Why is life not intrinsically good?

[ttime]

JavR "The reason this looks like primacy of consciousness to you, is because you seem to think that "value" is a metaphysical attribute of a living thing that will be taken away if your theory falls apart. Value is not some thing out there in reality, it takes a valuer."

I think that value is a property which inherent to life.It seems that the main point of disagreement lies in your premise of valuer as conscious volitional being. But this is obviously incorrect. Every living thing, conscious or not acts in order to gain/keep values when the ultimate value is its own life. Therefore every organism is a valuer. It chooses its values without to be conscious or volitional. Lion will choose to hunt and eat springbok but it will ignore grass as source of nutrition. Springbok will eat grass and ignore meat even if it ready available to it. They both choose their values involuntary, their choice is preprogrammed. I don't believe in God and I don't think that acknowledge of the obvious fact that self-organized system which generates self-initiated goal-orientated actions is driven by teleological self-causation is mysticism. I don't believe in reductionism either.

How is something be a choice if it's preprogrammed? Isn't "involuntary choice" a contradiction in terms?

Also, what would you say to the idea that life is an instrumental value in sustaining itself, if that is the goal of the valuer's actions (whether voluntary or involuntary)?

[RationalBiker]

They both choose their values involuntary, their choice is preprogrammed.

Now you are redefining choice. The above sentence is a contradiction.

[JayR]

How is something be a choice if it's preprogrammed? Isn't "involuntary choice" a contradiction in terms?

Also, what would you say to the idea that life is an instrumental value in sustaining itself, if that is the goal of the valuer's actions (whether voluntary or involuntary)?

I think this query about "instumental value" vs. "intrinsic value" may be of some merit. Definitions may be the problem.

j..

[Leonid]

Now you are redefining choice. The above sentence is a contradiction.

Alas, there is no Objectivist definition of "choice". Varies dictionaries define "choice" as selection in the face of alternative. "“It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death." (VOS, pg 15). From this follows that every living organism chooses such a mode of action which sustains its life. There is no doubt that even low animals constantly choose their values, any pet owner knows that. Volitional choice belongs to man, but that doesn't exclude other types of choices.

[Leonid]

I think this query about "instumental value" vs. "intrinsic value" may be of some merit. Definitions may be the problem.

j..

"Something is said to have intrinsic value if it is good ``in and of itself,'' i.e., not merely as a means for acquiring something else."

"Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value."

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture...hics/node2.html

Life is ultimate value, an end in itself and therefore it is intrinsic, not instrumental value.

[ttime]

"Something is said to have intrinsic value if it is good ``in and of itself,'' i.e., not merely as a means for acquiring something else."

"Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value."

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture...hics/node2.html

Life is ultimate value, an end in itself and therefore it is intrinsic, not instrumental value.

But isn't life an instrumental value because it is the ultimate value? In other words, isn't it valuable because it makes all other values possible?

[RationalBiker]

Alas, there is no Objectivist definition of "choice". Varies dictionaries define "choice" as selection in the face of alternative. "“It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death." (VOS, pg 15). From this follows that every living organism chooses such a mode of action which sustains its life. There is no doubt that even low animals constantly choose their values, any pet owner knows that. Volitional choice belongs to man, but that doesn't exclude other types of choices.

That's not an answer. Something that is pre-programmed to act in a particular manner is not making a choice, it is doing the only thing it can do - follow the programming. It is not facing alternatives as it can only act as it is programmed to act. You have still asserted a contradiction.

Edited May 3, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Leonid]

RationalBiker “That's not an answer. Something that is pre-programmed to act in a particular manner is not making a choice, it is doing the only thing it can do - follow the programming. It is not facing alternatives as it can only act as it is programmed to act. You have still asserted a contradiction.”

By implying that choice presupposes existence of Free will or conceptual thinking you redefine “choice” No dictionary definition suggests that. There are many other mechanisms of choice-pain and pleasure for example. The alternative of life and death always exists for the living organism.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

But isn't life an instrumental value because it is the ultimate value? In other words, isn't it valuable because it makes all other values possible?

Not according to definition of instrumental value. Exactly because life is ultimate value it cannot be value for something else except life itself. On the contrary all other values are instrumental to life.

[RationalBiker]

Life is only a value to those who rationally choose it with consideration to all other circumstances affecting that person's life. It is rationally possible to choose death as a value over life given the right circumstances. In this case, life ceases to be of value. It doesn't matter that the heart keeps beating, the liver keeps functioning, skin cells keep growing, because they are not man's "life". In fact, they are now a dis-value to the man who rationally seeks to end his life, all of these functions being things that he seeks to no longer act to gain or keep; functions that he is acting to stop and no longer pursue. Man's mind determines his values, not the functioning of the parts of his body. While they are of value to a man who chooses to continue to pursue his life, they are no longer a value to the man who seeks stop them in order to achieve his new goal of death. I really can't think of a simpler way to demonstrate that to you.

If you want to keep talking about plants making choices and such... that's up to you. However, since this board is about Objectivism, a philosophy for guiding man's life, I'm going to bow out.

[Grames]

Alas, there is no Objectivist definition of "choice". Varies dictionaries define "choice" as selection in the face of alternative. "“It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death." (VOS, pg 15). From this follows that every living organism chooses such a mode of action which sustains its life. There is no doubt that even low animals constantly choose their values, any pet owner knows that. Volitional choice belongs to man, but that doesn't exclude other types of choices.

The mistake is yours in equating alternative with choice. It does not follow from the alternative between life and death that every living organism chooses.

When you write "every living organism chooses" that is a universal claim disproved with a single counterexample such as a plant or bacterium.

[Leonid]

The mistake is yours in equating alternative with choice. It does not follow from the alternative between life and death that every living organism chooses.

When you write "every living organism chooses" that is a universal claim disproved with a single counterexample such as a plant or bacterium.

Every living organism including plants and bacterium acts order to gain/keep values. Different organisms seek different values. Plant turns to light, amoeba escapes it. They select, choose values which sustain their life.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Life is only a value to those who rationally choose it with consideration to all other circumstances affecting that person's life. It is rationally possible to choose death as a value over life given the right circumstances. In this case, life ceases to be of value. It doesn't matter that the heart keeps beating, the liver keeps functioning, skin cells keep growing, because they are not man's "life". In fact, they are now a dis-value to the man who rationally seeks to end his life, all of these functions being things that he seeks to no longer act to gain or keep; functions that he is acting to stop and no longer pursue. Man's mind determines his values, not the functioning of the parts of his body. While they are of value to a man who chooses to continue to pursue his life, they are no longer a value to the man who seeks stop them in order to achieve his new goal of death. I really can't think of a simpler way to demonstrate that to you.

If you want to keep talking about plants making choices and such... that's up to you. However, since this board is about Objectivism, a philosophy for guiding man's life, I'm going to bow out.

I already responded that I discuses here life as such, not man's life qua man. However note that Objectivism is primary philosophy of mind and mind is biological phenomenon. In order to understand mind one needs first to understand life not in terms of biochemistry, but in philosophical terms. Without it Objectivism looses its epistemic and ethical ground. And for the proof observe your own attempt to divorce man's rational life from his physical life. Such an attempt is amount to acknowledgement of mind-body dichotomy' notion. Rationality is not end in itself. Mind is the only tool of human survival. To use it as a tool of death is worse then contradiction in terms. If man's mind is not originated from the essential properties which belong to every living being, that is -the ability to develop self-initiated goal orientated interaction with environment, then what it originated from? The only possible alternative is supernatural, mystic origin. Since this board is about Objectivism, I think you should reconsider your position.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Leonid

[ttime]

"Something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value."

So you don't think life provides the means for acquiring values within life? Or do you think life is the only value? This seems like a big contradiction in your position. Obviously I do not have the means to acquire things I value if I am not alive; therefore my life is my means of acquiring what I value. So you either must deny that life provides the means for acquiring values, or you must reject this definition that you have provided here.

[RationalBiker]

Since this board is about Objectivism, I think you should reconsider your position.

And I would say the same to you as well.

[Leonid]

So you don't think life provides the means for acquiring values within life? Or do you think life is the only value? This seems like a big contradiction in your position. Obviously I do not have the means to acquire things I value if I am not alive; therefore my life is my means of acquiring what I value. So you either must deny that life provides the means for acquiring values, or you must reject this definition that you have provided here.

Life is ultimate value and life provides the means to sustain itself. This is the essence of life as process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. The end of such a process is life itself. Therefore life cannot be an instrumental value. (value for something other then life- see definition above). Life is a value in itself, intrinsic value. Cannot see the contradiction.

[Marc K.]

I think everyone ought to read this old thread, its a short 3 pager. Contained therein is a quote from Ayn Rand:

"Since I regard all values as contextual and hierarchical, I would ultimately regard only one good as "intrinsic," in your sense of the term, namely: life. -- Ayn Rand, "Letters of Ayn Rand," p. 561

That quote is fleshed out a bit more in the thread and should be instrumental to everyone's understanding.

CAVEAT: I do not endorse anyone's understanding in that thread. In particular I don't endorse my own understanding at that time. I believe that Stephen Speicher had a proper understanding of that quote though, since it is such an intricate and detailed issue, even he made a misstatement or two in application.

My current understanding is that morally there is no intrinsic value, that every life is an end in itself but that metaphysically there is one phenomenon that makes all other values possible; one phenomenon without which no value would exist; the only phenomenon, metaphysically, which is an end in itself: the phenomenon of life.

But as LP says in OPAR page 213: "This idea is a truism, not a philosophy."

This is going to wrankle some but please no flippant replies. I have given this issue much thought in 6 years and have found nothing in Objectivist literature to contradict it.

By the way I don't think this comports with Leonid's understanding since I believe he is applying this idea to individuals and obviously, to some, life has no value.

[Leonid]

Marc K "By the way I don't think this comports with Leonid's understanding since I believe he is applying this idea to individuals and obviously, to some, life has no value."

Thank you for the quote. I do have "Letters" and I don't know how I missed it. Life qua life has intrinsic value, some people denial notwithstanding. Some people deny many self-evident things, free will for example. Would it mean that for them free will doesn't exist? Exactly like in the case of life, such a denial is self-refuting.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Leonid

[Marc K.]

Life qua life has intrinsic value, some people denial notwithstanding. Some people deny many self-evident things, free will for example. Would it mean that for them free will doesn't exist? Exactly like in the case of life, such a denial is self-refuting.

No, life qua life does not have intrinsic value, not the way you are using it.

Life qua metaphysical phenomenon does have intrinsic value. Life as the only phenomenon which is an end in itself has intrinsic value.

Life qua individual does not have intrinsic value. Each life is an end in itself and we each get to decide what that end is. We each decide what is bearable. For some, living a life of constant pain has no value. For John Galt, living a life in a world in which Dagny had been tortured to reach him had no value.

[RationalBiker]

As somebody in that other thread noted, Rand explained in 'Letters' about her objection to "intrinsic value".

"You ask whether I would agree with the distinction you make between "intrinsic good" and "instrumental good." I do not object to the concepts as you define them, but I would not use them, for the following reasons: A. The term "intrinsic" is extremely dangerous to use in ethics. It can be taken to mean "good of and by itself," regardless of context, standard, source, recipient and recipient's knowledge."

Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561

So it really doesn't matter who believes life has intrinsic value when it does not. Beliefs to not make reality and Rand and Objectivism both reject(ed) the idea of "intrinsic value" in the "good of and by itself" sense.

So I for one am not "wrangled".

Edited May 10, 2010 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

I also note that thread did not resolve the similar disagreement that is in this thread.

Edited May 10, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Leonid]

No, life qua life does not have intrinsic value, not the way you are using it.

Life qua metaphysical phenomenon does have intrinsic value. Life as the only phenomenon which is an end in itself has intrinsic value.

Life qua individual does not have intrinsic value. Each life is an end in itself and we each get to decide what that end is. We each decide what is bearable. For some, living a life of constant pain has no value. For John Galt, living a life in a world in which Dagny had been tortured to reach him had no value.

Yes, in certain situations life has no value. When life is unsustainable it becomes non-life. In the situation you described John Galt won't survive for a long time spiritually and physically even without to kill himself, since his mind, the only tool of his survival will cease to function. But so will a bird with broken wings or plant without roots. However I discuss the situation in which life can sustain itself.

[Leonid]

RationalBiker

To use any concept "regardless of context, standard, source, recipient and recipient's knowledge." is extremely dangerous in ethics or in any other field. That why I spent so much time and effort to define my terms.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Leonid

[RationalBiker]

Yes, in certain situations life has no value.

Do you realize this is exactly what defeats your Intrinsic value argument? You only need one exceptIon to show that the value is no longer intrinsic. When you add a context (as you note above that you did) intrinsic goes right out of the window. Something with intrinsic value, value as a property of that thing in and of itself, no context should change that.

What you are essentially saying is that life, under certain circumstances, has value. With that, I can wholly agree.

Edited May 10, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Leonid]

Do you realize this is exactly what defeats your Intrinsic value argument? You only need one exceptIon to show that the value is no longer intrinsic. When you add a context (as you note above that you did) intrinsic goes right out of the window. Something with intrinsic value, value as a property of that thing in and of itself, no context should change that.

What you are essentially saying is that life, under certain circumstances, has value. With that, I can wholly agree.

No, I refer to the situation in which life cannot sustain itself. Properly speaking, this is not life but an agony. Process of dying cannot be qualified as life. In fact such a process is exact antithesis of life. The argument stays.