Why is life not intrinsically good?

[Eiuol]

The value to a living being is life itself; thus by definition intrinsic value, metaphysically given, independent of consciousness.

Nothing is valuable independent of consciousness, or more specifically, apart from the valuer. Life is not a value until it has been implicitly chosen. Before that choice is made, life has no value whatsoever.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Eiuol

[Amaroq]

The device still operates the same way no matter how far apart the numbers are on the readout.

The point was to illustrate that value doesn't exist 'out there' in reality. You cannot find 'value' anywhere no matter what physical means you devise to search for it. That's because value doesn't exist physically. Value is a concept that describes the fact that living beings pursue certain things to the benefit of their lives. How much a certain thing benefits (or detriments) a certain entity's life determines its value to that entity.

I'm curious, do you hold the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy?

[Leonid]

Nothing is valuable independent of consciousness, or more specifically, apart from the valuer. Life is not a value until it has been implicitly chosen. Before that choice is made, life has no value whatsoever.

Valuer is every living thing. It doesn't have to be conscious since it has build-in mechanisms of valuation. Without it its actions cannot be self-initiated and goal-orientated. Human consciousness is basically the same mechanism of survival modified by self-awarness and free will.

[Leonid]

Amaroq "I'm curious, do you hold the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy? "

I'm not sure what do you mean by that.

[Dante]

Valuer is every living thing. It doesn't have to be conscious since it has build-in mechanisms of valuation. Without it its actions cannot be self-initiated and goal-orientated. Human consciousness is basically the same mechanism of survival modified by self-awarness and free will.

He's obviously only talking about man, because he says that life must be implicitly chosen, and only man has free will.

Every living thing, conscious or not, automatically pursues its life, except for man. Man is different; some of his processes are automatic, but some are not, and he could not survive by the automatic processes alone. Thus, his choice to adopt conscious values is pivotal.

[Amaroq]

Amaroq "I'm curious, do you hold the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy? "

I'm not sure what do you mean by that.

We were discussing this thread in the chatroom once, and another member pointed this out to me.

Subjective value means that something is valuable because you just happen to value it. That that value exists only in your mind. You made it up. Intrinsic value means that something has 'value' inside of it, independent of a valuer. Most people hold a dichotomy between these two, which means "one or the other".

Objectivism rejects this dichotomy and, instead, accepts objective value.

http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture29.shtml

Edited April 25, 2010 by Amaroq

[RationalBiker]

He's obviously only talking about man, because he says that life must be implicitly chosen, and only man has free will.

If you haven't noticed, Leonid is cherry-picking different things stated in Objectivism and divorcing them from other things subsumed by those statements (as well as parts in those quoted statements) in order to present his position as consistent with Objectivism. I'm not sure how one can argue against that. I pointed that out to him already and he failed to address my point.

It's pretty clear that Objectivism rejects the notion of intrinsic value, it spells out why, and it has been demonstrated in this thread with examples.

[Leonid]

We were discussing this thread in the chatroom once, and another member pointed this out to me.

Subjective value means that something is valuable because you just happen to value it. That that value exists only in your mind. You made it up. Intrinsic value means that something has 'value' inside of it, independent of a valuer. Most people hold a dichotomy between these two, which means "one or the other".

Objectivism rejects this dichotomy and, instead, accepts objective value.

http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture29.shtml

My concept of intrinsic value pertains only to life itself. Since life is standard of value, it connot be subjective and therefore there is no dichotomy.

[Grames]

My concept of intrinsic value pertains only to life itself. Since life is standard of value, it connot be subjective and therefore there is no dichotomy.

That makes no sense at all. If it cannot be subjective, and THEREFORE by elimination it must be intrinsic, you ARE assuming that intrinsic and subjective are the only two possibilities.

[Leonid]

That makes no sense at all. If it cannot be subjective, and THEREFORE by elimination it must be intrinsic, you ARE assuming that intrinsic and subjective are the only two possibilities.

I never said that life has intrinsic value because it cannot be subjective. I gave my reasons in posts above and they don't include this argument. I simply stated that there is no dichotomy because value of life is not subjective. It's objective and intrinsic.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Leonid

[Grames]

It's objective and intrinsic.

This is an explicit contradiction.

[Leonid]

It's objective and intrinsic...This is an explicit contradiction.

How so? Intrinsic means property of reality which is independent of consciousness. Objective means exactly the same.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Leonid

[Jake_Ellison]

intrinsic value

Intrinsic means property of reality which is independent of consciousness.

A value that's independent of consciousness? If my values aren't the things I (me, including my consciousness) value, then what are they?

[Leonid]

A value that's independent of consciousness? If my values aren't the things I (me, including my consciousness) value, then what are they?

Other living beings apart from man also valuate. Plant turns to sun because sunlight has value for it. Amoeba escapes sunlight because sunlight is harmful to it. Since living organism's action is always goal-orientated they act in order to obtain values. The ultimate goal of such an action is life itself.

[Grames]

How so? Intrinsic means property of reality which is independent of consciousness. Objective means exactly the same.

This simply confirms that you do not understand what objective means. If it meant exactly the same, it would be useless.

The there are at least two fundamental differences between objective and intrinsic, and those both arise within the field of epistemology. All living things value, but only people need epistemology to value.

Objectivity at the Ayn Rand Lexicon

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic).

The 'reason' perspective must deal with the subject-object analysis of consciousness, the relation that something exists AND that you know it. Logic is rooted in identity and causality. The personal and the causal can form the basis for differentiating the intrinsic, the subjective, the objective, and the deterministic.

I wrote a post here with a helpful diagram explaining this. Objectivity in Truth and the Good, taxonomy as aid to insight

[Dante]

Grames, that link doesn't work for me.

[Amaroq]

Lol, Grames, you pasted the same into both the url and the textual parts of that link.

[Leonid]

Grames "The there are at least two fundamental differences between objective and intrinsic, and those both arise within the field of epistemology. All living things value, but only people need epistemology to value."

As you said "All living things value”. Epistemology deals with the question of awareness of value, not value itself. Since not all living things which value possess awareness, value is metaphysical and not epistemic concept. To claim the opposite is to accept the notion of primacy of consciousness. You have to distinguish between fields of epistemology and metaphysics. From metaphysical point of view intrinsic and objective is the same. For example red colour is intrinsic property of tomato and this is objective fact of reality. Value is intrinsic property of life and this is also objective fact of reality. Both facts are independent of consciousness. This metaphysical fact lies in the basis of epistemic conclusion that life is standard of value. Epistemology is reducible to metaphysics, not other way around

Edited April 28, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

If you haven't noticed, Leonid is cherry-picking different things stated in Objectivism and divorcing them from other things subsumed by those statements (as well as parts in those quoted statements) in order to present his position as consistent with Objectivism. I'm not sure how one can argue against that. I pointed that out to him already and he failed to address my point.

It's pretty clear that Objectivism rejects the notion of intrinsic value, it spells out why, and it has been demonstrated in this thread with examples.

I usually don't comment on unwarranted statements. Pointing out is not a proof.

[Leonid]

cancelled

Edited April 28, 2010 by Leonid

[Dante]

From metaphysical point of view intrinsic and objective is the same. For example red colour is intrinsic property of tomato and this is objective fact of reality. Value is intrinsic property of life and this is also objective fact of reality. Both facts are independent of consciousness. This metaphysical fact lies in the basis of epistemic conclusion that life is standard of value. Epistemology is reducible to metaphysics, not other way around

But the color "red" is relational; it arises from an interaction between photons from the tomato and one's own eyes. It arises from fundamental facts about the tomato (atomic structure), but the color itself is a relational property.

In the same way, the characteristics which give rise to the phenomenon of valuing are inherent in the phenomenon of life, but valuation itself always arises from a relation between the actor and a goal (which is not necessarily consciously held by the organism).

[RationalBiker]

I usually don't comment on unwarranted statements. Pointing out is not a proof.

Nor have you commented on an unwarranted statement in this case.

I demonstrated previously how you have cherry picked statements from Objectivism while ignoring others (or parts of your quotes) in order to support your claim that your view is consistent with Objectivism. That you reject it does not negate its truth. Pointing out may not be proof, but pointing out proof is proof.

Most obviously, you reject that a value requires a valuer and a purpose. This is clearly Objectivisms view on value. For more, you can go back and look at my previous post to which you on responded to one part.

You can keep believing life has intrinsic value all you want, but that is factually demonstrated to the contrary when people rationally demonstrate their life no longer has value to them. BOOM! Instrinsic value blown right out of the water.

Edited April 28, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Jake_Ellison]

Other living beings apart from man also valuate. Plant turns to sun because sunlight has value for it. Amoeba escapes sunlight because sunlight is harmful to it. Since living organism's action is always goal-orientated they act in order to obtain values. The ultimate goal of such an action is life itself.

I wasn't asking about other living organisms, I was asking about myself. Are my values independent of my consciousness?

[Grames]

Grames "The there are at least two fundamental differences between objective and intrinsic, and those both arise within the field of epistemology. All living things value, but only people need epistemology to value."

As you said "All living things value”. Epistemology deals with the question of awareness of value, not value itself. Since not all living things which value possess awareness, value is metaphysical and not epistemic concept. To claim the opposite is to accept the notion of primacy of consciousness. You have to distinguish between fields of epistemology and metaphysics. From metaphysical point of view intrinsic and objective is the same. For example red colour is intrinsic property of tomato and this is objective fact of reality. Value is intrinsic property of life and this is also objective fact of reality. Both facts are independent of consciousness. This metaphysical fact lies in the basis of epistemic conclusion that life is standard of value. Epistemology is reducible to metaphysics, not other way around

Now you are making contrafactual statements. That is not how color works. The color red is NOT an intrinsic property of anything that exists, it is a relation between some thing with certain surface reflectance properties and a perceiver with certain responses to light. The fact of reality is that color is objective and not intrinsic. Perceptual relativity in color is an excellent example to illustrate how objectivity differs from intrinsicism.

Chapter 3 of David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses covers perceptual relativity and color in depth.

Subject-object analysis was not invented by Ayn Rand, and has been used for centuries now because it is correct. Not grasping this will be an obstacle to your further learning even if you drop Objectivism forever.

And here is that link I screwed up: Objectivity in Truth and the Good, taxonomy as aid to insight

[Leonid]

Nor have you commented on an unwarranted statement in this case.

I demonstrated previously how you have cherry picked statements from Objectivism while ignoring others (or parts of your quotes) in order to support your claim that your view is consistent with Objectivism. That you reject it does not negate its truth. Pointing out may not be proof, but pointing out proof is proof.

Most obviously, you reject that a value requires a valuer and a purpose. This is clearly Objectivisms view on value. For more, you can go back and look at my previous post to which you on responded to one part.

You can keep believing life has intrinsic value all you want, but that is factually demonstrated to the contrary when people rationally demonstrate their life no longer has value to them. BOOM! Instrinsic value blown right out of the water.

Can you point out which statements exactly did I ignore? Where did I say that value doesn't require a valuer and goal/purpose? In all my posts I've claimed exactly the opposite. What I did say is that valuer is not necessarily has to be conscious; some mechanisms of valuation are build-in, intrinsic to the organism. The essence of life is an action to gain and keep life itself, value therefore is intinsic to life. As long as people alive, untill the last breath and heart beat their bodies pursuit life, independently of their consciousness, contrary to their choice to negate life. When they dead, they don't make any choices anymore. As long as one is alive one cannot stop to act in order to gain/keep life. The only rational explanation of this is that value is intrinsic property of life, that is-it cannot be negated.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Leonid