Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ultimate Value

Rate this topic


Ryan Hacking

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What is the definition of an 'ultimate value'?

From OPAR:

According to Objectivism, such a [moral] code must deal with three basic, interrelated questions. For what end should a man live? By what fundamental principle should he act in order to achieve this end? Who should profit from his actions? The answers to these questions define the ultimate value, the primary virtue, and the particular beneficiary upheld by an ethical code and reveal thereby its essence.

An ultimate value, Ayn Rand observes, is the end-in-itself "which sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the definition of an ultimate value is "the end-in-itself 'which sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated'"?  How do we know what the end-in-itself is?

How about providing some context for your questions: How have these questions arisen in your life? In other words, what problem in your life will you be solving when you figure out the answers? What will you be able to do then that you can't now?

P. S. -- To whom are you referring when you say "we"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of something that has always troubled me, and so perhaps some of you better minds can enlighten my dull gray cells. The Peikoff quote given, " An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil", implies that ANY organism's life is its standard of value (though when we come to man, we are not speaking of mere physical existence). But this isn't the case: some insects (spiders, praying mantis) are killed when reproducing, and certainly reproduction in many animals involves risks that do not further the individual's life, but actually degrade it. So, is it safe to say that Peikoff meant to say that the standard of value id the perpetuation of the species? If so, why didn't he say this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"some insects (spiders, praying mantis) are killed when reproducing, and certainly reproduction in many animals involves risks that do not further the individual's life, but actually degrade it. So, is it safe to say that Peikoff meant to say that the standard of value id the perpetuation of the species? If so, why didn't he say this?"

Strictly speaking, organisms do not act for the sake of the perpetuation of their species, but rather the perpetuation of their genes. In his book, _The Selfish Gene_, Richard Dawkins explains why all of an organism's actions are directed at the propogation of its genes. But I do agree with the heart of your question. Organisms sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of their offspring; therefore the claim that an organism's ultimate goal is its own survival seems empirically false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Organisms sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of their offspring; therefore the claim that an organism's ultimate goal is its own survival seems empirically false.

Does the concept "sacrifice" apply to nonvolitional, instinct-driven organisms?

Further, what do you mean by "empirically false"? As opposed to what? In the context of Objectivism, isn't it enough to say "false" -- that is, not drawn logically from the facts of reality?

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan,

Thanks for the clarification: I should have been more specific and said "the perpetuation of genes" instead of "perpetuation of species". But, as you note, it still leaves one to conclude that Peikoff's statement is false. Since it seems a rather obvious mistake I wonder if he ever clarified it, or, if not, what he derives from this false assertion that would have then been built on a false premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Does the concept "sacrifice" apply to nonvolitional, instinct-driven organisms?"

"Sacrifice" is the improper term, I apologize. Rather, organisms pursue the propagation of their genes at the expense of their life. A "value" is defined as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep." Therefore organisms "value" (that is, will act to gain and/or keep, nonvolitionally) the spread of their genes above that of their own survival. When faced with the alternative of survival or gene propagation, they propagate their genes.

"Further, what do you mean by "empirically false"? As opposed to what? In the context of Objectivism, isn't it enough to say "false" -- that is, not drawn logically from the facts of reality?"

You're right. So I will say that it is false to state that an organism's ultimate value is its own life, for the reasons cited above, reasons drawn logically from the facts of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I will say that it is false to state that an organism's ultimate value is its own life, for the reasons cited above, reasons drawn logically from the facts of reality.

I am not sure about it, but I would like to offer an observation, to further the discussion. I offer it as a target:

Every organism has as its ultimate value its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is. Life is self-generated and self-sustained action. If organism X's nature is such that it automatically (instinctually) takes an action which saves its offspring's life, but itself dies in the process, then organism X is acting on its own life as its ultimate value. If a male Z inevitably and always dies as a consequence of mating, then that is what male Z's are, and that is what it means for them to be alive.

I don't see any conflict between the general principle cited from Dr. Peikoff and the behavior of animals cited. But I will step back and let you throw darts -- or, better yet, offer a superior alternative to Dr. Peikoff's and Ayn Rand's principle.

P. S. -- Please learn to use the quotation tools. Basically the idea is to make sure every quoted passage begins with a [ quote] and ends with [ /quote] -- except don't include a space after the [. (I have to include a space or the program will read my example as a quotation command! The quotation skill requires a little practice. You can ask about such things on the About the Website forum (near the bottom of the list of forums).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every organism has as its ultimate value its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is. Life is self-generated and self-sustained action. If organism X's nature is such that it automatically (instinctually) takes an action which saves its offspring's life, but itself dies in the process, then organism X is acting on its own life as its ultimate value. If a male Z inevitably and always dies as a consequence of mating, then that is what male Z's are, and that is what it means for them to be alive.

But then it seems like the concept of an "ultimate value" becomes vacuous--an organism's ultimate value is whatever it happens to do. When an organism pursues an end at the expense of its own life, how can you say that its ultimate end is the preservation of its own life? That end (genetic perpetuation) is a more ultimate end than the preservation of its own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before continuing this illuminating discussion, I need to clear up some puzzling comments you have made.

But then it seems like the concept of an "ultimate value" [...]

Why do you believe that "ultimate value" is a concept?

[...]becomes vacuous-- [...]

What do you mean by "vacuous"? Objectivists are not Kantians. We don't agree with Kant that concepts are "empty" or "full." The issue is this: Are concepts (or any other ideas) logically drawn from facts of reality? In other words, do they refer logically to something in reality or not?

[...]an organism's ultimate value is whatever it happens to do.[...]

Is someone in this forum arguing in favor of this position? Please cite the post where someone says this.

When an organism pursues an end at the expense of its own life, how can you say that its ultimate end is the preservation of its own life?

To which kind of organism are you referring -- instinctual or volitional? The issue is, what underlies both? In other words, what principle would account for both?

Again, you have lost me. Where do I use the term "preservation"?

That end (genetic perpetuation) is a more ultimate end than the preservation of its own life.

I confess to not understanding what "more ultimate" means. Further, "more ultimate" for which kind of organism -- for the instinctual kind, for the volitional kind, or, in a more abstract form, for both?

P. S. -- You still haven't answered the question I asked on Jan. 15, at 216 pm: What are you living for now?

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That end (genetic perpetuation) is a more ultimate end than the preservation of its own life.

As I hope I have indicated earlier, for me this thread is a discussion (an exchange whose purpose is finding a solution to a problem) not a debate (a kind of contest between two individuals who have mastered their subject). I have not mastered this subject. In fact, I have never considered it before. So, as I said earlier, it is illuminating.

In that light, so to speak, I have another question. Are we having a scientific discussion or a philosophical one? If philosophical -- which is the only kind I can possibly participate in -- then I question whether "genetic perpetuation" is even an admissible idea. Aren't such ideas as "genes" and "genetics" and "genetic perpetuation" scientific ideas rather than philosophical ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess,

I understand the distinction you are making between a philosophical discussion and a scientific discussion.

If I am to understand the Peikoff quote referenced earlier (" An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil"), as a purely philosophical statement, then it seems to me that Peikoff errs, then, in using the phrase "an organism", as it would seem to include, by implication, all organisms. But that would include nonvolitional, instinct-driven organisms, in which case, how could "its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is" be an ultimate value, since it has no ability to act otherwise? There is no "standard of value" to be discussed, as it would seem to me that anything the organism does is merely part of "its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is"---there are no "good" or "evil" actions to take or not take. I think, then, that terms like "standard", "value", "good", and "evil" are out of place.

If Peikoff's statement was meant to refer to scientific realities, then I think he was mistaken, as science refutes the idea of "life" (meaning, in this case, physical life) being the ultimate "standard of value".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that this discussion centers on both philosophy of biology and metaethics. I can illustrate how an end can be "more ultimate" than another. When I sit down to breakfast, I can either eat a low-fat breakfast or a high-fat one (among other options). Suppose I eat a low-fat breakfast. What justifies me in making this decision? The "more ultimate" end of pursuing health. Or one could say that pursuing health is more fundamental than one's choice of food.

In OPAR, in the section "Life as the essential root of value," Peikoff writes that his thesis is not that one must remain alive to pursue values (this is a truism, he says), but rather that remaining alive is the goal of all values. However, biologists have concluded that in fact spreading one's genes is the goal of all values, not remaining alive. They reached this conclusion that organisms, when faced with the alternative of survival or propogating its genes, will propagate its genes at the cost of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan, I asked on Jan. 15, at 216 pm: What are you living for now?

I am asking again, for the third time. Are you choosing not to anwer? If so, why? This goes right to the core of this thread.

I would say that this discussion centers on both philosophy of biology and metaethics.

How can one discussion "center" on two such disparate points in a hierarchy of knowledge?

In OPAR, in the section "Life as the essential root of value," Peikoff writes that his thesis is not that one must remain alive to pursue values (this is a truism, he says), but rather that remaining alive is the goal of all values.  However, biologists have concluded that in fact spreading one's genes is the goal of all values, not remaining alive.  They reached this conclusion that organisms, when faced with the alternative of survival or propogating its genes, will propagate its genes at the cost of death.

[italics added to distinguish (1) Hacking's interpretation of Dr. Peikoff's position from (2) Hacking's own position.]

I need clarification on your method. First, are you trying to say that an alleged scientific conclusion can rebut a philosophical position?

Second, how did these alleged biologists (whom you have not named) prove that the individual animals, even when faced with death, chose to transmit their genes -- rather than, say, to feel the pleasure of copulation or some other in-born drive? In other words, I wonder if there is confusion here between ultimate value for a particular organism and long-term consequences for a group of organisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan, I asked on Jan. 15, at 216 pm: What are you living for now?

I am asking again, for the third time. Are you choosing not to anwer? If so, why? This goes right to the core of this thread.

I am living for a great deal of things--work, friends, family, romance, for instance.

How can one discussion "center" on two such disparate points in a hierarchy of knowledge?

Metaethics and philosophy of biology are not disparate points in the hierarchy of knowledge. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Harry Binswanger's The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts in which he discusses how the Objectivist position on value is a direct consequence of its philosophy of biology

I need clarification on your method. First, are you trying to say that an alleged scientific conclusion can rebut a philosophical position?

Second, how did these alleged biologists (whom you have not named) prove that the individual animals, even when faced with death, chose to transmit their genes -- rather than, say, to feel the pleasure of copulation or some other in-born drive? In other words, I wonder if there is confusion here between ultimate value for a particular organism and long-term consequences for a group of organisms.

First of all, I have named them--check back up on the thread, I specifically name Richard Dawkins. Secondly, organisms experience pleasure upon copulation because such behavior is adaptive, that is, it conduces to reproductive fitness. Furthermore, the question is what, for an individual organism, is its ultimate goal--i.e. the goal towards which all other proximate goals aim? I don't see what talk about "a group of organisms" has to do with this discussion. Even if an organism does choose to reproduce, not to spread its genes, but to feel the pleasure of copulation, the fact would remain that survival is not their ultimate goal, but rather the pleasure of copulation.

[Moderator: Edited to straighten out missing quotation command]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess,

If Peikoff's  statement was meant to refer to scientific realities, then I think he was mistaken, as science refutes the idea of "life" (meaning, in this case, physical life) being the ultimate "standard of value".

You guys mean Ayn Rand's point don't you? You are saying that the foundation of Objectivist ethics are on a mistaken premise. That one's life can't be the ultimate end as biologists have "proven" that humping is.

The propagation of an organism's genes is one activity of an organism's life. Sometimes it is an activity that is never pursued (dogs and cats that are neutered and spayed, and humans that choose not to propegate their genes). Through the countless instances of action in an organism's life, one activity of only a small handful of species is to shoot down the wealth of data subsumed under the principle of life as the ultimate end?

It is also a mistake to look at the actions of the whole organism without reference to the billions upon billions of actions within the organism that happen daily with the end of preserving that organism's life. Eating and nutritional absorption, breathing, immune system functions, heartbeat, tissue regeneration, elimination, the actions (on just the physio-chemical level) of the senses, the instincts and reflexes of the animal.

The rejection of life being the ultimate standard of value ends in a series of open-ended actions. The ultimate standard is not then a thing, but the action of preserving the contiuation of the action of propagation. This is a Heraclitean-like concept of life with a never ending series of actions and the entities disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The propegation of an organism's genes is one activity of an organism's life. Sometimes it is an activity that is never pursued (dogs and cats that are neutered and spayed, and humans that choose not to propegate their genes). Through the countless instances of action in an organism's life, one activity of only a small handful of species is to shoot down the wealth of data subsumed under the principle of life as the ultimate end?

It is also a mistake to look at the actions of the whole  organism without reference to the billions upon billions of actions within the organism that happen daily with the end of preserving that organism's life. Eating and nutritional absorption, breathing, immune system functions, heartbeat, tissue regeneration, elimination, the actions (on just the physio-chemical level) of the senses, the instincts and reflexes of the animal.

But this only demonstrates is that no valuation can take place outside the context of life--I'm not contesting that. But that does not mean that life is the ultimate value, only that it is a necessary (and sufficient) condition for valuation. Therefore, any thing that is alive (such as spayed cats) can pursue values--this doesn't prove that living is an organism's ultimate end. I'm not saying that living is not a huge end for an organism--certainly, it is. Yet when faced with the alternative of its own survival or the survival of its genes, an organism pursues the survival of its genes through reproduction at the cost of its own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am living for a great deal of things--work, friends, family, romance, for instance.

Thank you for answering. Now my question is what integrates all these goals? In other words, what is philosophically fundamental to -- and therefore logically prior to -- these personal values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for answering. Now my question is what integrates all these goals? In other words, what is philosophically fundamental to -- and therefore logically prior to -- these personal values?

What integrates these goals is my fundamental goal of living of a happy life. Now, if you are going to ask me, what is my standard of happiness, my answer is that I do not know. That is why I am interested in the question of the ultimate value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Harry Binswanger's The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts in which he discusses how the Objectivist position on value is a direct consequence of its philosophy of biology.

I read my copy many years ago. I remember no passage in which Dr. Binswanger says that the philosophy of Objectivism -- or any element of it -- is in any way based on a philosophy of any special science. That claim contradicts everything I have heard Dr. Binswanger say about the relationship between general philosophy and the "philosophies" (foundations) of the special sciences.

Please cite a page number in the book where he says what you claim he says. I would very much like to read that passage and -- if I have erred -- straighten out my thinking on the relation of the special sciences to philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What integrates these goals is my fundamental goal of living of a happy life.  Now, if you are going to ask me, what is my standard of happiness, my answer is that I do not know.  That is why I am interested in the question of the ultimate value.

[boldface added for emphasis.]

Are we having some sort of massive miscommunication?

Based on your own words above, haven't you answered your own question? How on earth can you live a happy life if you don't ultimately value life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...