Choice to live

[whYNOT]

You're bogged down in a semantic argument, and completely missing the point of that phrase in Rand's philosophy. In the real world life is not automatic, it has to be sustained, by choice. Choosing not to sustain it means death.

I don't know about that. I don't think Rand was much concerned with the natural processes of the human body, which are automatic, (or partially so, when it comes to satisfying hunger, as Leonid said.)

In fact, the more I think of it, the more I'm convinced that this interpretation of "choosing not to sustain it, means death" is 'concretist,' or only analogous.

We do know she was talking about thought, rational thought, not being automatic, - being volitional - don't we?

For the rest - well, I'm surrounded by people who live, breathe, and even make money, who are semi-rational, at best. What was their choice? To avoid death, perhaps.

Semantics, no. I believe Leonid's exposition is right on the nail.

[Dante]

We do know she was talking about thought, rational thought, not being automatic, - being volitional - don't we?

For the rest - well, I'm surrounded by people who live, breathe, and even make money, who are semi-rational, at best. What was their choice? To avoid death, perhaps.

Semantics, no. I believe Leonid's exposition is right on the nail.

With this concrete 'choice to live,' she was not talking about thought, but about taking volitional action to maintain one's life. Those people that surround you have chosen to live, in the sense that we are talking about, by (at least implicitly) adopting their own survival as valuable. They did this by volitionally acting for their own survival in some respect or another.

However, it is a huge leap from valuing one's survival (which gives impetus to moral principles) to adopting a complete and consistent moral code based around one's own life as the central purpose and man's life as the standard. Leonid is correct in stating that this second status, the adoption of the proper moral code, is fully within the realm of morality and its criticisms. However, that is not what we're talking about when we discuss the choice to live as pre-moral.

To anyone interested in the technicalities of these questions, I would recommend Tara Smith's book Viable Values. She has an extended discussion of the question "Why be moral?" which addresses the status of pre-moral choices and when and why morality is binding.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Dante

[Tanaka]

We do know she was talking about thought, rational thought, not being automatic, - being volitional - don't we?

For the rest - well, I'm surrounded by people who live, breathe, and even make money, who are semi-rational, at best. What was their choice? To avoid death, perhaps.

Death is the opposite of living. Acting to avoid death means acting to live. I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make.

[whYNOT]

Death is the opposite of living. Acting to avoid death means acting to live. I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make.

You've helped me make that distinction.

Do you insist that acting to avoid death - or even to only survive - is synonomous with choosing to live a moral life?

[Leonid]

Dante: "Acceptance of man's life as a standard of value is an act of fully realizing the implications of one's choice to live. The original choice, however, only reflects the fact that the individual wishes to remain in existence."

And why man should wish to remain in existence if life is not a standard of value? Why not to sacrifice such an existence to some " higher" value?

Dante:

"With this concrete 'choice to live,' she was not talking about thought, but about taking volitional action to maintain one's life. Those people that surround you have chosen to live, in the sense that we are talking about, by (at least implicitly) adopting their own survival as valuable. They did this by volitionally acting for their own survival in some respect or another."

No,she was talking about thought. Rand's position is very clear on this particular matter. I quote from Galt’s speech: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality...It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live...To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. ”

Now, please explain how such a choice could be pre-moral? This side of asylum, nobody decides to die without any particular reason. The reason is a choice of a subjective standard of value which is no or anti-life. This is not pre-moral but immoral choice, since it based on the rejection of man's rational faculty. The existence of automatic or even semi-automatic vegetative bodily functions doesn't constitutes choice, they are metaphysically given. However man can only live qua man and for man the choice to live is, as Rand observed, is to sustain his life as a rational being. This is the only basic choice and this is moral choice.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Leonid

[Tanaka]

You've helped me make that distinction.

Do you insist that acting to avoid death - or even to only survive - is synonomous with choosing to live a moral life?

Acting once to avoid death is not synonymous with choosing to live a moral life, it's only synonymous with acting to survive once.

But acting to avoid death all the time, in a logically consistent manner, is absolutely synonymous with choosing to live (this part is immediately obvious), as well as with choosing to live a moral life (although this second part is not immediately obvious, it depends on the Oist tenant that the moral is that which helps further one's life).

[whYNOT]

Acting once to avoid death is not synonymous with choosing to live a moral life, it's only synonymous with acting to survive once.

But acting to avoid death all the time, in a logically consistent manner, is absolutely synonymous with choosing to live (this part is immediately obvious), as well as with choosing to live a moral life (although this second part is not immediately obvious, it depends on the Oist tenant that the moral is that which helps further one's life).

By your explanation, then, every person alive at this moment, is moral, by reason of being alive. (?)

No, I don't think there is a kind of 'sliding-scale' of morality, ranging from just pragmatically, and 'logically', staying alive, avoiding death, etc, - to, choosing to live qua Man, to the full extent of a rational morality.

[Dante]

Rand's position is very clear on this particular matter. I quote from Galt’s speech: ...A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality...It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live...”

Now, please explain how such a choice could be pre-moral?

Yes, she was, but you're misunderstanding her position. I'm going to put out a few tidbits relevant to the Objectivist position on the choice to live. This is Rand in the essay "Causality vs Duty":

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.

Notice: if he chooses to live, then he needs and should adhere to a rational ethics. If he does not choose to live, what kind of morality could possibly be binding on him? He will soon die, and that is that. The rational ethics simply never enters into it.

This is from Galt's speech, including a part which you ellipsed out above.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem.

The axiom and the choice here form the basis of morality. Morality proceeds from these two aspects, they are pre-morality (this pre-moral classification that you keep fretting about).

This is Tara Smith on Rand's approach to ethics, in Viable Values (pp. 106-7):

Is the decision to live one that a person ought, rationally, to make?....

...reasons and justification depend on purposes. A given decision's rationality is mysterious until we know what it is meant to accomplish... A person cannot have a reason, let alone a justification, for an action unless the action is expected to carry some impact on one or more of his ends. Since ends themselves are not necessarily rational, they must be evaluated in light of further ends.

When we ask whether the choice to live is justified, we are asking about the most fundamental end that a person could have. We are essentially asking, Why should a person pursue his life? What makes life worth living?

On the account I have presented, to say that a person should do something presupposes that he has an ultimate value. Yet the choice to live is what gives rise to values. All "shoulds" depend on purposes; whether to pursue one's life is the question of whether to adopt any purposes at all.

What this means is that the choice to live is not subject to rational appraisal. It arises in a context devoid of the values that provide the standard for determining what a person should do. In this sense, the choice to live is primary. It is not justified by any prior ends. As Leonard Peikoff puts it, there is no "more basic value the pursuit of which validates the decision to remain in reality." We cannot say that a person ought, rationally, to choose to live because we have no preexisting standards to underwrite the "ought..."

The lesson is that the choice to live is prerational. It is a presupposition of the standards of rationality.

Notice that, while she uses the word rational in this particular argument, for an Objectivist to be rational is to be moral, as she addresses later in the book.

The point is not to argue that you should flip a coin to decide whether or not to keep living, or that people who kill themselves should not be judged or evaluated by others. Rather, the point is simply that if morality is a tool to help you to live properly, it cannot tell you to live in the first place. You only pick it up after that choice is made. Claiming that morality tells us to choose to live and also saying that morality must be chosen by us as a tool to help us live engages in circularity.

[Dante]

By your explanation, then, every person alive at this moment, is moral, by reason of being alive. (?)

They are moral in some respect. Excluding vegetative state people and the mentally incompetent who are completely kept alive by others, everyone who is alive now has chosen some values which reflect a desire to live. To adhere to the Objectivist morality is to be moral in every respect, to not have any of your chosen values working against your own life. Most people alive today have chosen a mix of values, some of which benefit them and some of which harm them.

[Tanaka]

By your explanation, then, every person alive at this moment, is moral, by reason of being alive. (?)

No, I don't think there is a kind of 'sliding-scale' of morality, ranging from just pragmatically, and 'logically', staying alive, avoiding death, etc, - to, choosing to live qua Man, to the full extent of a rational morality.

There's no mention of any sliding scales of morality in my post.

And you're suggesting that 'qua Man' means 'to the full extent of a rational morality'. But 'qua' just means 'as'. All 'qua man' tells me is that I must apply the law of identity to our race, to remember that men have a nature. It doesn't say anything about morality.

So yes, the choice to live is not the only building block for Objectivist Ethics. Another is Logic. Yes, a person must not only choose to live, but they must also be rational, and live according to their nature, 'qua Man'.

What you're missing is that there is a hierarchy of concepts, and 'living qua Man' is not on the same level as living to the full extent of rational egoism as described by Rand. Living qua man (the choice to live and respect the law of identity) is the goal, rational egoism the means by which to do it.

Just assuming the law of identity is not in contention, and saying that the goal is 'to live' is also reasonable, especially on an Objectivist forum. As for whether 'to avoid death' and 'to live' are synonymous, I just don't understand how that could be unclear.

[JayR]

What you're missing is that there is a hierarchy of concepts, and 'living qua Man' is not on the same level as living to the full extent of rational egoism as described by Rand. Living qua man (the choice to live and respect the law of identity) is the goal, rational egoism the means by which to do it.

No. Heirarchy is irrelevant in this context. What Rand meant by "qua man" in this context is exactly "living to the full extent of rational egoism", or as Tara Smith and others say "flourishing".

also, about the choice to live....

I think my post from the previous page is applies here, "choosing to live" can be summed up as, "choosing to pursue values". And I might get disagreement here... Those might be irrational values. The objective theory of value takes the contextual nature of knowledge into account. If a person is living in a way that you deem immoral, in his mind he might honestly believe hes living according to a rational standard of value. (altruism, a monk, mother theresa, whatever) Hence the "choice to pursue value" i.e., live, is pre rational.

Whether those values have been evaluated as wrong based on an objective standard and still pursued is where morality comes in. No?

[dakota]

"Death does just happen, you don't need to do anything. You can indeed simply do things to end your life, but you are unable to live without making choices towards that end. "

Well, life just happens too -- you don't need to have done anything to be born. Nor do I see much of a procedural difference between "You can indeed simply do things to end your life" and "you are unable to live without making choices towards that end", in the sense that both involve choices. You can choose actions that either hasten your ultimate and inevitable death, or merely postpone it (i.e., one can choose to drink excessively and do drugs, or choose to live in a manner that promotes physical well-being). All of the other choices that one makes have a particular but subjective ideal of a well-lived KIND or QUALITY of life in mind, not life (biological life) in mind.

[whYNOT]

Few men choose not to live, and most like to believe they are moral.

Yet, the huge preponderance of humankind that is collectivist/mystic tells us that whatever choices they ever made, were irrational choices.

Of-the-moment choices, to satisfy various needs, and fitting in with one's 'tribe'.

Logical, when absolutely essential, but rarely rational.

So, to choose life, does not necessarily imply a moral choice.

(The corollary, that to choose death is not necessarily an immoral choice.)

But to choose life fully, is to think and act to live to the full extent of the 'rational animal' that we are.

It's a choice that (at the risk of sounding 'New Age-y' ) is closer to a spiritual commitment one makes to oneself, imo.

[Tanaka]

No. Heirarchy is irrelevant in this context. What Rand meant by "qua man" in this context is exactly "living to the full extent of rational egoism", or as Tara Smith and others say "flourishing".

Well, that's not what 'qua Man' means. So, if you are making the extraordinary claim that she assigned a whole sentence of unrelated meaning to something that basic, you're gonna have to provide evidence. Otherwise, I'll just stick to my guns and say that that's not true.

[bluecherry]

Behold, for I give ye evidence: Standard of Value

[icosahedron]

Value to you, sure. But I take "intrinsic value" to mean value without the need to reference any context.

Aha, the mark of one who embraces a primacy of consciousness perspective.

All I needs ta know, babee! Hasta!

- ico

[JayR]

Aha, the mark of one who embraces a primacy of consciousness perspective.

Bullshit. Christ, stop pretending you dont understand what I said.

Im done with this thread. Ill let others explain why you (and others) are wrong.

Or at least I think youre wrong, I found most of what you said to be incoherent.

[JayR]

Behold, for I give ye evidence: Standard of Value

Thank you.

[Grames]

Aha, the mark of one who embraces a primacy of consciousness perspective.

All I needs ta know, babee! Hasta!

- ico

That is a perfectly accurate and objective definition of 'intrinsic'. Check the Lexicon for Intrinsic Theory of Values

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

Your understanding of Objectivism is defective. Your smug self-righteousness is unjustified.

[DancingBear]

Okay so the choice to live is pre-moral and life is not intrinsically valuable.

So can somebody outline how we know that life (all forms) is objectively valuable? After we've made a decision to live, we can then determine the value of other things to us. Should I care if someone is starving in Africa? Or should I care if a certain species of tree frog is about to go extinct?

[Tanaka]

So can somebody outline how we know that life (all forms) is objectively valuable?

We don't, in fact we know the opposite to be true. The best example of a life form that is not objectively valuable but in fact an objective threat (meaning its eradication is objectively valuable), is the small pox virus.

Most lifeforms are valuable to a person the extent they further his life. Other people are of course potential trading partners, inventors, etc., while the frog you mentioned is part of an ecosystem people in the area should keep stable (lest a species overpopulates their area and becomes a nuisance). It might also be a useful object of scientific study, now or some time in the future (it might be the catalyst to some kind of medicine, for instance).

Edited January 28, 2011 by Tanaka

[Dante]

So can somebody outline how we know that life (all forms) is objectively valuable? After we've made a decision to live, we can then determine the value of other things to us. Should I care if someone is starving in Africa? Or should I care if a certain species of tree frog is about to go extinct?

Value is always agent-relative. There is no such thing as valuable in itself, period. It's always valuable to someone, for some purpose. Other human beings represent a value or at least a potential value to me, even if they're half a world away (unless they've shown by their actions to be a danger to those around them). As far as animal species go, there is no intrinsic value in their continued existence either. Some I find valuable, and others I don't.

[Leonid]

Dante:If he does not choose to live, what kind of morality could possibly be binding on him?

Any morality which is based on the standard of value which is not life. For example 72 virgins in paradise for suicide bomber. This is irrational morality, but morality nevertheless.

Dante:Claiming that morality tells us to choose to live and also saying that morality must be chosen by us as a tool to help us live engages in circularity.

There is no circularity since choice to live, or rather choice to continue on living isn't made by newborn infant.Implicitly or explicitly such a choice made by conscious volitional person and such a person cannot be pre-moral. No man can live and make choices outside of the realm of morality since choice presupposes an existence of hierarchy of values.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Leonid

[Dingbat]

I wonder if the physiological regenerative capabilities of healthy humans is an indication of anything.

[Leonid]

I wonder if the physiological regenerative capabilities of healthy humans is an indication of anything.

It indicates that humans are living beings. Life is self-initiated, goal orientated process when the goal is self-sustenance and self-bettering. In man such a process is automatic and volitional, but in essence it is the same process.