The novel last but not least also is a political and a philosophical work. Right and wrong in context of the characters in this book have a lot to do with freedom, dignity, and security, as these things can be concluded on by libertarian views on guaranteeing private property and its safety to the owner. Also, in context of the book, creating value versus parasitic behavior of claiming rights for the working results of others.

Beyond the book, I think that there are many things that we can declare consensus on regarding whether they are right or wrong. Some of that is covered in basic rules of some philosophies and religions. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not rape. Do not do against others what you would not accept to be done to you. Do not be intentionally cruel for the sake of enjoying it. And so on, basic stuff like that. While some values are indeed depending on cultural context, I also think that some things are so obvious and basic in their value for us as we define ourselves as humans, that I refuse to negotiate any possible relativizing of them (speaking generally, not meaning you specifically).

The full quote beyonds "distinguish between right and wrong" leads to all this, doesn't it, implicitly refusing a too far-reaching relativizing of good and evil.

Well, that is understandable from a modern point of view, however when one starts adding contexts to it then you run into a problem. What is a person? Is a person of a different nation different to you? Are they worthy of receiving the same treatment that you? What is deemed right and wrong has changed so much over the past several centuries that it has made a mockery of the statement. Murder and rape were perfectly rational undertakings on civilians in war right up until about two hundred years ago, and indeed even more recently in some nations.
In three hundred years from now, I am sure that there will be some things that we do right now that will be seen as wrong, and cruel, just as we view slavery now compared to how we would have viewed it in the early 1700s.

I have a more unpersonal, absolute view here, it seems.

No matter whether I am an Aztec or a modern man, the value system of humanism is superior to that of the Aztec empire that waged wars only to produce hundreds of prisoners that it could sacrifice to its deities. The Aztec may find that okay, and the modern man not. But I claim it remains to be an act of barbary that remains to be wrong for an outside view, no matter what a person embedded in the cultural context would say about it.

When I enforce my will onto a women and violate her will and rape her, this is an act of evil no matter what the culture says in which I do it. It remains to be wrong to rape somebody.

To torture women to make them confess their witchcraft and then burn them alive, remains to be wrong, no matter whether it is done by Christian inquisitors , or by a mob in some primitive village in Kongo or Sudan.

To burn Indian widows just because their husband has died before them, is evil. The culture in which it takes place may accept it or not - I claim it remains to be evil.

To torment and act cruelly on the weak just for the sake of enjoying it, remains to be evil,. no matter the cultural background of the person doing like this.

So, I object to your claim that just any value is context-sensitive and depending on culture. Some lesser values are like that, yes. But there are also some for which the above examples may serve as illustrations that remain to be what they are in there quality - and any acceptance or rejection of them by the cultural environment in which they are enacted tells us not so much about these values - but only about the culture itself, its level of education or primitivity, barbarism or humane civilization. The culture does not judge the value, but the value judge the culture. Indifference towards these values and relativising them only means to refuse to accept that different cultures are not all of same equal worthiness and development level. But I claim there is a hierarchy of possible development levels and feature levels of human civilizations, and that some civilizations are superior/inferior in their worthiness to others. It is not everything just indifferent and to be treated as if being on same eye level with the others. And thus, there are some moral values and golden rules that remain to be true, no matter where, no matter when.

Also, you may remember that I have often argued that to me it makes no sense to judge war by the set of moral values of peacetime, and that to me war has a different set of morals. While for example rape remains to be evil no matter whether in peace or war, other values like "you should not kill" obviously are not of the same nature in peace and in war. So it may make sense to admit that there can also be something that I - for the purpose of putting it into words here - could be named a unified, single-entity "context-value", a moral value that is inextricably involved in a certain specific situational context, and is not valid outside that context. So, in the above example, there is not "you should not kill" in general, but there are two such moral rules: "though shall not kill in peace", and "killing may be necessary to do in war". Or in self-defence. Or on behalf of protecting somebody.

To me, such multiple context-value-entities do not mean to relativise, since relativising would mean to chnage the good-bad orientation of one and the same value according to different context (for example your cultural contexts). I am talking about different context-values where "context" means the context in which the context-value always remains of the same good or evil quality.

Hm, not sure I got it described like I mean it, I struggle a bit here. Hope you get the general idea.

Anyhow, here is another short quote from the novel that echoed in my mind, it is maybe not spectacular or sensational, but I like the way in which it is so very concise:

I think I get the general idea, but the context-value area is a bit confusing, because of its similarity to what I put forward in terms of values being different in contexts. These contexts being era, nation and upbringing/personal experience.
For example, the 'killing may be necessary to do in war' can quite easily be transmorphed into 'killing may be necessary to do to Blacks' or 'killing may be necessary to do to Islamists', particularly if one declares one to be in a war against the aforementioned subjects.
It's a slippery slope. :yep:

Transmorphing. Well, what kind of value assessment does that deserve? And the context-value you described, "killing-Blacks-positive" is right that, the combination of finding it positive to kill Blacks. The moral conclusion on that I think must not be further specified: murder Blacks just because they are Black, with Black being the primary reason to kill them, is murder due to racism.

Maybe I failed in explaining illustrative enough what I mean by "context-value". It pretty much rules out what you call transmorphing.

Context-values as I mean them, however are absolute only within the context that they include. Outside that, they are pretty much invalid, and useless, since outside the context of a situation the context of that situation does not exist. :) In other words: they are not really absolute, but specific. They do not fit into the role of a general blueprint by which all acts (of killing in the above example) could be described. They are not generalistic, but highly specific.

Common phrase to describe this maybe is: to judge every case individually. By which I do not mean that identical cases one time may be seen this way, and on another day differently.

Also, there can be hierarchies of different absolute values and context-values, and people can end up in situations that are complex enough that they must sort mutually contradicting values to work it out which values to follow when there are also conflicting ones. You then have to set priorities, you attribute different levels of importance to them.

My thought experiment with this "context-values" is trying to break up "meta-values" (context-unsensitive values that are not absolute) who else would be needed to be arbitrarily interpreted differently in each varying situation, and always new. "You should not kill", for example. True in peace, untrue in a situation of racism, and sometimes true and sometimes untrue in war (depending on the nature of the person that is about to get killed,. and the situational context). Thus I break all that up, and make the context integral part of the value. Hope that makes it clearer?!

Anyhow. All that bis abstract and academic, and does not bother me when living my real life and have to make decisions: I do not decide everyday issues by using pocket calculators. :) The quote by Rand I recommend to take with a less abstract and stronger pragmatic sense for realism. I doubt she had all this abstract philosophizing on mind with that sentence. It stands as it is, and I think its pretty good and strong and valuable.

I think I get what you mean, and I think we're both on a level agreeing on something but we keep missing our connection. Certainly I agree on the existence of Context-values, however I believe that Context-values are far greater in number than you seemed to originally indicate, and that the three indicators I brought up earlier, era, nation and experience directly affect the Context-value, hence why in a nation that is at war, you will get conscientious objectors, who will refuse to be drafted even if it means a prison sentence. In the era of the Great War, the Context-value was that Conscientious objectors were criminals who undertook treason by refusing to serve the state in a time of need, today they are looked upon quite differently. Even by the Second World War, a difference of only twenty-one years, the attitude towards Conscientious objectors had changed by a fair amount, there were still prison sentences but at a lower rate than in the war before. The Context-value had changed, only slightly, but it had changed in the space of twenty-one years.

Of course, as you correctly say, this is not something that really applies to current every day life because we are all bound by our own Context-values as defined by era, nation and experience, to perceive the world in our own ways. I know what is right and what is wrong because I was taught, both by my parents and by society and the state, just as all those who have come before me have been taught their versions of right and wrong, stretching back to the era of the dawn of man.
But yes, taken at face value, the sentence is strong, strong enough to inspire our conversation, and at the end of the day, that is what, in my opinion, works like Atlas Shrugged are all about, inspiring thought. :yep: (although I must add as a disclaimer that I have not actually read Atlas Shrugged beyond its wikipedia page, but it is on my lengthy list of books to get around to reading one day)

Well, the movies were very low budget.

:up: Glad you are enjoying it and getting something out of. Right or wrong, it does make you think.

Oberon,

I was sent an email with the following quote from the novel, another Aha!-experience, it matches our conversation nicely. I am not deep enough into the book to already have read it, but he said it is from later in the book.

Matches my feelings.

That's one of the more ridiculous excerpts of Rand that I've seen. It's like mainlining adolescent self-righteousness.

Fair enough, I must say that I completely disagree with that quote and find it rather narrow minded.

Oberon. Narrow minded or simple minded?

Play nice now.

That was playing nice.
Infantile would be a more accurate description of that particular passage.
But that is a common fault with those who insist on simple absolutes on issues when reality hands up complexities.

You're right. It was aimed at the book, and not where I thought it was. I apologize.