THE NATURE OF ANTI-VALUE
Contents:
Drawing from the context set it The Nature of Value
First, some definitions…
Life-affirmation:
The satisfaction of the needs of life. The meanings of the terms “need” and “life” depend on the nature of the living being in question. For a volitional being, wherein life integrates the actual and the potential, the needs of life extend to the achievement of potential beyond more basic necessities; “needs” in this context would also include many things that we would call “desires” or “ambitions”.
Value:
That which one acts to gain and/or keep. Value is the essence of purpose, since to strive toward a potential (i.e. purposeful action) is ultimately to strive to reach it and thereby gain and/or keep it. The source of purpose and thus value is life, which is the standard of value and the ultimate value.
Back to the discussion…
A value is ultimately an aspect of life-affirmation, i.e. every value is ultimately the contextual expression of the value for life (for a volitional being, life naturally means life as volition being). More precisely, a value is an active aspect of life-affirmation, i.e. it depends on one’s own action and capacity for action within the given context. Now, note that for a volitional existence, life-affirmation does not exist in isolation but in integration with one’s life as a whole, i.e. in integration with both the actual and the potential. Hence, values also exist in a non-contradictory whole, which means the demands of active life-affirmation can never conflict. If there is a conflict, it reveals falsehoods and/or contradictions in your premises.
For example, if a farmer chooses to stay a little hungry so that his seed stock is untouched, it is not the case that his value for food is in conflict with his value for his long-range agricultural productivity; instead, food that comes from his seed stock is in fact against his long-range survival and prosperity, and thus cannot be a value. As another example, if a student chooses to deny some of his immediate pleasure for the sake of his studies, it is not the case that his value for immediate pleasure is in conflict with his value for a solid grasp of his subjects within some deadline; instead, immediate pleasure that would distract him from his studies are against his integrated self-interest (i.e. his self-interest within a broader context of his life) and thus cannot be a value.
Now, note that a key aspect of value is the active and achievable pursuit of life. Why are these characteristics relevant? Because it distinguishes between the forms of life-affirmation that we can actually focus on versus the forms of life-affirmation that are, in our knowledge, outside our control. Hence, something that you recognise to be out of your control cannot be a value and thus cannot be for or against active life-affirmation. Recognising when something is or is not in our control is key to rationality, and thus, key to an effective approach to life-affirmation to the fullest extent within our context.
Evidently, an anti-value is anything that actually contradicts one’s values as a whole, either by frustrating the pursuit of one or more values or by degrading or destroying one or more values. Hence, evaluating something as an anti-value requires you to evaluate whether the correction of the supposed anti-value (1) is actually a part of a non-contradictory hierarchy that actively affirms your life as a whole, and (2) is actually something you have control of in your context. Hence, the farmer taking some of his seed stock for food when he can afford to go a bit hungry is against the farmer’s values, and such food would be an anti-value. Similarly, the student seeking some immediate pleasure so as to distract himself from his studies is against the student’s values, and such pleasure would be an anti-value.
Hence, evaluating something as a value or an anti-value requires contextual clarity.
LEXICAL NOTE:
In the pursuit of values, we must consider potential harm to the pursuit of our values. Recognising such a potential is an important to bring to focus all the facts we must prepare against when pursuing a value. Threat or danger (both synonyms) refers to the source of potential harm, whereas risk refers to the potential harm itself. A potential anti-value is a threat and/or risk that, if actualised, would contradict one or more values. In other words, a potential anti-value is a threat and/or risk that you can and must act against, keeping in mind your integrated hierarchy of values. The concept of a potential anti-value distinguishes between threats and/or risks we can and must act against and threats and/or risks we must simply accept as facts, thereby orienting us toward a rational and proactive approach to values. Hence, note that something can be a threat or a risk without being a potential anti-value.
NOTE: A threat or harm that is not a potential anti-value is a potential harm that you cannot account for, or that is irrational to account for or even try to account for. For example, the risk of an airplane crash exists even after all the precautions have been taken; such a risk is not a potential anti-value (if such a risk actualises, then it gives rise to immediate potential anti-values, but on its own, it is not a potential anti-value). As another example, the risk of infection exists despite sufficient hygiene; such a risk is not a potential anti-value for the same reasons.
As with anti-values in general, evaluating something as a potential anti-value requires contextual clarity. For example, consider: is competition for a job a potential anti-value, given a free or at least semi-free economy? Consider: what values are being contradicted or put in danger by the competition? Let us examine.
Examining the above example…
Firstly, the job is not yours by right, so you do not have a moral claim over it to begin with; such a recognition is based on a fundamental value for freedom in a social context, which is the root of the value of society as such and the basis for a value-oriented economy that makes worthwhile jobs possible. Thus, contradicting the fundamental value for freedom in a social context would destroy the fundamental basis for the job’s value to you, namely its value as a means for you to create value and live independently in a free society. Hence, sabotaging the autonomy of the competition or devaluing their lives is firmly against a rational human’s fundamental values, which means such competition cannot be “corrected” for by force or fraud; hence, in this context, the competition is not a potential anti-value.
Secondly, the essential source of one’s capacity for gaining and keeping a job is, in general, competence and a clear alignment with the business-related interests of the employer. Furthermore, honesty in trade is the basis of long-range economic potential, which means using fraud as a means to overcome competition serves to degrade and/or destroy reliability of both yourself and the demands of the job market. It is akin to stealing to “save money”; in both cases, you act to degrade and/or destroy the basis of the system that creates the value you seek to begin with. The principle of non-contradiction in values (see: “Non-contradiction in values” from The Nature of Values) means that contradictions in one’s pursuit of values degrade and ultimately destroy all values without exception, unless and until one acts to right one’s wrongs.
In short, job market competition in a free or at least semi-free economy must be seen as a part of a value-oriented system and not as a potential anti-value (though in a narrow, delimited context, it may be seen as a threat of sorts).
NOTE 1: It is important to note that one’s self-esteem (i.e. the value for one’s own efficacy in life as a whole) is a vital need of one’s volitional existence, since it is what reflects the worth of one’s existence to oneself. Self-esteem demands integrity, which means expedient actions that objectively harm the basis of value in the long-term serve to undermine one’s self-esteem, one’s long-range value-orientation and thereby one’s life as a whole. But note also that expedient actions to directly counter objective immediate threats to one’s life cannot be immoral, since it is a direct extension of the principle of integrity of values.
NOTE 2: The context of the given example matters, since morality, while absolute, is contextual. For example, a non-free, i.e. physically coercive society is not conducive to human flourishing and often puts the principles of interaction between rational people at odds with the whims of some people who have the power to actually threaten or destroy your values; in such a context, at least some cases may rationally require lying, cheating, stealing, sabotage or even violence. In such a context, such actions would not be immoral and thus would not undermine moral integrity; in fact, in such a context, they would be necessary for moral integrity, since the demands of the pursuit of one’s life are twisted by the whims of a few and would thereby need the appropriate defence. Note that such contextual application of principles is not particular to morality; all true principles or generalisations, including those in science and mathematics, are absolutes whose specific applications are based on the specific contexts. Hence, the true principles of morality must never be considered subjective or relative, only contextual. It goes without saying that the contextual application of principles must be objective, i.e. rigourously rational, as evaluated to the best of one’s ability.
A failure is the frustration of a value-seeking pursuit, i.e. it is the result of losing or not achieving a value despite acting to achieve it. Hence, a failure is not necessarily an anti-value. To be precise, a failure is anti-value if and only if it can and must be corrected for, keeping in mind one’s integrated hierarchy of values. If correcting for it either leads to you contradicting your integrated hierarchy of values in some way, or is impossible based on your knowledge and within your context, then it is not an anti-value but simply a fact that must be taken into account in the further pursuit of values. Moreover, in many cases, failures can serve as valuable experience and/or learning.