Is objectivism consequentialist?

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Ayn Rand said that the purpose of morality is to teach us, 'not to suffer and die, but to enjoy ourselves and live.' Well, let's ask whether the purpose of morality is primarily for survival or flourishing. Which is the end and which is the means?

 

She uses the word fundamental rather than primary:

"Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course."

Philosophy: Who Needs It    “Causality Versus Duty,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 99
 

Is the decision to live premoral or amoral?

Edited October 14, 2017 by Easy Truth

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Okay, it is plausible. I think many do live their life like this.

Thank you, but I think you're paying mankind a compliment it has not earned. Yet.

 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Now let us say that 95 percent of society adopts this perspective/philosophy. It seems to be fundamentally introspective. One could make a case for liberty with what you have ... unless many make the case that to live together, a loss of some fulfillment won't kill you.

So the case begins with the fact that my liberty is an absolute necessity for my flourishing; that if I can't unilaterally form and execute my own long-range plans (by myself or with anyone who'll join me, but without interference), reorganize and reshape the materials around me and keep whatever results then it is not possible for me to thrive. Since my own happiness is my own highest responsibility, it follows that whenever I find myself deprived of freedom I must seek to reclaim it for myself, by any means necessary. From the fact that I could wreak far more havock than a war-elephant run amok, if I put my mind to it, it then follows that no sane person can rationally expect to benefit in the long run from placing a wild animal like me into any situation where the phrase "by any means necessary" applies.

So, on the validity of your mob's claims, there is none. Ethical self-fulfillment is more than sufficient to justify private property rights.

On the expediency of that plan, it depends? I mean, speaking very strictly, you just described modern America; as long as the mob didn't annoy me too much I'd tolerate it in the same way I tolerate Uncle Sam.

 

Ultimately they might just overpower and then lynch me. I might also get my skull ventilated by a stray meteor.

 

What's your point?

Edited October 14, 2017 by Harrison Danneskjold
Black & Tans

[Easy Truth]

29 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So the case begins with the fact that my liberty is an absolute necessity for my flourishing; that if I can't unilaterally form and execute my own long-range plans (by myself or with anyone who'll join me, but without interference), reorganize and reshape the materials around me and keep whatever results then it is not possible for me to thrive. Since my own happiness is my own highest responsibility, it follows that whenever I find myself deprived of freedom I must seek to reclaim it for myself, by any means necessary. From the fact that I could wreak far more havock than a war-elephant run amok, if I put my mind to it, it then follows that no sane person can rationally expect to benefit in the long run from placing a wild animal like me into any situation where the phrase "by any means necessary" applies.

I am of the same mindset so I can't argue against what you are saying. In fact, what you have said is a pretty good case in my mind. When I argue egoism out in the world, the flourishing argument falls flat. Speaking in terms of needs is what they hear. They don't hear the absolute need for flourishing but they do hear the absolute need for survival. A little bit of flourishing is seen as equivalent to maximum flourishing.

But life vs. death is black and white.

[StrictlyLogical]

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

I am of the same mindset so I can't argue against what you are saying. In fact, what you have said is a pretty good case in my mind. When I argue egoism out in the world, the flourishing argument falls flat. Speaking in terms of needs is what they hear. They don't hear the absolute need for flourishing but they do hear the absolute need for survival. A little bit of flourishing is seen as equivalent to maximum flourishing.

But life vs. death is black and white.

ET

What are the consequences of a state of flourishing now for the "black and white" of life vs death from this very moment and onward into the future?  

Is that assessment applicable an hour from now, a year, or a decade hence... i.e. The consequences of flourishing then on the b&w of l&d from that moment forward?

[Easy Truth]

41 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What are the consequences of a state of flourishing now for the "black and white" of life vs death from this very moment and onward into the future?  

Is that assessment applicable an hour from now, a year, or a decade hence... i.e. The consequences of flourishing then on the b&w of l&d from that moment forward?

 

I am struggling with your question because when I hear "consequence of the state of flourishing" I hear an implication that it is not an end in itself. I doubt that you think that.

If you are asking me if flourishing encourages me to want life and to work harder at it, yes. And yes, even a single moment of the experiencing of flourishing would do that. And it does steady my desire for life (makes it less malleable).

If you are asking me if happiness effects my thought process (or even the anticipation of happiness), yes sure. But I think that we agree that my happiness is the output of my thought process. Using happiness as a gage of what "I should be doing" (ethics) is using the output of my thoughts to be the input of my thoughts. Happiness is not real, it is a concept. I can imagine people strongly objecting to me saying that but you feel the pleasure of pride or happiness because of an assessment (cognition), not because it tastes good like ice cream (perception).

Alternatively, if you are asking if flourishing causes survival, I would say: as a final cause in one's consciousness, psychologically yes, but metaphysically no, survival is a necessary but not sufficient cause of flourishing. "Pleasure" could be considered a necessary cause of wanting to survive but I would not put flourishing in that category.

[StrictlyLogical]

24 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

I am struggling with your question because when I hear "consequence of the state of flourishing" I hear an implication that it is not an end in itself. I doubt that you think that.

If you are asking me if flourishing encourages me to want life and to work harder at it, yes. And yes, even a single moment of the experiencing of flourishing would do that. And it does steady my desire for life (makes it less malleable).

If you are asking me if happiness effects my thought process (or even the anticipation of happiness), yes sure. But I think that we agree that my happiness is the output of my thought process. Using happiness as a gage of what "I should be doing" (ethics) is using the output of my thoughts to be the input of my thoughts. Happiness is not real, it is a concept. I can imagine people strongly objecting to me saying that but you feel the pleasure of pride or happiness because of an assessment (cognition), not because it tastes good like ice cream (perception).

Alternatively, if you are asking if flourishing causes survival, I would say: as a final cause in one's consciousness, psychologically yes, but metaphysically no, survival is a necessary but not sufficient cause of flourishing. "Pleasure" could be considered a necessary cause of wanting to survive but I would not put flourishing in that category.

You speak of flourishing as if it were not an objective semi static state of a man but a transitory feeling or mood.  This I disagree with.

Think of man who physically and mentally is unwell and contrast that with a man who is physically and mentally robust and simply put doing fantastically.  

This is not a mood or subjective feeling that comes and goes on the whim of the moment.  As a man can be strong and fit physically from excercise and diet, a man at optimum physical health, so too a man can be strong and fit mentally and emotionally through mental and emotional excercise and on a diet of correct thinking, and this at optimum mental and spiritual health. A vital and flourishing man will not wither in a moment a day or a month any more than a weightlifter in his prime could suddenly become a 125 weakling... it would take conscious negative effort and hardship ... physical and mental starvation to wear down a truly flourishing person.  Conversely think of a man who is weak and fragile in body and spirit, although it requires little for that man to slowly further degrade (decay has its own momentum) but like the flourishing man his state is not a simple mood that comes and goes it is a static state of impoverished physical and mental health which can change only slowly of at all.

Flourishing then is an objective and real state of complete health and vitality not mere the experience of happy moods or pleasurable feelings.

Edited October 14, 2017 by StrictlyLogical

[Easy Truth]

8 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Flourishing then is an objective and real state of complete health and vitality not mere the experience of happy moods or pleasurable feelings.

Okay, that is a definition I can get my head around. I assume that includes financial health and ability to have leisure too. Now, regarding your question:

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What are the consequences of a state of flourishing now for the "black and white" of life vs death from this very moment and onward into the future?  

The consequence of being healthy is a freedom that you don't have if you are not healthy. Also, a freedom not to worry. So flourishing gives you the freedom to flourish. A capability to build, to accumulate.

That is my answer. Have I understood the question properly?

[StrictlyLogical]

3 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Okay, that is a definition I can get my head around. I assume that includes financial health and ability to have leisure too. Now, regarding your question:

The consequence of being healthy is a freedom that you don't have if you are not healthy. Also, a freedom not to worry. So flourishing gives you the freedom to flourish. A capability to build, to accumulate.

That is my answer. Have I understood the question properly?

You have understood the question properly, however, I believe you have overlooked important actual consequences of Flourishing.  Any living creature which is in all ways living at optimum health is optimally acting I.e performing the functions of life, the self sustaining self generated actions which lead to continual health and flourishing.  An organism whose capacity to live has been maximized has better ability to sustain itself and stay optimized ... a man better able to produce, overcome challenges, solve problems, survive hardships and the unexpected, quite simply a flourishing man is better adapted to living than a feeble weakened man.  The consequences of flourishing or better yet the state of flourishing cannot be overstated, it has a profound and objectively real effect on a persons prospects for life itself... a flourishing person is so much more likely to live and to continue living and living well (which increases changes of living yet again etc) than one who is failing physically and mentally.

THIS is the real and objective reality of flourishing and one aspect of its relationship to survival qua man. Imho

[Easy Truth]

14 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

THIS is the real and objective reality of flourishing and one aspect of its relationship to survival qua man. Imho

 

Agreed.

So when Rand says life is the standard, she is saying that "life proper" or "the good life" is the standard, In other words, when she says life, she means "optimum life".

Then why did she leave us with the word "life"?

If you notice, with her definition of values, she spells it out.

"“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

She could have said “Value” is that which one acts to keep.    

That would encompass "gaining". How can you keep something that you have not gained, it would be implicit. In the same way, she could have said flourishing as being the end and we could conclude that it includes survival. But she didn't. Why? (not a rhetorical question, I want to know)
 

[StrictlyLogical]

33 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Agreed.

So when Rand says life is the standard, she is saying that "life proper" or "the good life" is the standard, In other words, when she says life, she means "optimum life".

Then why did she leave us with the word "life"?

If you notice, with her definition of values, she spells it out.

"“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

She could have said “Value” is that which one acts to keep.    

That would encompass "gaining". How can you keep something that you have not gained, it would be implicit. In the same way, she could have said flourishing as being the end and we could conclude that it includes survival. But she didn't. Why? (not a rhetorical question, I want to know)
 

Sorry I can't respond fully at the moment. I just wanted to clarify what I take the term flourishing to mean, I have not made any claim about whether Rand had considered flourishing as having a special part to play in her ethics.  I am merely highlighting what I believe the actual phenomenon to consist of.

Edited October 14, 2017 by StrictlyLogical

[2046]

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Agreed.

So when Rand says life is the standard, she is saying that "life proper" or "the good life" is the standard, In other words, when she says life, she means "optimum life".

Then why did she leave us with the word "life"?

If you notice, with her definition of values, she spells it out.

"“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

She could have said “Value” is that which one acts to keep.    

That would encompass "gaining". How can you keep something that you have not gained, it would be implicit. In the same way, she could have said flourishing as being the end and we could conclude that it includes survival. But she didn't. Why? (not a rhetorical question, I want to know)
 

You seem to be hung up on why Rand used this word over that word, or why she "left us" with a certain word and how we have to make sense of it. This strikes me as the wrongheaded way of doing philosophy and more resembles monks arguing over interpretations of scripture.

It's more important to think about concepts, ideas, and what they mean and relate them. Rand didn't use the word flourishing even though she studied Aristotle in Russia because Aristotle didn't use the word flourishing. Aristotle used the Greek word "eudaemonia" which means something like "being well-demoned" or "having a good spirit." It had religious connotations, even though it had lost those prior to the time of the Socratics. But, it seems obvious why Ayn Rand wouldn't use this word. It seems like most translations used "happiness" but since Aristotle elsewhere says that eudaemonia and happiness are not identical (although it includes happiness as a component) this seems like an ungratifying translation. In the 1900s, Ross started using "well being" as a translation, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the version of NE that Rand possessed in her library. "Flourishing" didn't become widespread until virtue ethics started gaining popularity in the late 70s. I think Cooper used the term in the 90s and this was widely accepted.

Since the early 2000s there's been a lot of empirical research being done in modern psychology to refine the concept and give it an objective meaning. I mean just check out the Wikipedia article on the topic:

Individuals described as flourishing have a combination of high levels of emotional well-being, psychological well-being, and social well-being.^[4] Flourishing people are happy and satisfied; they tend to see their lives as having a purpose; they feel some degree of mastery and accept all parts of themselves; they have a sense of personal growth in the sense that they are always growing, evolving, and changing; finally, they have a sense of autonomy and an internal locus of control, they chose their fate in life instead of being victims of fate.^[5][6]

According to Fredrickson and Losada, flourishing is characterized by four main components: goodness, generative, growth, and resilience.^[1]

Flourishing is related to the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia. According to a Neo-Aristotelianview, the concept of human flourishing offers a view of the human good that is objective, inclusive, individualized, agent-relative, self-directed and social. It views human flourishing objectively because it is desirable and appealing. Flourishing is a state of being rather than a feeling or experience. It comes from engaging in activities that both express and produce the actualization of one's potential.^[7][8]

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

This strikes me as the wrongheaded way of doing philosophy and more resembles monks arguing over interpretations of scripture.

May the Lord save your soul for saying that. Ironically, if monks argued enough over interpretations of scripture, we would have had more atheists.

The idea that she did not use happiness because of Aristotle's issues with it is plausible. And fair enough, psychology has defined and determined the characteristics of the state of flourishing.

Which means that the field of psychology is the field that is ultimately telling us the characteristics of what is good. It's plausible but is it true? Objectivism lightly delves into psychology (which is another question for another time).

Would that also mean that objectivist virtues will lead to what psychology has defined as flourishing?
Or that objectivist virtues are what psychology has defined as flourishing?

I want to pin this down because if we are going to go down the path of where psychology leads us, then it should be visible, declared, and acknowledged.

[dream_weaver]

Rand isn't relying on psychology here to identify the basis of what is good:

Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of “value”? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of “good or evil” in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation.

The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

— The Objectivist Ethics

The key to the kingdom of flourishing is cut in triplicate near the end of this paragraph from the same essay:

Just as the automatic values directing the functions of a plant’s body are sufficient for its survival, but are not sufficient for an animal’s — so the automatic values provided by the sensory-perceptual mechanism of its consciousness are sufficient to guide an animal, but are not sufficient for man. Man’s actions and survival require the guidance of conceptual values derived from conceptual knowledge. But conceptual knowledge cannot be acquired automatically.

Man is not born with conceptual knowledge. If he is to gain it, he must act in order to do so. Consider what actions are required in order to keep the conceptual knowledge mankind has gained/acquired over the centuries.

For greater precision regarding the realm of flourishing, consider this following excerpt from Atlas Shrugged:

You, who claim that you long to rise above the crude concerns of the body, above the drudgery of serving mere physical needs—who is enslaved by physical needs: the Hindu who labors from sunrise to sunset at the shafts of a hand-plow for a bowl of rice, or the American who is driving a tractor? Who is the conqueror of physical reality: the man who sleeps on a bed of nails or the man who sleeps on an inner-spring mattress? Which is the monument to the triumph of the human spirit over matter: the germ-eaten hovels on the shorelines of the Ganges or the Atlantic skyline of New York?

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by dream_weaver

[2046]

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

May the Lord save your soul for saying that. Ironically, if monks argued enough over interpretations of scripture, we would have had more atheists.

The idea that she did not use happiness because of Aristotle's issues with it is plausible. And fair enough, psychology has defined and determined the characteristics of the state of flourishing.

Which means that the field of psychology is the field that is ultimately telling us the characteristics of what is good. It's plausible but is it true? Objectivism lightly delves into psychology (which is another question for another time).

Would that also mean that objectivist virtues will lead to what psychology has defined as flourishing?
Or that objectivist virtues are what psychology has defined as flourishing?

I want to pin this down because if we are going to go down the path of where psychology leads us, then it should be visible, declared, and acknowledged.

Short answer: the sciences can provide the ethicist with vital information to make objective and narrow down the content of ends, and to help choose which means will  best accomplish a given end, but they cannot select ultimate ends themselves. A psychologist performing study cannot say "everyone ought to do this because my study says so" they can only say "if this state of affairs is selected, then these will result." 

[dream_weaver]

I would find that part of the ethicist charge is to objectively evaluate the sciences, ascertaining if they are furthering or threatening the ultimate value.

Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life.

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means — and it 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.

On one hand, the climatologists provide useful information for investing in the futures markets for farming. On the other, global warming claims are diverting time and attention away from other matters those resources might have been better allocated.

[Easy Truth]

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Short answer: the sciences can provide the ethicist with vital information to make objective and narrow down the content of ends, and to help choose which means will  best accomplish a given end, but they cannot select ultimate ends themselves. A psychologist performing study cannot say "everyone ought to do this because my study says so" they can only say "if this state of affairs is selected, then these will result." 

But we don't have an undisputed philosophical definition of flourishing. If we do, can I have it?

If you are asked that question, you will give the same definition you showed. The implication is that the flourishing aspect of life is how life is felt, not what life is. Not what life is objectively.

In other words, a person could be in prison all their life but flourish, because he feels he has a strong "locus of control". Especially when he barbeques the cockroaches.
 

 

[2046]

19 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But we don't have an undisputed philosophical definition of flourishing. If we do, can I have it?

If you are asked that question, you will give the same definition you showed. The implication is that the flourishing aspect of life is how life is felt, not what life is. Not what life is objectively.

In other words, a person could be in prison all their life but flourish, because he feels he has a strong "locus of control". Especially when he barbeques the cockroaches.
 

 

Even in the description in the cited study on Wikipedia, the authors note that flourishing is an objective state, and not reducible to felt experiences. 

You mention prison, interesting because Aristotle discusses whether a man trapped at the bottom of a well can be eudaimon, and he answers no (other Greeks like Socrates would say yes, so A is arguing against them.)

A goes into detail describing the content of eudaimonia. It is something that includes "doing and living well," something that includes "everything choiceworthy and lacking in nothing" and overall "a complete life, well-lived." A's language is forgein to us and he is difficult to read and interpret.

Various modern philosophers in the virtue ethics movement and psychologists have given accounts to describe flourishing. Researchers are taking note of accounts of eudaimonia. In addition to internal goods, external goods one may include such as a wealth and health, meaningful friendship and social relations, career choices, political freedom and autonomy, and so on. Even things out of your control, such as luck and natural disasters are going to effect your flourishing. You can see in both approaches broad generalized goods that everyone needs that are then individualized in the context of each person's life.

Aristotle thinks it is comprised of these two categories, of internal and external goods. Rand thinks it is comprised of her three cardinal values, reason, purpose, and self-esteem. In both, flourishing is generic (constituted of generic human needs as defined by biology, psychology, medical science) but also agent-relative and individualistic, and a continuously maintained process.

The virtue ethicists have many pro-reason, individualistic discussions, as do many of the classical eudaimonists. The Roman philosopher Cicero, for example, has four categories of flourishing (universal human nature, the individual's unborn talents, social context, and personal choices.)

[2046]

But, to also answer part of your question, there just isn't going to be one single "undisputed" account, just like there isn't one single undisputed account of what "health" includes.

Health is individual, contextual, but also generic and inclusive. Health isn't just "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it," it is an objective state that is scientifically describable. But still my health may be different from yours. There may be a cutoff point below which you don't have it, and above which you do, but at the same time degrees in which this person has more than that person. Flourishing is individualistic like this. My flourishing is different form yours. To get a complete description you're going to have to take multiple accounts and multiple approaches and integrate them with your observations.

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

Health is individual, contextual, but also generic and inclusive. Health isn't just "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it," it is an objective state that is scientifically describable. But still my health may be different from yours. There may be a cutoff point below which you don't have it, and above which you do, but at the same time degrees in which this person has more than that person. Flourishing is individualistic like this. My flourishing is different form yours. To get a complete description you're going to have to take multiple accounts and multiple approaches and integrate them with your observations.

3

What you bring up is a very important point.

At this point in the thread, with all the information we have brought forward, it is almost irrefutable that when she says "life" she means "a life worth living".
We know that she does NOT mean "survival at any cost".
That implies that there is a minimum, that there is a boundary, a line that one "should not cross".
Once discovered, that is the line that differentiates a good life from a bad life.
For those who believe that flourishing is the ultimate end, then that line becomes the standard of the good or evil. So what constitutes or leads to a good life is good etc. That line would end up being the differentiator of good from evil, the crux of the ethics.

The problem with the interpretation of "a life worth living" is that life can be getting crumbs like welfare or a grand life with major achievements.
The concept of flourishing also has that problem, in that there a minimum flourishing necessary? Or is any amount of flourishing good?

We all agree that an ethics has to have an ultimate end (so that it is not utilitarian/aimless).
(oddly: the ethics of an ethics)
The concept "Life" is clear, objective, as in existence or non-existence.

For a man or living organism, death is, in fact, the objective minimum. Even in a life not worth living, a person can have hope. Hope is subjective and can make any kind of life worth living.

"Life" encompasses life vs. death, and happiness/flourishing. Happiness/flourishing is inevitably partially objective and partially subjective, which in total means subjective. 
It is most plausible that she did not use flourishing because it can never be totally objective.
The objective line drawn, within the "big picture", had to be life vs. death, survival.

With life vs. death, existence being the ultimate end, the line is clear.

Death does not have degrees, it either is or isn't.

The realm of economics, politics and even psychology require a clear line that differentiates right from wrong.
 

[2046]

44 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

"Life" encompasses life vs. death, and happiness/flourishing. Happiness/flourishing is inevitably partially objective and partially subjective, which in total means subjective. 
It is most plausible that she did not use flourishing because it can never be totally objective.
The objective line drawn, within the "big picture", had to be life vs. death, survival.

With life vs. death, existence being the ultimate end, the line is clear.

I certainly don't think it's subjective. Subjective vs objective isn't about whether something has a clear line, as if something that is objective just can't have any debate about and everyone will agree. Objective means having mind-independent qualities that are what they are, subjective means existing in the mind without relation to external reality.

Theres always going to be interpretation over certain objective facts, including flourishing. Many people might think Hugh Hefner lived the ultimate flourishing life, while other accounts might think he lived a sad and pathetic existence. Having different interpretations of facts is just part of life.

Life or death is a very important distinction, but not every decision is a life or death one, and it's important to understand varying degrees of living because that's where most of our choices are.

[DonAthos]

On 10/11/2017 at 11:40 AM, Invictus2017 said:

It's fairly easy to frame the hypothetical in this case.

If y'all wouldn't mind, I'd like to try something a little different: I would like to play "devil's advocate," and -- since no one here will lay claim to the title "survivalist" (even if I believe that some extant arguments amount to the same thing), I shall adopt that mantle, for the purpose of exploring these issues further.

I should say from the outset that I do not typically enjoy "devil's advocate" style arguments, on either side of them, and I do not expect that I engage in them particularly well. But I struggle with the impression that, as yet, I still have not successfully conveyed my thoughts on these matters... and I hope that a fresh perspective might help me to do that better. (Or, if I am wrong about any aspect of this debate, perhaps taking on a fresh perspective will show me something I hadn't seen before.)

In an attempt to keep things at least somewhat clear, I'll adopt the convention of using Comic Sans MS font while taking the "survivalist" side (and the default of Arial when providing straight commentary).

Like this.

Quote

Our Hero has been given the opportunity to pursue his life-long dream, which he expects to bring immense happiness. The gotcha is that the experts tell him it'll likely cut five years off his life.  Other experts tell him that he'll likely suffer from severe depression if he doesn't go, and this will likely knock off a year or so from his life.

Happiness is a means to an end. Man's proper ultimate end is his own survival. It is proper, therefore, to value happiness insofar as it functions as a fuel, to help one to survive, and no more than that.

Valuing a pleasant feeling emotion at the cost of one's literal survival is choosing non-existence over existence, and is thus immoral.

Quote

As you say, the survivalist, going with the best knowledge available, will stay home. The proper analysis is different, though, and leads to a different conclusion. Before that analysis can be undertaken, your hypothetical needs an additional assumption.

This assumption is that of emotional health. There's no need to get into the details of what constitutes emotional health. Rather, a definition suffices: Emotional health is that state where one's emotions are generally a reliable indicator of ethical action. That is, as a rule, one gets positive emotions from acting ethically and one's positive emotions motivate actions that are ethical. (And conversely with negative emotions.)

It is not always the case that one gets positive emotions from ethical action, or negative emotions from unethical action; if that were so, then yes -- one could simply be guided by his positive emotions. But sometimes unethical actions (meaning: actions which work against the literal survival of the organism) will produce positive emotions in some individuals, or ethical actions may trigger some negative-feeling experience of emotion. This is precisely when the rational application of a survival-oriented code of ethics is necessary, to guide our actions.

The case you describe is just such a situation. If our "Hero" is guided by his emotions, then they will lead to his literal destruction. That is whim worship.

Quote

On this assumption, Our Hero goes through his life seeking happiness, only occasionally checking to see that doing so is really the right thing. In this hypothetical, Our Hero could actually just follow his emotions and end up doing the right thing. But he would be acting unethically were he to do so; when the possible consequences are so serious, he needs to reason things through.

The reasoning is fairly simple, though. His goal is not simple survival, but continuing to live.

Whatever it is you mean by "continuing to live," it is not possible without "simple survival." Valuing "continuing to live" at the cost of "simple survival" is illogical, it smuggles subjectivity into the standard of "life" (emotionalism).

For remember, "it is the bare fundamental alternative of survival versus death that stands at the root of all values." Our hero faces that bare, fundamental alternative and chooses death over survival -- for what? The experience of some emotional thrill.

Quote

He does not ask what will keep him alive longest, because he does not live an abstract "life" where the only factor of significance is whether he continues to carry out the process of life. The question he asks is, instead, what constitutes "continuing to live" for the particular life that is his.

It may not be the "only factor of significance" whether he continues to carry out the process of life, as such, but that does function as "the basic criterion of ethics": "the literal alternative of life versus death, existence versus nonexistence."

"Continuing to live," objectively, requires continuing to carry out the process of life. It is therefore immoral to value anything above one's very ability to carry out the process of life, and since your hypothetical stipulates that pursuing "his life-long dream"* will impair his ability to carry out the process of life (more substantially than the alternative), it is choosing literal death over literal life, nonexistence over existence.

______________________________

* A rational person should not value anything more than his own survival in the first place; a rational person -- a true Hero -- would not value a "dream" if pursuing that dream came at the cost of his own life, and it should consequently not provide him happiness, either in contemplation or actuality. A true Hero would be happier staying safely at home (not that this happiness is material, of course, except as a fuel towards further survival).

Quote

In essence, what he seeks is not longevity but health, in the broadest sense. Health, basically, is the state where each part of an organism carries out its function of contributing to the organism's life. (It's a little more complicated than that, but the difference doesn't matter here.) Our Hero's choice, from this perspective is to go, satisfying his emotions, or to stay, setting them against himself. In either case, he will still be able to effectively carry out the other processes of life, so that isn't a factor.

Remember that, "although Ayn Rand made it clear that she meant her morality to ensure a rich, fully human life, it is the bare fundamental alternative of survival versus death that stands at the root of all values."

Therefore, this "health" you speak of, if it is to have objective value consistent with these ethics, must fundamentally contribute to the organism's life with respect to the bare fundamental alternative of survival versus death.

If our Hero's choice is to go, satisfying his emotions, then his emotions are working against his own survival; they are not healthy.

Quote

But there are situations where following one's emotions would not be right. I implied one earlier, where one's emotions are not healthy. An example of another such situation would be one where the trip was expected to be one that would damage his ability to pursue his dream. In that case, his immediate sense that taking the trip would bring happiness would have to give way to the rational conclusion that it would not.

This is a situation where "following one's emotions would not be right": they are not consistent with "the most basic criterion of ethics," which is survival, "the literal alternative of life versus death, existence versus nonexistence."

If one's "dreams" and "emotions" lead one to literal destruction, then they are unhealthy, and to follow them against an objective code of morality is whim worship, subjective, and immoral. Whether it is the case that this trip would bring a person happiness, or not, is immaterial; it is worth keeping in mind that "an ethical person examines the facts and determines which alternative best promotes his survival." In this case, the alternative which best promotes the Hero's survival is to find another dream.

Edited October 16, 2017 by DonAthos

[Easy Truth]

4 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Happiness is a means to an end.

To complete your educational project, are you willing to advocate against your devil's advocate now? Showing how you correct the devil's advocate's positions may help (me at least) understand what you are in fact advocating.

The way you have it is like "I'm going to advocate some nonsense that some people advocate". Okay, agreed, there is a lot of nonsense there. How am I to extract what you are advocating from what you are not advocating?

I know it is a lot of work but the sentence above alone makes me ignore the rest (Happiness is a means to an end).

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

To complete your educational project, are you willing to advocate against your devil's advocate now? Showing how you correct the devil's advocate's positions may help (me at least) understand what you are in fact advocating.

Hi Easy Truth,

Advocating against the position I am taking now (as devil's advocate) is literally what I consider myself to have been doing throughout my entire participation in this thread (and for far longer than that, actually); so I would refer you to my other posts in this thread for the substance of what I am sincerely advocating, and also the other threads to which I have sometimes linked.

I also attempted the briefest possible of summaries when I wrote:

On 10/5/2017 at 6:46 PM, DonAthos said:

DonAthos sees "life" [as in "life as the standard of value"] as inclusive of survival, pleasure and happiness -- and thus something like flourishing. He believes that an individual should act so as to maximize his positive experience of life, which may entail enjoying certain pleasures [physical/emotional/mental/spiritual; inclusive of happiness], even at the cost of longevity. He believes that all choices are moral and either promote or detract from one's ability to enjoy life.

I don't know whether that will serve to help you to understand what I am advocating -- for I fear that I have done a poor job of it -- but that's precisely why I'm trying something different now.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The way you have it is like "I'm going to advocate some nonsense that some people advocate". Okay, agreed, there is a lot of nonsense there.

Yes, that's why I don't particularly relish this form of argument... it's difficult enough to communicate complex ideas, sincerely held, in anything like a clear manner; it is especially hard to be able to put something you don't quite believe in, into terms that sound plausible (and it isn't a particularly pleasant thing to do, of itself). And it may be that I'm not doing a great job of it, either, but I would ask for your patience while I make the attempt.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

How am I to extract what you are advocating from what you are not advocating?

If I could, I would advise to simply take my devil's advocacy at face value, for the time being; pretend as though I am sincere in my Comic Sans voice, and respond accordingly. If there is anything to be gained from this exercise (and I concede that there may not be anything to be gained; I simply may not yet have the tools to convey my perspective... or I may be wrong), then I believe that's how we would best do it.

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I know it is a lot of work but the sentence above alone makes me ignore the rest (Happiness is a means to an end).

For the sake of understanding (whether I am speaking my mind sincerely or as "devil's advocate"), it may be necessary to go beyond the very first sentence of my argument, even where you find it nonsensical. But all right, we can start here...

______________________________

We say that our "ultimate value" is survival, do we not?

But what does it mean that this is our "ultimate value"? Per Rand, an ultimate value "is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means." If survival is our ultimate value (where "survival" means the literal alternative of life or death, existence or non-existence), then every other value that we have (everything else that we act to gain or to keep) is a means to that end. To the extent that we value (act to gain or keep) a given emotional state, such as happiness, it is only as a means to the end of survival.

Happiness and other forms of pleasure, whether physical or spiritual or otherwise, provide us necessary fuel "to move farther," as surely as food and water. This is why we may regard happiness (or food or water) as "good," in that capacity. But it is only good in that capacity -- because it helps us to survive. Should the pursuit of happiness turn against our survival, it would be evil in that measure (just as too much food, or the wrong kind of food, may make a man sick; just as too much water will drown).

In the hypothetical to which I am responding, the (so-called) Hero is seeking an emotional experience of happiness at the cost of his own survival. This is sacrificing a greater value for a lesser value -- in fact, it is the sacrifice of his ultimate value, his very life, which is the necessary precondition for the experience of happiness or anything else. It is grossly immoral.

[StrictlyLogical]

This is a rebuttal to the ponderings and stance of the Survivalist

 

I am a minimoralist in my view of my morality and its relation to all I am and all my life.

It is analogous to minarchism in its view of politics and its rule in relation to the individual.

Minimoralism is the adoption of a moral code whose end is limited to survival of a human being and everything that requires and entails and which formulation is absolute and objective as dictated solely by reality and the nature of man.  

There is no conflation between the ends of this moral code and the end or purpose of me.  I am an end in myself to me, the end of my chosen code is the specific purpose to which that code has been set by me.  I have chosen survival for my minimorality because it is amenable to objectivity and science and will prove thereby most useful as a guide.

Every consideration which falls outside of the above considerations falls outside of my morality.  Insofar as any choice or action, according to the principle of cause and effect, is irrelevant to the above considerations, it is amoral, subjective, optional.

Minimoralism is not a guide to tell me the meaning of life, what the purpose of life is, where my happiness lies, that I should choose to live, or why I should want to live, nor does it dictate why I should adopt, by choice, any morality whatever.  Minimoralism is my chosen guide limited only to the problem of staying alive, I have chosen to use it as a tool and it serves me well within the bounds of its purpose.

I am a fierce advocate and pursuer of pleasure and experience.  Within the bounds of what is rationally possible to me and even beyond what nature and reality counsel are conducive to survival under minimorality, I seek and exploit every opportunity for pleaure and experiences as subjectively, optionally, and over and above my minimorality.

In fact I have a policy of, once survival itself has been maximized under objective minimoral principles, taking that span of life as a graph and maximizing the pleasure and experience, such that the area under the curve is maximized.  If that means ditching one experience for another or spans of unpleasant toil or practice (eg musical instrument) to master the ability to experience the sublime, as long as that area under the curve is maximized I do it.  This is my will and my desire my sovereign freedom I indulge in.

I, as a minimoralist am repulsed by the Survivalist.  To say Man's proper end is only survival is wicked and impoverished.  A Man is an end in himself.  I am free and I choose my ends, my purpose, why I live my life.  I determine the meaning of my life.  It belongs to me and no other.  My survival is important to me and I have chosen a minimorality as a tool toward that purpose I have set for it. It answers to me, as long as I choose the purpose I have set for it, I will follow its advice. But it is I who makes the ultimate choice and should I decide to abandon it will have no power over me. I, and no other am sovereign in my choice to live and why.  Should I choose death, should I decide to dispense with my voluntary chosen guide, no Survivalist can tell me I am Wrong to do so, he has no claim in reason and no authority in spirit.

The greatest problem of this Survivalist is that he thinks morality should take the place of the person it serves, as if the Ten Commandments should themselves usurp and occupy the seat of God himself.  What need is there of volition, will, experience, personhood and when it could be replaced with the cold calculus of a perfect set of rules to guide all of a person?  The Survivalist sets up an automaton directed to survive by the very rules of natural reality which govern the motions of the stars and the currents of the oceans... movement without purpose, an Android whose perfect choices are dictated by reality and hence choice itself is irrelevant. This Survivalist believes that morality dictates all a man does and strives to be and moreover limits this view to base existence.  What is wrong here is not only the particular standard this Survivalist has chosen for morality (which consigns a man to nothing but a barely subsisting automaton) but the exalted position he places it in.  He has taken the abstract notion of morality and placed it in the seat of an all powerful deity ruling over its prisoner as an end in itself.

He puts, as the end in itself, the morality, an abstract code, and not the person who that morality is supposed to serve.  This is a weak and repulsive inversion.  It represents the exhortation of an abdication of the absolute sovereignty of a volitional consciousness.

As a minimoralist I reject the Survivalist views of the purpose of morality in relation to a whole person.  My morality is smaller and more focused than his but I assure you my vision of myself and my life are far greater than he could ever imagine.

Edited October 16, 2017 by StrictlyLogical

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I am a minimoralist in my view of my morality and its relation to all I am and all my life.

The Survivalist would like to attempt a fuller response to your post in the near future, but in the meantime, would you mind providing a Minimoralist response to the hypothetical as framed by Invictus2017 here:

On 10/11/2017 at 11:40 AM, Invictus2017 said:

Our Hero has been given the opportunity to pursue his life-long dream, which he expects to bring immense happiness.  The gotcha is that the experts tell him it'll likely cut five years off his life.  Other experts tell him that he'll likely suffer from severe depression if he doesn't go, and this will likely knock off a year or so from his life.

How does the Minimoralist regard this?