Help on definitions

Please provide the most simple, but most complete definition you can think of for the following:
Value, virtue, moral(ity), selfishness

I just need a better definition than what I'm working with, or what I find in dictionaries, in order to make and define a more seamless philosophy for myself.

Post 1

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 1:44pm

Objectivism's take on these terms:

Value - that which one acts to gain or keep.
Virtue - the act of gaining or keeping it.
morality - a code of values to guide one's choices and actions.
selfishness - acting with motivation that the actor be the primary or ultimate beneficiary of her or his own actions.

In under 2 minutes,
Jordan

Post 2

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 1:54pm

How do you know that you need them?

You seem to have some cultural approximation of meaning that probably worked well enough for most of your life and now, you are asking more cogent questions. It may well be that no "dictionary definition" is going to suffice. Allow me to suggest that such "definitions" are only orwellian duckspeaking. In 1984, George Orwell suggested that the State wanted people to be able to "quack"the party line reflexively, without thinking. "Who is the enemy?" East Asia! "Who is the traitor?" Goldstein! So, too, do we in our public education teach reflexive responses from "July 4, 1776" to listing the "Five (Well Known or Dare I Say 'Cliched') Causes of the Civil War." Dictionary definitions are part of that. The dictionary only tells you what the editors decide most people usually seem to mean when they use a word. Writers who bolster their arguments with definitions "according to the dictionary" are weak-minded. If you have issue with a word -- What is "Justice"? -- then, deal with it. If you require a special understanding from your reader -- What is "Selfishness"? -- then address it. If you wish to built an argument, whether a syllogism or a sorites, and you need to establish meanings, then state them. It may be, however, that your needs are beyond the one-line witticism of a stand-up comic.

Value, virtue, moral(ity), selfishness...

Value? "That which one wishes to gain and/or keep," said Ayn Rand. The problem that I have with that is the and/or. It is an example of incomplete thinking. Is that an exclusive disjunction "or" or an inclusive? What is the negation of and/or? I ask because in logic DeMorgan's theorem says that not (A or B) <=> (Not-A) and (Not-B). So, if a value is that which one wishes to gain and/or keep, what is a non-value?

Morality is a word about which libaries of books have been written. Anyone who offers you one-liners is probably a comic. A couple of years ago, I had a class in Ethics for Police Officers. There can be nothing more consequential to matters of life and death than what a police officer considers "moral" or "ethical." Our textook and our instructor used the words "moral(ity)" and "ethics" interchangeably. My arguing the fine points only slowed the class down. I am satisfied that I know the difference. I am not responsible for the what rest of the world believes.

Make up your own words and your own definitions. I knew an engineer who advocated for "vork" as "the speed of darkness."

Post 3

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:11pm

Marotta, the guy is in an Objectivist forum. My guess is he was looking for the Objectivist definitions of these terms, which is why I quacked them out. If Funk is a big boy like you say he is, he can figure out whether they're worthwhile.

Jordan

Post 4

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 4:01pm

As for not taking what you say as my solemn doctrine, I assure you (with a good chuckle) there is no danger of that. Thanks Jordan.

At any rate chief, perhaps you can tell me what you think the difference is between ethics and morality. Or perhaps you'd like to take me by the hand and give me a lolly. I've initiated this discussion for the sole purpose of refining an already existing definition. I will take some and probably leave most of it. I had hoped that much was evident, but if I need to define my purpose behind every question I ask on this board, I'll come up with a template.

Post 5

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 8:00pm

It may seem surprising, considering most equate the two terms, but morality is religious ethics - not that ethics is secular morality, because that becomes a contradiction in terms......

Post 6

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 9:21pm

Job well done, Jordan.

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 9:41pm

Objectivists adhere to an ethics of trade based on a morality of self-interest, Joseph. If you have done work in this area, and you want to gain from our own, then the fair thing to do is to offer in return for the efforts delivered already.

Morality is how you act alone on an island. Ethics is how you act in public. Ethics defines your relationship to other people. Morality is a consequence of metaphysics. In a Deep Space Nine episode, Quark knew that it would be unethical for a Klingon to attack him with a weapon. At Quark's bar on the Promenade, everyone pays for their drinks because that is moral. Ethical behavior is defined, but not constrained, by moral requirements.

Post 8

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:04am

Michael stated,

Ethics is how you act in public. Ethics defines your relationship to other people.

This is NOT a good description. Rand defines virtue as the action by which one gains and keeps values. Reason is a cardinal value and it gives rise to the primary virtue: rationality. A life proper to man asks that we be rational - and that is whether we are on an island or in public.

It's a serious mistake to treat ethics as a social convention. The trader principle is NOT the source of ethics. Man's life is the source of morality and that morality is the source for ethics.

Post 9

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:11am

Well noted, Steve.

Ed

Post 10

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 3:13pm

Wait, I'm confused. What is the difference between morality and ethics then? Lest you think I'm being deceptive, I really don't know the answer. They seem interchangable to me. If anything, I see ethics as = morality, with an emphasis on how one's morality affects others.

I've had the same concept of virtue for many years, but I got it from thinking about Aristotle, before I heard of Rand. I would have provided almost identical words. I struggle with the definition of a value, though. As we discussed before, there are several ways to use the word, and maybe two in Objectivism. Help me out a little more on value:
"virtue [is] the action by which one gains and keeps values."
"that which one acts to gain or keep."
thus
"Virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps that which one acts to gain or keep."

What? And while we're at it, why? Also, referring again to post 2, what does a "code of values" mean? Would it be correct to interpret this to mean that morality is nothing more than living according to one's values? Is it safe to phrase it this way: "selfishness is acting in accordance with one's morality."?

I'm not really interested in my own version of it right now, but since some people seem to be, I'll try a little here. A thing of value is that which makes one happy. Do you act to gain or keep anything else? One's own values are things which one believes will make one happy. I find it prudent, therefore, to choose values that will actually bring happiness.

Morality would, therefore, include both the obtaining of correct (correct = will actually bring happiness) values, and the living thereof. Selfishness, in an Objectivist sense anyway, would be living in a way that brings happiness. It seemed very simplistic when I looked at it, thus this post.

And MEM, while I have disagreed with several of your posts here and elsewhere, I may have been a little bit overly sarcastic yesterday. No offense was intended.

Post 11

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:11pm

Joseph, be confused no more (m-w.com to the rescue) ...

morality
conformity to ideals of right human conduct

ethics
a guiding philosophy

philosophy
a search for a general understanding of values and reality

virtue
a particular moral excellence

value
relative worth, utility, or importance

code
a system of principles

selfish
seeking or concentrating on one's own ... well-being

What is the difference between morality and ethics then?

Nothing.

"Virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps that which one acts to gain or keep."

Virtue is the moral excellence -- excellence gained from practice -- that aims at objective value-attainment.

And while we're at it, why?

Because "life" without "value" is meaningless.

what does a "code of values" mean?

A system of principles aimed at the attainment of things that are of relative worth, utility, or importance. A code of values -- more properly, a hierarchy of values -- allows one to know the right decisions to take in otherwise difficult situations.

Would it be correct to interpret this to mean that morality is nothing more than living according to one's values?

Not necessarily. All living is a living according to one's values (except when folks betray themselves, and do things that they come to regret later -- because they weren't exercising enough moral discipline at the time, for whatever reason).

Is it safe to phrase it this way: "selfishness is acting in accordance with one's morality."?

Yes, with a caveat. Often one's adopted morality is anti-self (i.e., altruistic). In such cases, selfishness would be acting in discordance with one's morality.

A thing of value is that which makes one happy. Do you act to gain or keep anything else?

Yes and yes (when in error).

One's own values are things which one believes will make one happy.

It's more accurate to say that what one values "are things which one believes will make one happy." Because you can personally "value" things that aren't actually of any objective value to you (as when a mystic values God's "feelings" and acts "accordingly").

I find it prudent, therefore, to choose values that will actually bring happiness.

We're on the same page there, Joseph.

;-)

Ed

Post 12

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - 7:39pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but the term 'value' in O'ist lexicon...according to Rand...is defined as "that which one acts to gain and keep" with no 'or' added in. --- I understand it's Nathaniel Branden's formulation to add the 'or' (argued as with Rand's imprimatur) and regardless that, as shown in earlier posts, questions arise from this, many prefer to use NB's version rather than her original one. Any questions about 'or' however are for NB to clarify, I believe.

LLAP
J:D

Post 13

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - 7:42pm

Addendum:

A further point on this term 'value' per O'ism: in Galt's speech, Rand delineates HER meaning beyond that simple sentence (as one can see if one reads further) for the purpose of distinguishing 'value' from random desires...something to keep in mind if one's not going to misconstrue her 'definition', even accidentally.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 5/09, 7:45pm)

Post 14

Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 9:07am

John,

Rand uses the "and/or" formulation in "The Objectivist Ethics" as well as in _Intro to Objectivist Epistemology_. I'm guessing the earlier formulation of it in Galt's speech was a mistake.

Jordan

Post 15

Monday, May 14, 2007 - 4:13pm

Jordan:
     Hmmm...hadn't read that in a while. Ok.

     In that case, I'd figure that the 'or' was meant as exclusive since an inclusive meaning would be redundant with the 'and/.'

     Interesting though, that she didn't more simply say, in either case "...gain or keep" which would also make the 'or' totally inclusive.

LLAP
J:D

Post 16

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:34am

For whatever it's worth, Joseph, Nathaniel Branden stated publicly while he was still in Rand's good graces that there is no fundamental difference between the terms "ethics" and "morality" -- that they both mean basically the same thing. So, I guess you can take that as the official Objectivist view of the matter.

- Bill

Post 17

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 12:32pm