is considered useful. Actually, at Intel there's a famous rotation program they often have new college grads try. It's one year, but split into 4 3-month parts. You get to experience 4 different areas of their company so you can get a better idea of where you want to go. I hear it's very useful for someone on the management track. But when they're interviewed for an engineering position, they're not given much credit for that one year. There's not enough depth in 3 months of work to really learn anything. And nobody wants to give any real responsibility to someone who's leaving in a few months. It takes that long to learn something in that field.

Post 32

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 9:40am

Joseph,

I don't think the open-system vs closed-system fits in this thread. A person wouldn't attempt to balance or to integrate them. A person would choose one and not the other and participate and believe accordingly.

The point I was making in that other thread was that the movement as a whole, decades from now, might be better off for having had both systems - it might spread more efficiently but without becoming intellectually fragmented like Libertarianism has. It was from a perspective outside of any participating individual (because the individual must always choose one system or the other).

Seeing the importance of having both systems existing could dimimish the hostility between the two sides - and that was all I was interested in doing.

Everything you are talking about in this thread is within a person - all are choices that person is making. They are all cases where there are two standards.

I'll read the other two articles "Meaning of Life" and "The Story of Your Life" before saying any more - and then I'll get back to you.

If you get around to putting "Time and Value" on-line, please let me know. Thanks.

Post 33

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 9:13pm

Steve, while the thread mostly deals with an individual's decision making process, it also deals with an organization's decision making process. I think I mentioned business profits as a unifying standard. I don't really want to dwell on the open vs. closed, as I discussed it in detail elsewhere. I'm only trying to point out that if you do find some value in both approaches, it's possible to integrate them into a new approach.

Post 34

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:12am