In a message dated March 30, 1998, DavidTietz writes:

I thank AirwaveBoy for his response to DavidTietz's questions about my earlier post. He was correct in pointing out the two central points at issue here: one's hierarchy of values, and one's reason for choosing the values one holds.

Again, I ask David to determine for himself whether or not giving $2 to a "little significant person" (his words) would constitute a sacrifice. Remember to keep the definition of sacrifice in mind while examining your position on this:

Sacrifice is: The surrender of a higher value for the sake of a lesser value, or for the sake of a non-value.

Basically, what you would have to determine, is: Do I value my $2 more than I value buying a sandwich for this other person? Or, do I value buying this person a sandwich for this person more than I value my $2?

Apparently, DavidTietz already has started to answer this question in the above paragraph when he states that "the other" is one of his values. Now the question is: In your hierarchy of values, which is the higher value: buying a sandwich for this other person, or your $2?

If you value buying a sandwich for this other person more than you value your $2, then spending the $2 on this person is not a sacrifice by the above definition, for you act to preserve your higher value, which would in this case be buying a sandwich for this other person.

If, on the other hand, you value your $2 more than you value buying a sandwich for this other person, and you still fork over this expense in spite of this, then you would be sacrificing, since you surrender your higher value (the $2) for the sake of a lesser value (buying the sandwich for this other person).

Again, digest the above definitions thoroughly before you jump the gun and try to play head games. It's all spelled out for you, all you need to do is read a little more carefully perhaps.

You ask how your end - feeding the homeless woman - could be accomplished without your sacrifice. Well, if you value the starving woman more than you value your $2, as we see this to be the case by your own statement, then you accomplished that end without sacrificing, since you upheld your higher value, the starving woman. No legitimate end will ever require sacrifice in order to achieve it.

Let's take a less emotionalistic example: Let's say you want to buy a bowl of rice. Let's say you know the market value for a bowl of rice is fifty cents ($0.50). There are two Chinese restaurants next door to each other, both offering steamed rice of the same quantity and the same quality. However, one restaurant is offering a bowl of rice at the market value ($0.50), while the other restaurant is offering the same bowl of rice for $5.00, ten times the market value.

Which bowl of rice would you buy? Why?

Which bowl of rice represents a sacrifice, and which one represents a good deal?

I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

Basically, morality, as it deals with values, is like economics, as values are weighed against each other in reference to a standard. In economics, the standard is a currency denomination, such as US Dollars, backed up by some kind of promissory. In the realm of rational morality, the standard of value is man's life. the same principles are in operation in both contexts, and for the same reason: man lives by values.

According to the morality of rational selfishness, one does not have to lose values in order for another person to gain. Most individuals in our society today automatically assume that if one person gains, it is necessary that someone else loses. But take a shopkeeper for example: I go to a shop, and I want to buy some wares. My bill comes to $50.00 for those wares I intend to purchase. That is what the shopkeeper is going to charge me for the items that I want. I must make a decision: Is this an even trade? Is it a great deal? Or, do I value my $50.00 more than I value the items in my shopping cart? This is a moral decision, since it deals with the issue of values. I make the decision, and I go ahead with the purchase. What happens? The shopkeeper, who set his prices as he determined, sold goods to me by consent. No one held a gun to his head or my head for this purchase to take place, I did so voluntarily, just as the shopkeeper did. We both win, we both gain values, according to our own (selfish) values-hierarchy. The shopkeeper and his customers operate on what is called in Objectivism the trader principle, which is the application of rational morality to individuals exchanging values.

On this note, DavidTietz also wrote:

You apparently do not know the value of money, or at least, you like to appear that way (however, I don't know why you would want to appear this way). This is a typical confession of an altruist, and such announcements have been heard before. Paul, for instance, in his first letter to Timothy (ch. 6, vs. 10) stated: "for the love of money is the root of all evil."

What does this position say? Well, first of all, let's look at the nature of money. Money is a tool of exchange, a representative of universal value that all rational citizens of a society recognize and accept. Money makes consensual exchange among rational individuals possible.

The money I earn is a reward for my labor, my productiveness, a sum which I have agreed to accept from my employer for my productive efforts (another win-win situation).

By valuing my money, which I earn at my own expense (effort, productiveness, ability, time, consciousness, sweat, etc.), I recognize that my expense is of great value to me. By extension of my value for myself, I naturally value the fruits of my labor: my money. I can take those fruits, that money, to anyone who is willing to trade with me, and exchange with him on my terms, as well as on his terms.

I knew a number of classmates in high school who professed violent hatred for money. None of these individuals held jobs, or resented the jobs they had. Furthermore, they often received large sums of money from their parents (the unearned) and expected 'society' to fork out the balance they believed their parents were not contributing to them. The issue at hand: they sought the unearned, and resented it even when they did get their hands on it. One cannot rationally value the unearned, especially when gained by force or fraud.

Rand continues:

"The Meaning of Money," For the New Intellectual, pg. 88.

"Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trader you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders." [Ibid., pg. 89.]

I value money first of all because it represents the product of my effort. And second, because I value the fact that I can trade it for other values with other rational men who would choose to deal with me voluntarily. I do not seek the sacrifice of others, therefore I love money, and I'll gladly earn every penny I want, for my own selfish purposes. Hence, I'm more than happy to go to work every day in order to achieve this selfish end, all accomplished without the sacrifice of one person anywhere.

Here is one person who loves money and is a moral person.

My views are based on reason. They are not based on faith, nor on 'Mystery'. If you are willing to use reason to examine your own metaphysical, epistemological and ethical premises, I'm sure the fog of confusion that envelopes your consciousness will finally blow away. You needn't invent catastrophic situations, such as the one about the two GI's in Vietnam, to illustrate a moral principle. There are plenty, more important issues in your own immediate life that warrant your serious attention. Life is not one big foxhole, reality is not a burning house, and society is not one big hospital.

Ask serious questions, and you'll get serious answers.

I'll be happy to address your other concerns as I get time.

Tindrbox

_________________________________