The Philosophy of Individual Valuism
www.indval.org
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to identify the nature of value
and goodness, words used to describe how things and actions should be desired. Historically,
perceptions of desirability have been colored by lenses of culture and mysticism
that declare what is supposed to be right no matter the consequences of those
beliefs. Individual Valuism is the philosophy that
individuals are capable of judging values without objective, universal, or
other viewpoints. Furthermore, values can only be defined relative to
individuals. Outside of a mind with preferences, goodness does not exist.
Values and Ethics
Value:
Good and bad. Right and wrong. Moral and immoral.
There are many words to describe value, or how a person, place, thing, quality,
or event is worth having or existing. Value must be recognized in order to want to possess something,
to want something to happen, or to want something to be a certain way. Additionally,
it is necessary to know what is better
than something else. That is, to have the ability to prefer respect over shame,
activity over stagnation, and even life over death.
But how is value measured, exactly? What justification is
required to call something useful, desirable, or good? Examine that question
with something that seems to have obvious value: healthiness. What responses
would people give if they were asked why they should value good health (defined
as being free from disease and having typical human capabilities)? They could
simply say that it suits them to value health or that is just how they are.
They could say that health is a major part of their happiness or ability to
enjoy life and is therefore valuable. They could say that they were taught or
commanded to value health. They could say that health has value because it is
instrumental for something else that is believed to be valuable, such as
physical activity, interaction with society, or ability to work or travel.
No matter the reasoning, no matter how many further ends are
referenced, there can only be two explanations for the value of anything. One
is that value exists because one automatically believes that it does. It is
commanded by some authority that something is of value, so it is. Society
believes that something is of value, so it is. Tradition says that something is
of value, so it is. One was brought up to believe that something is of value,
so it is. The other explanation is that value exists because the state of existence
is influenced in a positive way. In other words, something is of value if it causes
a desirable outcome. The first of these explanations is based in mindlessness
and results in a morality determined by chance, whim, and the subjugation of thought.
The latter is based in the ability to understand what is preferable and results
in a morality focused on what is best to want and how is best to act.
Subjective Value:
In describing value, I have mentioned words such as “desirable”
and “preferable” several times. Notice that these words only have meaning
relative to a mind. “Bob desires good health.” “Peace is preferred over
war by Susan.” Something cannot be valued without a consciousness. It
makes no sense to say that anything is valued objectively because if there is
no subject, there can be no preference for anything. The act of charity cannot
be found to be good without a mind any more than the smell of a flower can be
found to be pleasant without a nose. Unfortunately, most people are reared to
believe the opposite. They are taught that value is defined by some impersonal
standard that one is supposed to know or discover. Such a standard cannot
exist. Value is a property that exists within minds. Something can be valued by
some people in the world, nobody in the world, or even everyone in the world,
but there cannot be a value that is “objective,” “necessary,” or “a priori.” In
other words, there cannot be anything that is desirable to, and independent of,
every possible point of view. Any belief that such a value exists can only be
supported by unsound arguments that fail to make a connection between what
exists and what ought to be. In order for something to have value, there must
be a point of view to perceive it. Knowing value requires a mind to think in
the same way as knowing beauty requires eyes to see.
Despite how value without consciousness is a concept as absurd
as sight without eyes, people have wasted thousands of years looking for the “true”
measure of value, or coming up with various principles to determine goodness.
None of them have ever provided any real justification. Many of them simply
created value systems based around mysticism and refused to explain any
further, proclaiming the authority of the supernatural. Some believed that
reason alone can prescribe value, as if there exists some logical process that
explains the worth of self-interest, utility, pleasure, other people, certain
ways of living, or whatever. Both types have convinced many that are not
willing to think but they have never really proven anything.
Fact and Value:
Value is that which affects the universe in a desirable way,
but how does one evaluate such a thing? Certainly there must be a foundation
for value that is better than choosing what is preferable on a whim! There
certainly is. The ability for an entity to judge value lies in the foundation
of its thought. In humans, this is the nervous system. Essentially, we come to
know what is preferable through pleasant and unpleasant sensations. Sensory
input creates the framework for what is considered good and bad. A computer,
which is not capable of feeling any sensations, is incapable of judging value
at all. No logic can be used to prefer one thing over another if a difference cannot
be observed between them. The interaction of biology and the external world that
determines the way in which a person comes to know something as positive or
negative is a complex system that creates a person’s ability to judge what is
good to him.
Note that this ability involves more than simply defining value
by what feels right at the moment. Sensations are only the building blocks of
the ability to know goodness. Over time, a person is able to judge what is good
and bad beyond immediate causes and sensations derived from effects. They are
able to know that, in general, having friends is good and that breaking
promises is bad without largely considering what is pleasurable. They are able
to judge value in ways that don’t rely on feelings. They can prefer such things
as truth and wisdom over feeling good. However, sensory input is essential in
the development of values. If goodness is what is desirable, how can people
identify what is desirable without feeling anything? They can’t, unless they
accept goodness automatically. Only in the framework created by sensory input
can one know value.
Individual Ethics:
Knowing that value requires a point of view, whose viewpoint
matters? Many people listen to the judgments of their family, friends, society,
and god, but fundamentally, whose judgment of the universe, for example, should
you consider to accept health as a value? The answer is your own. Every
individual is an independent consciousness capable of knowing goodness. When a
cat eats a mouse, it is good to the cat and bad to the mouse. It makes no sense
to make up an “objective” preference for either. It makes no sense to say that
the cat is wrong because other cats wanted to eat the mouse instead. It makes
no sense to say that the mouse is wrong because other mice were glad it made
the sacrifice. Likewise, I am capable of judging what is good to me without the
thoughts or feelings of others.
When I say “good to” a person, I am referring to whatever
accords with that person’s standards of desirability. This does not imply that the
person is benefiting according to some external standard. For example, culture may
say that having a lot of money is good, but for charitable people, it can be
better to them to give away money instead. There is also no contradiction to
the nature of individual values if people decide to form groups and behave in
how is best to the group. The important part is that the individual agrees to
follow the group. Groups that try to force me to work against my individual
values are my enemies.
I also want to denounce historical views of moral relativism
that argue that ethical assertions are relative to the traditions or beliefs of
a culture, individual, or group. The most obvious reason is that values exist
as relative to individuals; a person is not morally bound to the views of any culture
or group. Furthermore, traditions and beliefs are not the same as values. Values
are what actually result in good consequences to a person. A child could
believe that inoculations are bad,
but they may actually be good to him, if they save him from a terrible illness.
Someone could sacrifice animals because tradition tells him to, but
doing so may actually be bad to him, if the animals would be more useful alive.
For some reason, some people say that having relative ethics implies that all
moral decisions are equally valid and should be tolerated. There is no valid
reasoning for this. All individuals are at liberty to consider their values
first and reject and respond to opposing judgments.
Culture, Reality, and Religion
Cultural Values and
Ethics:
Values are not like currency. Money is worth only whatever
people agree that it is worth. But the importance of wisdom and truth to an
intelligent person cannot be validated or invalidated by the views of anyone
else, not even the entire world. Unfortunately, human nature seems to be obsessed
with culture. Culture is a system of thought that defines values to be whatever
society or tradition says to be good, not by what has actual good consequences
to anyone. Over 2400 years ago, the Greek historian Herodotus wrote about
culture. He recognized that different societies have vastly different social
practices, and nearly all members of any particular society are convinced that
their own practices have merit above all others. He illustrated this by
comparing the methods of disposing of corpses in two different societies. Each
person in his story expressed approval for their own culture’s method and
disgust for the other. Herodotus came to the conclusion that custom, behavior
promoted by culture, is king over the judgment of men. While I agree that is
often the case, I also have a serious problem with it because it means that
beliefs that are strongly considered to be valid can actually be arbitrary and
irrelevant.
The problem is twofold: societies teach that values are not
to be judged by individuals and human nature compels people to accept it. I have
long felt disgust for the former. All around the world, people try to give children
their values from the moment they are born. Children are given automatic
beliefs just as they are given automatic countries, families, religions,
wealth, status, and identities. We are all reared being told what to love and
hate and how to act, though we are rarely given logical reasons why we should
do so. We are told that our identities and desires are not our own to
critically evaluate and discover, but are determined by the identity and values
of others. Culture does not teach that people have individual views of value
that comes from what is desirable to them. It claims that value is something to
be believed automatically, without reason or explanation. Societies have
corrupted the meaning of good and bad because their standards are only defined
through culture. What happens when such standards of morality are applied to
real life? Well, when your system of morality comes from your values, your thoughts and actions work
devotedly towards the goal of making the world a better place to you. When you
surrender your mind to the values of culture, at best you are working for what might be good to you most of the time. At worst, your thoughts
and actions are based in unproductiveness, fantasy, and the destruction of your
real values. Often, that is exactly what happens. When a culture tells people
to dance to produce rain, it is focused on unproductiveness. When a culture
tells people to pray to cure a disease, it is focused on fantasy. When a
culture tells its citizens to be collectivists that are obligated to act for
the benefit of others, it is focused on destroying their real values. Since
most people—despite the best efforts of propaganda and conditioning—are too egoistical
for such a system to work, that sort of society only leads to the oppression of
the majority, who must live in the hell of having their individual values endlessly
conflict with their cultural values.
Of course, while societies can promote some bad ideas, many
of their rules do have a purpose. People would live in chaos if everyone
decided for themselves which side of the street to drive on, what time of the
day it is, or how long a meter is. Humans are social by nature and they need to
be able to interact effectively with others. But this need doesn’t only apply
to useful guidelines; the need people feel to fit in with their families and
societies can drive them to accept practically any beliefs of their fellows, no
matter the content, origin, or logic. Few people can hold onto their own values
while living with a cohesive social group with near-unanimous convictions,
seemingly-valid authority figures, and rituals that decrease personal
awareness. Social pressure to agree with the crowd is a constant erosion of
individual values. When it happens enough, a person can accept anything as the
definition of goodness. Altruism, Nazism, religion, pleasure,
anything. The content is irrelevant; the problem is the process in which
people select their values. More often than not, camaraderie is more appealing
than truth.
Epistemology/Metaphysics:
As the primary focus of Individual Valuism
is Ethics, it is necessary to speak of the nature of reality as well. One can
only know what is best in the context of how the universe exists. For example,
if you are currently dreaming and will wake up in a few hours, what is right to
do is basically whatever you fancy. You are safe and powerful in the confines
of your own mind and may do whatever you like with no ill effects when you wake
up. If, however, you are awake and the universe you observe around you
objectively exists, then what is right to do is whatever results in the most
positive state of this universe to you over all time. If the world is subject
to the influence of supernatural forces, then what is right to do is whatever
results in the most positive outcome to you within the rules of those forces. It
is impossible to know for certain the sort of reality we are in because it is
impossible to disprove the existence of any number of forces that have the
ability to deceive us. The universe as I know it could be a projection of a
brain in a vat kept alive by a scientist in another world. The world of that
scientist could have been created by a god. That god could exist in a reality
created by a computer simulation. The world with that computer simulation could
have been created by an all-powerful flying spaghetti monster. And so on. But
there is a big difference between not being able to prove something false and
having reason to believe that it is true.
The importance of knowing reality should be clear. If one
arbitrarily assumes the existence of a supernatural force that is not actually
real, he is likely to lose sight of what makes life good to him. Feel free to
try to find out if your world is a dream or under the rule of supernatural
forces, but don’t accept such ideas without serious thought. Instead, focus on
what you can observe to impact your life. From what I can tell, this only
includes matter and energy (which can be measured in force per distance) that have
consistent properties and are subject to laws of logic and causality. In this
line of thought, I believe there is a table in front of me. Can I prove that it
is really there? No, but I can see it, touch it, and put my computer on
top of it. Whether or not I have sufficient justification to know its existence
is not as relevant as the fact that it clearly affects my life. The table also conforms
to a set of natural laws. Its existence is objective; its form doesn’t change
according to anyone’s perception. Its value is subjective; what it’s worth to a
person depends on how it affects that person. It is subject to causality; if I cut
the table in half, it will not be fit for use. I have nothing to gain by
assuming mystical influences. No matter how much I hope or pray or chant, the
table is not affected.
By just living normally, everyone should quickly recognize
that only the existence and properties of matter and energy affect
their lives and that any indications of supernatural influences are illusory. Somehow,
most people fail to see this. Instead, they give their minds over to magic.
They believe in such things as lucky numbers, ghosts, astrology, psychic
abilities, and gods. I once witnessed an example of how a person can credit the
supernatural despite clear involvements of simple causal relationships. A
friend of mine had a loved one that needed dangerous surgery. In informing
those close to him of the situation, he mentioned two things: “We were able to
get one of the best surgeons in the world” and “I would really appreciate if
you could keep her in your thoughts and prayers.” After the surgery went well,
he said, “All I can say is the success of her surgery was through the grace of
God!” and “Your prayers and good wishes and those of all of our friends have
made the difference in the success of her operation.” Is that what really
happened? What caused the success, the expert workings of a qualified doctor or
good wishes magically thrown by friends and family? Which one actually had an
effect on the universe? If they had gone to a quack instead of a great doctor,
what do you think the results would be? Would the consequences show the “the
grace of God” or the reality of causality?
Religion:
As bad as culture is
as a proponent of automatic beliefs, it is even worse when combined with the
supernatural. That is, when people accept beliefs and values not just to fit in
with others, but because those ideas are portrayed to be coming from a transcendent
authority. This problem is religion, a system of beliefs which claims that
reality is influenced by something other than the causal relationships of
matter and energy. This includes any concepts of deities, karma, mysterious forces,
etc. Typically, religions also demand adherents follow rules of living and
thinking that are based on its mystical premise.
The deepest trap of religion is convincing people to allow
their thoughts to be based in a “higher” reality. Once someone is in this trap,
he is able to rationalize any mistake, inconsistency, or contradiction. He is
not worried about logic, causality, or physical evidence. The foundation of his
knowledge of reality is “above” such things! But where does a person obtain
this knowledge of higher powers, anyway? Someone tells him that it is true? He
“feels” that it is true? He has some ancient stories proclaiming it is true?
Are those good reasons or are they the same reasons everyone from every
religion in history would give? These are examples of how people everywhere accept
the supernatural without reason, and it only results in them losing touch with
truth and becoming attached to fiction.
Just look through
history to see what happens to those who have put their beliefs in higher powers.
Centuries ago in
All of this has
happened because most people don’t require their beliefs to be supported by
physical evidence. But does society look at these atrocities and cry out in
horror at the potential of human cognition to be so blind and gullible to be
able to commit such acts? Do people engage in deep self-reflection to consider the
reasons for believing what they do? No, they still proclaim that it is
right to believe things without reason, and they call it the virtue of faith.
They dismiss every single religious crime in history as being caused by insane
or misguided people, and continue to preach that everyone should believe even
harder in the “right” way. The ability to think rationally is the first
thing religion takes from people, and it is the first thing they must regain to
know real goodness.
Again, religion is the same problem as culture, but it goes
a step further in that it appears to be supported by a greater and unsurpassable
power. When people are considering their values, culture offers what others
have defined to be desirable and religion offers something to be taken as
unquestionably desirable. When people are looking for meaning and support in
life, culture offers validation, purpose, comfort, and camaraderie through the
approval of others and religion offers the same through the approval of
supernatural forces. People that conform to or deviate from cultural norms
receive secular praise or sanctions. People that conform to or deviate from
religious requirements (supposedly) get blessings or punishments that go beyond
the grave.
Some would like to argue that even if religions were baseless,
they are justified by various benefits such as spiritual support in times of
need, rules of living that help society, and friendship among believers. All of
these advantages are superficial at best. If a religion is not actually real
(meaning its premise about the existence of a supernatural force is false),
then any spiritual comfort it provides is caused by nothing outside the
believer’s own mind. Mislabeling internal strength as external strength is not
beneficial. Further, if a religion is not actually real, the morality based on
it is not necessarily reasonable to live by and it creates an unnecessary
identity barrier among people.
Living with Others
Group Dynamics:
Although I have argued for the ability of individuals to have
their own values and against the necessity of culture and religion to define morality,
I have said very little about how people should actually behave. If there was
only one person in the world, Ethics would be pretty easy. That person could
simply do whatever he thought would make life best to him and there would be no
other sentient life to judge his actions and respond to them. But when other
people do exist, things are more complicated. The consequences of our actions
depend on how other people act as
well. There are billions of people in the world. How should we act among others
to make things go well to us?
Reciprocity:
If some strangers were playing soccer and their ball was kicked
far out of bounds where you were, you would probably throw it back. Why? It is
little trouble to you compared to if they had to chase after the ball, and in
the same situation you would like them to do the same for you. Even someone who
does not care about others would be shortsighted to refuse because life would
be more difficult to him if people did not perform such courtesies. Reciprocity
is a system in which people behave in certain ways and expect like responses. If
everyone performs such small favors, everyone will overall gain more benefit. If
everyone did what was best to them in the short term, everyone would lose in
the long term.
Throughout most human civilizations, there have been ethical
teachings about reciprocity. Many of them rely on some variation of a rule to treat
others as you would like to be treated. While this is a good rule in many
situations, it is also full of problems. Who counts as others? Other humans? Why not animals? What if there is a large
difference in the way you and the other person want to be treated? What if
there is a large difference in the way you and the other person deserve to be
treated? Should a person refuse the notion of retribution and give aid to those
that continually try to destroy him? No, it is usually better to treat others
how they deserve to be treated and in ways that conform to beneficial systems
of reciprocity. When you do so, you focus your effort on helping those that support
your values and punishing those that work against your values. Otherwise, you
may waste effort on things that are bad or indifferent to you and you have no
control over others treating you badly.
Government:
When many people live together, there is usually a person or
group that acts as a leader. There is no conflict with individual values as
long as the leadership acts in ways that are good to the people it represents. For
example, I support having a government that enforces justice, maintains safety
for its citizens against external harm, protects the political freedoms of its
citizens, and does projects with serious public benefit that individuals
generally cannot organize competently or fairly. I do not support governments that
force citizens to give effort to projects that the citizens do not desire. I do
not support governments that punish people for doing things that are not
directly harmful to other people. I do not support governments that censor
information or operate in secret.
Other people might want different things. When there are
millions of people, it is impossible to satisfy everyone. Still, some policies
will make most people happy and productive. Some policies will make people
complain, argue, protest, disobey, steal, riot, kill, or go to war.
Conclusion
I hope that others can read this and know the same peace I have. It is the peace that comes with self-awareness and self-worth. It is the peace that comes with knowing true value, purpose, and identity. It is the peace that comes with knowing what is right no matter who agrees or disagrees. It is the peace that comes with knowing how to make life go well without appealing to magic. There are billions of people that are separated from this kind of peace. To find it, all they need is knowledge. They need to know that goodness and purpose do not exist somewhere in space apart from them. They need to understand that the values of cultures and religions often do not correspond to positive results in reality. All they need is realization.