Structure of the Values and Virtues

As I read "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, the four virtues of Independence, Integrity, Honesty and Justice all represent aspects of Rationality, i.e. right methods of using the mind. Ayn Rand herself said that the cardinal values of Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem had three corresponding cardinal virtues of Rationality, Productiveness and Pride.

In "Limits to the Effectiveness of Moral Judgment," I used this breakdown to show a relationship among the values and virtues of the Objectivist ethics:

Life

Reason
      Rationality
          Independence
          Integrity
          Honesty
          Justice

Purpose
Productiveness

Self-Esteem
Pride

So this raises the question of exactly how many major virtues she actually advocated. In his chapter on "Virtue," Leonard Peikoff in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand contends that Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness and Pride all represent aspects of Rationality. So does this mean there are six major virtues, or seven including Rationality? Do they all carry equal weight?

I find this very frustrating. I need to get totally clear on this for my book. I can only make sense of the relationships when I break them into the outline I showed earlier in this post. More to the point, I see relationships between the ultimate and cardinal values and virtues and the four basic human needs:

Spirit -- > Self --> Selfishness
Emotions --> Self-Esteem --> Pride
Mind --> Reason --> Rationality --> Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice
Body --> Purpose --> Productiveness

This last statement represents my current outline for presenting the values and virtues in a way a lay person can readily grasp. If you have a better way to present them, speak now.

Post 1

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:02am

One thing you might consider is that Independence, Integrity, Honesty, and Justice have to do with dealing with other people, whereas, Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride are relevant even if you are the only person on Earth. So, I would see those first four as springing from Rationality in the context of living in a society with other people.

Post 2

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:11am

Another gloss has been given by Peter Saint-Andre in his 1993 essay
"A Philosophy for Living on Earth," which was published in Objectivity.

Here is an ABSTRACT:

�A Philosophy for Living on Earth� by Peter Saint-Andr�

Volume 1, Number 6, Pages 137�73

Human beings �need philosophy for the purpose of living on earth,� wrote Ayn Rand. To that purpose, she designed an ethical theory with three cardinal values for man: �Reason, as his only tool of knowledge�Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve�Self-Esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.�

In a full and close reading of the Randian texts, Saint-Andr� discerns another set of cardinal values, concordant with her banner-triad, but more effective as a set of principles to guide choice and action. In this better set are four cardinal values:

Conceptualization, Self-Determination, Achievement, and Enjoyment.

These four values, Saint-Andr� argues, �can all be characterized as forms of cardinal human activity that are essential to and that together constitute the ultimate human activity of living.�

Saint-Andr� sees in Rand�s ethics a theory of happiness as integrated self-fulfillment, which he locates within the Aristotelian ethical tradition. The cardinal value of Enjoyment in the banner-quartet of Saint-Andr� raises the question of whether he smiths Rand�s ethical theory into a version of hedonism. He addresses this concern, looking closely at the nature and role of pleasure-pain and joy-suffering in Rand�s ethics for living on earth.

Post 3

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:53pm

Stephen, thank you for the interesting reference. I will stay with Ayn Rand's original formulation as it marks the overall structure of my book.

Laure, thank you for the illumination on the four virtues as only applicable in a social context. I saw Dr. Edwin Locke of the ARI speak at University of Florida at Gainesville a few years ago on "Religion versus Postmodernism versus Objectivism." When he discussed the virtues, he stated that only Justice dealt with a social context. So I need to chew on what you have said.

Your argument makes sense although I could see how someone in solitude on an island could still act viciously through Dependence on his unexamined emotions, Corruption through loyalty to unrealistic ideas and Dishonesty through lying to himself. However, he could not live very long in that fashion! So the only time when we need explicitly those four virtues comes when we find ourselves in a social context. In total solitude, simple Rationality will suffice.

Does anyone else have further comment? I have found this exchange helpful.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:13am

Laure Chipman wrote: Independence, Integrity, Honesty, and Justice have to do with dealing with other people, whereas, Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride are relevant even if you are the only person on Earth

You get a big red check from me for that, Laure. It was brilliant. So-called "Crusoe Concepts" are important to general philosophy, not just ecoomics. Thank you, again.

Post 5

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 5:24am

Stephen Boydstun cited Peter Saint-Andre:

Saint-Andr� discerns another set of cardinal values, concordant with her banner-triad, but more effective as a set of principles to guide choice and action. In this better set are four cardinal values:

Conceptualization, Self-Determination, Achievement, and Enjoyment.

Again, a big red check ...

English has an advantage in its extremely rich vocabulary derived from Germanic and Latin roots, and accreted from many other languages. Mullagitawny and pemmican; moccasin and catamarran; hookah and calumet; ... We mean slightly different things in slightly different contexts by synonyms such as Conceptualization and Reason... Self-Determination and Independence.

It might be said that at root, "independence" commits the fallacy of the stolen concept, because the logical precedent is "dependence" -- literally, hanging on to another person, typically, your mother.

As a general rule, one of the weaknesses that I find in philosophy a lack of philology. Words have meanings.

Post 6

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 8:46am

No surprise - most of our language stems from tribalist premises, and as Rand pointed out, civilization is the process whereby man is freed from man, which is to say, the process of individuation, which in effect means the discovery of 'anti-' premises of tribalism......

Post 7

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 3:05pm