Moral Dilemma #2

[Sarah Beth 0]

Basically my questions were as follows:

So it is never practical to act immorally?

I was thinking more on this after I posted and wondered whether there is a grey area of possibly amoral acts between moral and immoral on the continuum, and that those may be practical? Is there such a thing as an amoral act really?

←

I

I am tending to think any evasion is immoral, but it might be practical-which brings me to what I saw as the issue in this thread, is whether morality is sometimes to be judged below practicality in the heirarchy (obviously if force is initiated then that is the main case under discussion).

I've read all the responses, and Betsy seems to be the closest to what I had previously understood, but then this response has me confused again:

When thinking only in short term, the diagram might look completely different, possibly with the moral being "impractical" and the immoral being "practical"--but it is an ERROR to consider only the short term. Further, the "optional" choices, which arise when it would be a vaste of time to evaluate the alternatives, are not present on my diagram; since their practicality is not known, their morality cannot be judged.)

←

( a vaste of time )

But seriously, am I to understand that all moral acts acts are practical, and that there is no grey area in the "long-term" and that one must always judge an action by it's full context meaning long term consequences, and that short term thinking-while practical when you have to make a quick decision-is immoral and thus actually impractical in the long run?

But if it is a waste of time to evaluate the alternatives, that makes it amoral?

Your simplistic diagram has confused me even more

[Capitalism Forever 0]

( a vaste of time  )

←

Oh my gosh, I'm getting really careless! Good to know that my little spell checker is paying attention.

But seriously, am I to understand that all moral acts acts are practical

←

Yes, I think the phrase "the moral is always the practical" implies that. If it went, "the moral is always practical," that would leave room for immoral acts that are practical too; if it went, "the practical is always moral," it would leave room for impractical acts that are moral too. When the "is" is between a noun and an adjective, it means attribution--units of the specified concept have the specified attribute--but when it is between two nouns, it means equivalence, i.e. that the two specified concepts are fully interchangeable for all relevant purposes.

and that there is no grey area in the "long-term"

←

I would prefer to call it colorless instead of grey: "grey" could be taken to mean a mixture of moral and immoral elements, while "colorless" makes it clear that morality simply doesn't apply.

Now, even if you always think long term, you will face many small and insignificant alternatives where the choice you eventually make cannot be judged morally. For example, if you have to decide whether to eat an apple or a pear, you won't spend days researching which one is better for your life; you know that neither is significantly better than the other, so--

<-Practical->|<-Impractical->

<---Moral--->|<---Immoral--->

|___CHOOSE___|___DO FULL____|

|__RANDOMLY__|___RESEARCH___|

--it would be impractical, and therefore immoral, to waste your time thinking about it.

Therefore, in this case, your choice between the apple and pear can be graphed like this:

<-No difference in practicality->

<------------Amoral------------->

|___EAT APPLE___|____EAT PEAR___|

On the other hand, if you know that apples make your stomach ache and pears don't, the diagram will look like this:

<--Practical-->|<--Impractical-->

<----Moral---->|<----Immoral---->

|___EAT PEAR___|___EAT APPLE____|

So either you have a graph with a known difference in long-term practicality, which implies a difference in morality, or you have a graph with no known difference in long-term practicality, which makes the alternative amoral.

and that short term thinking-while practical when you have to make a quick decision-is immoral and thus actually impractical in the long run?

←

When you have to make a quick decision on an important matter, you still ought to keep your long-term interest in mind; what is different is that you cannot wait until you are certain that you have found the best option with regard to your long-term interest, but have to act on a mere probability that the action you choose will eventually serve your long-term interest. This is where emotions come in handy, provided that you have been rational in the past: If your emotions tell you to prefer option A to option B, AND your past evaluations have been rational, then you have a useful lead as to which option is probably the better one.

When you face an unimportant matter--like the apple vs. pear decision without the threat of stomach ache--the moral and practical thing to do is to make a quick decision. The decision to decide quickly is moral; the decision to eat a pear is amoral, as is the decision to eat an apple.

Hope this clears things up.

[Sarah Beth 0]

Oh my gosh, I'm getting really careless! Good to know that my little spell checker is paying attention.

Yes, I think the phrase "the moral is always the practical" implies that. If it went, "the moral is always practical," that would leave room for immoral acts that are practical too; if it went, "the practical is always moral," it would leave room for impractical acts that are moral too. When the "is" is between a noun and an adjective, it means attribution--units of the specified concept have the specified attribute--but when it is between two nouns, it means equivalence, i.e. that the two specified concepts are fully interchangeable for all relevant purposes.

eh? Ok, so what I should have said (in my opinion) is "am I to understand that all moral actions are always practical?" I don't think they are, but I wan unclear in how I stated this.

I would prefer to call it colorless instead of grey: "grey" could be taken to mean a mixture of moral and immoral elements, while "colorless" makes it clear that morality simply doesn't apply.

Sure, I get that, no problem-colorless it is.

When you face an unimportant matter--like the apple vs. pear decision without the threat of stomach ache--the moral and practical thing to do is to make a quick decision. The decision to decide quickly is moral; the decision to eat a pear is amoral, as is the decision to eat an apple.

Ok, now this is something I can sink my teeth into.

Hope this clears things up.

←

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think it clears up for me your position, although I think I disagree with you still on some aspects, but I'll take it to the other thread.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Even small acts like dusting a computer can have moral status, albeit, like you said, a very minor and optional one. 

[...]

It occurs to me that this realm of optional pertains to actions that may not actually have any beneficial effect, or, at best, a very minor one, but will not (except under extremely bizarre circumstances) have a detrimental one.

←

I would emphasize the importance and great moral significance of optional values.

Because Objectivism is a philosophy of principles (rather than commandments or rules) and because its goal is the life and well-being of individuals, almost all of its major virtues require optional choices. A person should be in focus, but which aspect of reality he chooses to focus on is optional. A person should be productive, but it is his choice whether to be a writer or an architect or a businessman. These optional choices are anything but minor. They are of supreme importance.

The reason I brought up optional values was that it is the only area where something can be moral yet, depending on the context, impractical.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But seriously, am I to understand that all moral acts acts are practical

Yes, I think the phrase "the moral is always the practical" implies that.

Observe that this is an abstract statement of principle, but the "practical" refers to the application of principles to concrete, specific situations.

Therefore, in this case, your choice between the apple and pear can be graphed like this:

<-No difference in practicality->

<------------Amoral------------->

|___EAT APPLE___|____EAT PEAR___|

←

Here's my graph (when my supermarket is out of pears):

<-------------MORAL --------------><-------------IMMORAL------------>

<--------Eat nutritious food -----><---------Eat poison-------------> Principles

<------Apples---><---Pears--------><----arsenic---><----cyanide-----> Options

<--Practical--><----------------------Impractical-------------------> Practicality

[Betsy Speicher 0]

THIS is better

Here's my graph (when my supermarket is out of pears):

<---------MORAL ----------><--------IMMORAL------>

<---Eat nutritious food --><------Eat poison-----> Principles

<---Apples--><---Pears----><--arsenic-><-cyanide-> Options

<-Practical-><------------Impractical------------> Practicality

[Sarah Beth 0]

I would emphasize the importance and great moral significance of optional values.

Because Objectivism is a philosophy of principles (rather than commandments or rules) and because its goal is the life and well-being of individuals, almost all of its major virtues require optional choices.  A person should be in focus, but which aspect of reality he chooses to focus on is optional.  A person should be productive, but it is his choice whether to be a writer or an architect or a businessman.  These optional choices are anything but minor.  They are of supreme importance.

The reason I brought up optional values was that it is the only area where something can be moral yet, depending on the context, impractical.

←

Ok, this is why I brought it up in the other thread. I think what that has gotten into is two sides arguing that are essentially in agreement, but I could be wrong.

I see what you mean, but then what I gathered from CF was that he just circumvented the whole complex diagram because basically there is only one moral course through it all. To draw it out it's like :

<--------Moral--|-----Immoral----------------------->

<-----|--MORAL ---|-------><--------IMMORAL------>

<---E|at nutritious |food --><------Eat poison-----> Principles

<---A|pples--><---|Pears----><--arsenic-><-cyanide-> Options

<-Pra|ctical-><----|--------Impractical------------> Practicality

____V_________V

Although admittedly this is crude but I hope it illustrates my understanding of what CF said.

Once the tiers have been determined, there is still only one moral course to take.

So at this point I'm at a loss.

I thank you for being more specific, I wish I could find the specific questions I'm having. Maybe I'll come back to it ...

[Free Capitalist 0]

Hmm, this thread and my thread on morality/practicality are beginning to seriously overlap...

[Dufresne 0]

A friend or acquaintance has just asked you a very personal question (about your love life, an embarrassing health condition, etc.).  You really don't want to answer it, but you feel obligated to say something.

What do you do?

I have read many of the posts in this thread but not all of them. I skipped, for example, the most recent ones containing diagrams.

There were arguments about the interrogator's state of knowledge after one has reacted to the question but as far as I can tell nobody has yet written about what the interrogator could do afterward.

Assume you are dealing with a very curious interrogator. If one did not reveal the truth and if one did not lie then this reaction might increase the interrogator's curiosity. Maybe the interrogator is not satisfied with a response that leaves him ignorant. Maybe he does not merely want to guess what the answer is but wants to be certain. I think in such a case, and it is not merely a hypothetical case because I know such curious people first-hand, one could properly decide to lie in order to instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity and thereby protect one's privacy long-range. This, of course, assumes one has what it takes to tell a lie convincingly and that the interrogator is not generally distrustful of what you tell him.

If, however, one knows that the interrogator respects one's privacy and will not try to pursue the topic then I think the best solution would be to simply say that one is not willing to discuss this topic.

[Dufresne 0]

in order to instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity

I think the word "kill" in this context is improper, "satisfy" is a better choice.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Assume you are dealing with a very curious interrogator. If one did not reveal the truth and if one did not lie then this reaction might increase the interrogator's curiosity. Maybe the interrogator is not satisfied with a response that leaves him ignorant. Maybe he does not merely want to guess what the answer is but wants to be certain. I think in such a case, and it is not merely a hypothetical case because I know such curious people first-hand, one could properly decide to lie in order to instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity and thereby protect one's privacy long-range. This, of course, assumes one has what it takes to tell a lie convincingly and that the interrogator is not generally distrustful of what you tell him.

If, however, one knows that the interrogator respects one's privacy and will not try to pursue the topic then I think the best solution would be to simply say that one is not willing to discuss this topic.

←

I don't get this. If I understand you correctly you are justifying lying as a means to manipulate the future behavior of this interrogator so that he will not pry any further into your personal business. You want to "instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity." Absent of force, I just do not see it as my proper role in life to manipulate people under any ciricumstances. I choose to be honest and use reason if I want communication, or if I do not want to communicate then I reveal nothing at all. Hence, my choice is to say "It is none of your business" if I want to keep something personal, and whether that person's curiosity is killed or not is not under my control.

[piz 0]

I don't get this. If I understand you correctly you are justifying lying as a means to manipulate the future behavior of this interrogator so that he will not pry any further into your personal business. You want to "instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity." Absent of force, I just do not see it as my proper role in life to manipulate people under any ciricumstances. I choose to be honest and use reason if I want communication, or if I do not want to communicate then I reveal nothing at all. Hence, my choice is to say "It is none of your business" if I want to keep something personal, and whether that person's curiosity is killed or not is not under my control.

←

I'm re-reading The Fountainhead and just passed this conversation between Toohey and Dominique:

"...Ellsworth, why did Mallory try to kill you?"

"I haven't the faintest idea. I don't know. I think Mr. Roark does. Or should. Incidentally, who selected you to pose for that statue? Roark or Mallory?"

"That's none of your business, Ellsworth."

"I see. Roark."

Interesting, relative to this thread.

[Dufresne 0]

I don't get this. If I understand you correctly you are justifying lying as a means to manipulate the future behavior of this interrogator so that he will not pry any further into your personal business. You want to "instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity."

You do understand me correctly.

Absent of force, I just do not see it as my proper role in life to manipulate people under any ciricumstances. I choose to be honest and use reason if I want communication, or if I do not want to communicate then I reveal nothing at all. Hence, my choice is to say "It is none of your business" if I want to keep something personal, and whether that person's curiosity is killed or not is not under my control.

I would like to know your reasons for your solution to the dilemma.

Would you decline to answer the interrogator's question even if you knew that this would ultimately lead to a revelation of the information you want to keep secret?

Why can it be moral to lie when subjected to force and why is it immoral to lie in order to protect one's privacy? Do you consider lying a violation of the interrogator's rights if you are not subjected to force?

Do you fear you could loose your credibility by lying to the interrogator?

Do you refuse to lie to the interrogator because you value him and do not want him to use false information as a basis for future knowledge acting on which could hurt his interests?

Would you refuse to lie even if it made you more vulnerable to blackmail?

If my only goal is to maintain my privacy then lying is the most practical option, in my opinion. But maybe you do have other objectives that I am not aware of.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I don't get this. If I understand you correctly you are justifying lying as a means to manipulate the future behavior of this interrogator so that he will not pry any further into your personal business. You want to "instantly kill the interrogator's curiosity."

You do understand me correctly.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your position. Please tell me in what way my words above incorrectly describe the essence of what you said.

Absent of force, I just do not see it as my proper role in life to manipulate people under any ciricumstances. I choose to be honest and use reason if I want communication, or if I do not want to communicate then I reveal nothing at all. Hence, my choice is to say "It is none of your business" if I want to keep something personal, and whether that person's curiosity is killed or not is not under my control.

I would like to know your reasons for your solution to the dilemma.

Would you decline to answer the interrogator's question even if you knew that this would ultimately lead to a revelation of the information you want to keep secret?

What do you mean by "revelation of the information you want to keep secret?" If there is factual information known only to me that I want to keep private, there can only be a "revelation of the information" if I am the one who reveals it. If I do not reveal the information, then all the interrogator has is his opinion, and I have no interest in or repsonsibility for the opinions he holds.

Why can it be moral to lie when subjected to force and why is it immoral to lie in order to protect one's privacy?

As Galt says in his speech (Atlas Shrugged, p. 940) "Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." When force is being used against me, the very context of the moral principle of honesty has been destroyed. In the absence of force we have the normal context of the moral principle of honesty. I do not consider a question from a person to be an instance of force. Therefore, the virtue of honesty holds.

Do you consider lying a violation of the interrogator's rights if you are not subjected to force? Do you fear you could loose your credibility by lying to the interrogator?

Do you refuse to lie to the interrogator because you value him and do not want him to use false information as a basis for future knowledge acting on which could hurt his interests?

My concern with lying has nothing to do with the interrogator. Honesty is a virtue I practice for myself, in order to remain true to reality.

Would you refuse to lie even if it made you more vulnerable to blackmail?

Nothing could make me vulnerable to blackmail, since I do not accept blackmail as proper and would never be a part of it. If a person attempted to blackmail me because of what they think they know, I would either ignore them or go to the police if what they did was illegal.

If my only goal is to maintain my privacy then lying is the most practical option, in my opinion.

Since the moral is the practical I would question whether your goal is actually achieved by lying, as well as question why you think that your privacy needs to be maintained against the opinions of others.

But maybe you do have other objectives that I am not aware of.

←

My only concern for my privacy is that I do not reveal what I do not want to be known. I cannot control the opinions and views of others, but I can control what I choose to reveal.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

You do understand me correctly.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your position....

←

Apparently I did correctly understand Dufresne's position, but I could not read his simple declarative statement correctly. I must have mentally inserted a "not" between the two words "do understand." So, I apologize for apologizing, if that makes any sense.

Sorry to Dufresne for my own confusion.

(But the substance of our interesting discussion remains.)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Why can it be moral to lie when subjected to force and why is it immoral to lie in order to protect one's privacy?

←

Lying doesn't work and puts me in opposition to reality. It is not something I would do voluntarily. If someone is threatening me with force, voluntary action is not my option and I will do anything necessary to remove the threat.

Do you consider lying a violation of the interrogator's rights if you are not subjected to force?

Do you fear you could loose your credibility by lying to the interrogator?

Do you refuse to lie to the interrogator because you value him and do not want him to use false information as a basis for future knowledge acting on which could hurt his interests?

It has nothing to do with the nosey snoop and everything to do with my own sacred relationship with reality.

Would you refuse to lie even if it made you more vulnerable to blackmail?

As a practical matter, if I were trying to conceal a fact and were caught lying about it, I would be MORE susceptible to blackmail, not less.

[Dufresne 0]

What do you mean by "revelation of the information you want to keep secret?"

I should not have used the word "revelation". What I wanted to know is this: Suppose you knew that your refusal to answer a personal question would increase the interrogator's curiosity, leading to him doing research with the ultimate consequence of him knowing the information you want to keep secret. To be honest, I do not understand honesty . In this particular instance, for example, it might pay off to be honest about my ignorance because someone else might point out some facts I was not aware of leading to increased knowledge and better actions. But given the above assumption, what is the benefit of honesty when you know that this practice guarantees a loss of privacy? What do you gain by or avoid loosing through honesty in this particular situation?

If I faced the initial moral dilemma then I would have to consider relatively many factors. I would have to consider whether I think the interrogator will believe my lie, his level of curiosity, his level of intelligence, whether he would be capable of infering the truth from what he already knows about me, what I could possibly loose by a loss of privacy, etc.

If you faced the same moral dilemma then you could simply answer the question of whether you are subjected to force and act accordingly.

Do you refuse to lie because you think that most of the time you won't get away with your lies and the rest of the time you will get away with it but it is not worth all the thinking and worrying and that this resource-saving benefit outweighs the benefit from cases in which you can get away with lies?

My concern with lying has nothing to do with the interrogator. Honesty is a virtue I practice for myself, in order to remain true to reality.

What do you mean by "to remain true to reality"? Personally, I love truth. But I do not pursue knowledge for its own sake. I want my ideas to correspond to reality because I need knowledge in order to live. If I want to live I must be rational and if I want to be rational I must seek truth, not falsehood. But I fail to see how I must refuse to lie in all situations (except when I am subjected to force) if I want to be rational. Do you believe that telling lies weakens one's own respect for truth? Or that one starts to distrust other people more because one knows that oneself is lying and others might do the same?

[Dufresne 0]

Lying doesn't work and puts me in opposition to reality.

Do you claim that lying never does work?

What do you mean by "opposition to reality"?

It has nothing to do with the nosey snoop and everything to do with my own sacred relationship with reality.

How is your "sacred relationship with reality" disturbed by lying? A liar, by definition, knows the truth.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I should not have used the word "revelation". What I wanted to know is this: Suppose you knew that your refusal to answer a personal question would increase the interrogator's curiosity, leading to him doing research with the ultimate consequence of him knowing the information you want to keep secret.

In essence I already answered this, but let me say it in other words. I am only responsible for my own actions, not for the actions of others. I do not seek to control or manipulate other people; I deal with them by reason or I do not deal with them at all. If there is something about me that I want to keep private, then I do just that; I keep it to myself and do not tell anyone. What someone else thinks he knows about me, through whatever "research" he performs, is his business, not mine. I cannot (and should not attempt to) control the actions of others, unless of course what they do is illegal and then of course I would involve the proper authorities.

To be honest, I do not understand honesty . In this particular instance, for example, it might pay off to be honest about my ignorance because someone else might point out some facts I was not aware of leading to increased knowledge and better actions. But given the above assumption, what is the benefit of honesty when you know that this practice guarantees a loss of privacy?

I know no such thing. Again, if I want to keep something private I do so, and then my privacy can never be lost as a consequence of my actions. If someone else thinks that they know something about me, that's there business, not mine. Until and unless they do something that legally harms me, such as defamation of character, I have lost nothing, including my privacy.

What do you gain by or avoid loosing through honesty in this particular situation?

I maintain my integrity. My integrity is served by taking a long-term perspective on morality, not what appears expedient at the moment. And, even from an immediate utilitarian point of view, lying makes little sense here. If a person does not believe me if I tell him it is none of his business, what makes you so sure he would believe me if I lied?

Do you refuse to lie because you think that most of the time you won't get away with your lies and the rest of the time you will get away with it but it is not worth all the thinking and worrying and that this resource-saving benefit outweighs the benefit from cases in which you can get away with lies?

There cannot be any long-term benefit from faking reality.

But I fail to see how I must refuse to lie in all situations (except when I am subjected to force) if I want to be rational. Do you believe that telling lies weakens one's own respect for truth? Or that one starts to distrust other people more because one knows that oneself is lying and others might do the same?

←

Any attempt to fake reality does a disservice rationality.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Do you claim that lying never does work?

←

Yes I do. Making false statements abount reality, doesn't change reality. Saying something is what it isn't, doesn't turn something into was it isn't. If a fool claims to be a genius, his claim doesn't turn him into a genius.

What do you mean by "opposition to reality"?

When you say something that isn't true, what IS true can come back and bite you at any time. You not only have to fear reality, but the real consequences of lying about it too.

How is your "sacred relationship with reality" disturbed by lying? A liar, by definition, knows the truth.

He also knows that the truth -- and anyone who knows the truth -- is his enemy.

[Dufresne 0]

My integrity is served by taking a long-term perspective on morality, not what appears expedient at the moment.

I have been thinking about the Objectivist standard of value ("man's life qua man"). If one chooses a long-term perspective on morality (as you wrote) then doesn't that mean that goods such as food or money are no values if they are obtained in a way which is harmful to oneself over the long range? And when I write "no values" I mean that they are literally undesirable, worth nothing to me, completely uninteresting. For me this would be an entirely new perspective on values. Until recently I was convinced that food was a value no matter what because I want to survive and without food I die and therefore food is a value. Is that what Ayn Rand meant when she wrote the following?

Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If one chooses a long-term perspective on morality (as you wrote) then doesn't that mean that goods such as food or money are no values if they are obtained in a way which is harmful to oneself over the long range? And when I write "no values" I mean that they are literally undesirable, worth nothing to me, completely uninteresting. For me this would be an entirely new perspective on values. Until recently I was convinced that food was a value no matter what because I want to survive and without food I die and therefore food is a value. Is that what Ayn Rand meant when she wrote the following?

←

The Objectivist view is that values exist in a causal hierarchy with some values more important than other values. The hierarchy consists of means-to-ends relationships like this one:

Food --> physical energy and health --> physical action --> pursuing a career --> success and happiness --> the desire to keep living --> life.

Actually, it is much more complex than that with many causes and options at every point and moral standards, implicit or explicit, guiding the choice of options. Hopefully, you get the basic idea, but if not, I'd be happy to elaborate further.

Because values are hierarchical and the achievement of some values depends on achieving others, it is not in our self-interest to choose a means that destroys our ends. Eating food is a value, but not eating food that I am so allergic to that it will kill me.

Likewise, the achievement of almost all values depends on maintaining a certain character and ethical approach to life. Abandoning rational virtues in the short run has major negative consequences on one's life in the long run. Once the causal connection is clear, unprincipled short-range action doesn't look all that desirable. Ayn Rand once remarked that she didn't have enough courage to be a coward because she saw the consequences much too clearly.

[Sarah Beth 0]

I have been thinking about the Objectivist standard of value ("man's life qua man"). If one chooses a long-term perspective on morality (as you wrote) then doesn't that mean that goods such as food or money are no values if they are obtained in a way which is harmful to oneself over the long range? And when I write "no values" I mean that they are literally undesirable, worth nothing to me, completely uninteresting. For me this would be an entirely new perspective on values. Until recently I was convinced that food was a value no matter what because I want to survive and without food I die and therefore food is a value. Is that what Ayn Rand meant when she wrote the following?

Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud.

←

I just wanted to comment that it took that simple quote-or concept- longer to sink in to me than I would have thought also. I mean that I understood it right off, but I didn't understand the application fully until I had a sort of "a-ha" moment, and I am still trying to fully integrate it, or to keep it integrated.

A value gained in the short term which is harmful to oneself in the long-range is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist, so there is no value there in the first place.

[Dufresne 0]

Because values are hierarchical and the achievement of some values depends on achieving others, it is not in our self-interest to choose a means that destroys our ends.  Eating food is a value, but not eating food that I am so allergic to that it will kill me.

Food that one is so allergic to is not a value, no matter whether one adopts a short-term or long-term perspective. But that's not what I wanted to know. What I am interested in are the differences in the evaluation of the same kind of object for the same person given a short-term or a long-term perspective.

Example:

If someone adopts a short-term perspective and wants to survive then he concludes that food is a value because it is practical. To such a shortsighted person food is a value no matter whether it is obtained through productive work or theft.

The farsighted person does not only consider the effects of his actions on the immediate future but possibly on the rest of his life and chooses production over theft. Does such a farsighted person consider food obtained by theft as a value but as a value that is so small in comparison to the values he could loose in the long run? Or does he consider food obtained by theft as no value at all because of the way it is obtained?

What is the Objectivist position on that?

[Dufresne 0]

I just wanted to comment that it took that simple quote-or concept- longer to sink in to me than I would have thought also. I mean that I understood it right off, but I didn't understand the application fully until I had a sort of "a-ha" moment, and I am still trying to fully integrate it, or to keep it integrated.

I'm still working on my epiphany.

A value gained in the short term which is harmful to oneself in the long-range is a contradiction.

Suppose pursuing an object that can have positive effects on you in the short-term results in harm to you in the long-term. Do you really think that the harm is caused by the object? Isn't it caused by the pursuit (one's actions)?