The Primarch

✅ Clarification With Objectivism "Value"

Ayn Rand, creator of Objectivism (the foundation of this philosophy), is inspirational and heroic, but made some errors which need to be addressed.

Her definition of value is: That which one acts to gain or keep.

She and many objectivists often conflate: value itself vs. moral or ethical action toward a value.

✅ Value is relational, not action-dependent

The general definition —

“Value is what a living being perceives or responds to as desirable or beneficial.”

— captures the axiological nature of value: it exists in relation to a valuer, independent of whether the valuer acts on it.

• Health and fitness are valuable even if someone is sedentary.

• Wealth is valuable even if one despises money or is temporarily focused on other priorities.

• Freedom is valuable even if someone does not currently act to secure it or is enslaved.

• Philosophy is extremely valuable, especially when one has no idea what it is!

The act of pursuing a value does not create value. It only allows the valuer to realize, actualize, or morally interact with it.

To “value” something means to appraise it as good, meaningful, or beneficial — whether or not one possesses it or acts to obtain it.

- One may value a Ferrari, but take no action to acquire one, for many legitimate reasons.

- One may value wealth, but not act to become wealthy, because they value study, travel or family more.

- Just because one is not acting to gain or keep a value currently, does not mean they never will.

For something to be objectively valuable, it needs to objectively sustain biological and psychological life. It needs to be non-contradictory and contribute to flourishing. 

✅ Objective value vs. Moral Evaluation

The distinction is crucial:

• Objective value: Exists before, during, and after action. Its truth is independent of our awareness or action.

• Moral praise / ethical evaluation: Occurs when a rational agent recognizes an objective value and acts in accordance with it. This is where morality enters.

Rand often conflated these by implying that unless you are acting to gain or keep a value, it has no moral significance — or in some interpretations, that it doesn’t even “count” as a value.

• This leads to category error: treating axiology (what is valuable) as equivalent to ethics (how one ought to act).

• This framework separates them clearly:

  • Value exists as a fact of relation to life.

  • Moral action and praise arises from engagement with objective value.

  • Moral blame arises when one evades or refuses to acknowledge and pursue an objective value.

✅ Limitations on knowledge and action

It's true:

• Humans can’t do everything at once, and our knowledge of what is truly good is always incomplete, or takes a great deal of time to learn.

• Prioritization is necessary.

• The existence of value is not contingent on our ability to act on it immediately or perfectly.

Thus, values can exist in potential or dormant form, awaiting future recognition and action. Their axiological reality is not erased by inaction, ignorance, or circumstance.

✅ Summary of the distinction

✅ Why this counters Rand’s position

• Rand’s claim — “Wealth is not a value unless you act to gain it” — is incoherent, because value is relational to a valuer, not contingent on action.

• Objective axiology corrects this: values exist prior to and independent of action; morality and praise attach only when action aligns with objective value.

• This preserves coherence, universality, and applicability: objective values remain meaningful even when temporarily dormant, admired but not pursued, or outside immediate human ability.

Subsidiaries of the domains