Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Clarification of a point in The Objective Ethics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In her essay The Objective Ethics, Ayn Rand states:

 

“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.”  (this quote is from the 67th paragraph, approximately, of the essay)

 

Assuming that we accept the premise that life is an end in itself based on the arguments that Ms. Rand laid out earlier in the essay, we can then agree with the first 28 words of the quote because every living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, therefore every living human being is an end in himself.

 

My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

softwareNerd,

 

If it is the case that because an individual is an end in himself, and an individual is an end in himself because he is alive and life, as Ms. Rand argued, is an end in itself, then, continuing your question, how can life be a means to some other end?

 

Or let me put it another way: A cow is alive and since life is an end in itself, the cow is an end in itself. Ms. Rand's quote could then be rewritten as, "...just as life is an end in itself, so every living cow is an end in itself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." Then to rephrase your question: How can the cow be a means to some other end? The answer is that a cow can be the means to an end. As evidence, one can witness cows being consumed as food by humans and by other animals around the world. Therefore, a cow can become the means to an end; the end being the life of another. So life, which as Ms. Rand stated is an end in itself, can and does become the means to the ends or welfare of others. 

 

The fact that life can be the means to the ends of others is what caused my questions in the original post. My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayR,

 

I used the example of a cow in the previous post for simplicity when it could have been any form of life. That is part of the question.

 

If a living human being is not the means to the ends of others because a living human being is an end to himself and a living human being is an end to himself because a living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, does this logic work for all living things i.e. A living thing is not the means to the ends of others because a living thing is an end to itself and a living thing is an end to itself because a living thing is alive and life is an end in itself? If not, why not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When she says life is an end in itself, she means that life (all life) is a "value that is gained and kept by a constant process of action". But notice that she says "just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself", not "BECAUSE life is an end in itself, every living human being is an end in himself".  A distinction needs to be made between "life" in a general sense, and "mans life". A mans life is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others because he has rights, specifically the right to his own life and property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement at least implicitly is framed within a societal context.

Man can be the means to the ends of other living things. A tiger in the jungle will not not eat you because you are not the means to the ends of another man. Predators eat prey ,it is a part of their nature, those actions sustain their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayR,

 

I took the "just as" to mean: a living human being is an end in himself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay that demonstrate that life is an end in itself. The sentence could have been rewritten to state, "...just as life is an end in itself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay, a living human being is an end in himself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay..." It appears to me that Ms. Rand is pointing out that since man is a form of life and she already established the reasons that life is an end in itself, it logically follows that man is an end in himself.

 

Can you please provide more information on the distinction between life in a general sense and man's life? Is it simply that man has rights? If so, from where do man's right come?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When she says life is an end in itself, she means that life (all life) is a "value that is gained and kept by a constant process of action". But notice that she says "just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself", not "BECAUSE life is an end in itself, every living human being is an end in himself". 

"So" in this context means "because". Life is an end in itself. Man has life. Therefore, man is an end in himself. The whole "end in itself" is a big part of what life is, and anything that isn't an end in itself, like a rock, doesn't have life. People *can* be means to an end too, at least in a short time period, but it wouldn't end well. Note the "must" for the quote in question, that is a claim about what one ought to do, not that it is impossible to make someone else a means to an end. It isn't "must" as in it's the only possibility. Also, it looks pretty clear to me Rand is introducing a conclusion first, but proceeds to explain what she means in the rest of the essay.

 

Tj, have you finished reading the essay, or are you going line by line? I think the point of writing out a conclusion first, then explaining, is a good way to get people to come up with questions, then answer those questions later in the essay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So" in this context means "because". Life is an end in itself. Man has life. Therefore, man is an end in himself. 

It could, but I think that by wording it this way and introducing the idea at this point in the essay shes purposely reinforcing the idea that "mans life" is fundamentally different than just "life" where ethics is concerned. Man doesn't need ethics because he is alive (that's only part of it), he needs ethics because he has choice. The idea that man cannot survive (qua man) as a sacrificial animal also has its roots in this fundamental difference (life vs. mans life). I'll reread the essay and come back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, the distinction I was referring to is made clear throughout the essay. I was in fact hung up on the wording of that particular sentence for some reason. Tj, I would agree with your last response to me, that's how I' reading it now.

 

With regard to mans rights, if they "come from" anywhere, its from the recognition of the fact that man needs to be free from physical coercion in order to live the life that is in accordance with his nature qua man. Someone else I'm sure can explain this better....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayR,

 

You stated, "A mans life is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others because he has rights, specifically the right to his own life and property."

 

However, it appears to me that the concept of rights within Objectivism has as its starting point the concept embodied in the sentence, "...every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or welfare of others - and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." This sentence, to me, means that you have rights because you are not the means to the ends of others.

 

Without the concept of man as an end to himself and not the means to the ends of others, rights are meaningless. If it is true that you are the means to my ends, then you can not have rights. It is only if you are not the means to my (or anyone else's) ends that you have rights.

 

Since it appears that rights arise out of the concept embodied in words 29 through 39 of the quote in the original post, is a reason I asked the questions of where this concept comes from and why is it correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some parts:

 

"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.”"
 

 

And then the part about virtues after that.

 

"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."

 

"The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself."

 

Basically, you're asking about the whole subject of the essay. There are examples all over. It would be more fruitful if you bring up points that you think don't make sense, don't follow, or are contradictions. The quote you brought up isn't talking about rights, it isn't saying you have rights because you shouldn't be means to ends. The quote doesn't even use the word rights. It says "social principle", not "political principle". Life is an end in itself, simple as that. Nowhere does it say or imply "therefore, man has rights". Rights come into the essay later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

 

Your first quote, from paragraph 48 I believe, talks about choice and how man must make choices, it does not address nor answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others comes.   

 

Your second quote, from paragraph 84 I believe, states that human good does not require human sacrifices. This does not answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others comes, rather it states that it is not good to sacrifice others or be sacrificed to others. In order to determine whether something is good or not it must be compared to a standard. The standard was established in paragraph 67 with the line, "...not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." Once this is accepted as true, then the your quote from paragraph 84 is correct because to sacrifice others or to be sacrificed to others would not be good becuase you are not the means to the ends of others.

 

Your third quote, from paragraph 76 I believe, is just a restatement that life is an end in itself. Ms. Rand adds in the concept of the pursuit of happiness in this paragraph but no where does it answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others come.

 

You stated, "It would be more fruitful if you bring up points that you think don't make sense, don't follow, or are contradictions." In the original post I have asked the questions for which I would like clarification. I ask because I can not find the answers anywhere in the essay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others come.

Isn't it a corollary of the fact that men exist as individuals. If it is possible for a man to exist in isolation(metaphysically) how could any principle of dependence be derived from the nature of being that can exist as a single entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

I am not sure what you mean by dependence. The quote in the original post does not speak to dependence, rather that a living human being is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities. The existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. This fact does not mean that there could be no benefit or advantage gained by men living in society. Ethics to be objective, demands that the principles on which they are based reflect the fact of man's individuality. So the statement "a living human being is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." is stating an ethical principle in a negative form reflecting the fact that part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

Your interpretation of the quote seems reasonable but I am still confused. Let us assume that Ms. Rand was stating a corollary of the fact that men exist as individuals and that there is no derivable principle of dependence between man qua man. If this is the case, then the language in the next part of the quote, "... and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing other to himself." becomes confusing to me. If Ms. Rand was simply stating a fact, men exist as individual entities and their existence is not dependent on the existence of other individuals, then the quote should be, "... and, therefore, that man can live for his own sake ..." The use of the word "must" in the quote implys that Ms. Rand is not simply stating a fact regarding men, rather, she is stating something that men are required, or must, do. The questions, just as in the original post, are what is the basis of this requirement or "must" and why is it correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was simply stating a fact, men exist as individual entities and their existence is not dependent on the existence of other individuals, then the quote should be, "... and, therefore, that man can live for his own sake ..."

"Must" also means "can" in this context, but it carries heavier importance. In the paragraphs before it, about virtue, address pretty well the basis to why this is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the context of an essay on the O'ist ethics, 'can' would mean is physically(existentially?) possible, and 'must' means is necessary, required. If an objective moral code can be derived by man and choosing to follow those ethics will lead to an individual's happiness then one must follow the ethics, or it is necessary to follow the ethics in order to achieve happiness. If desired goal x is attained only by actions y, then one must perform y to attain x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that we accept the premise that life is an end in itself based on the arguments that Ms. Rand laid out earlier in the essay, we can then agree with the first 28 words of the quote because every living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, therefore every living human being is an end in himself.

 

My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?

 

In order to understand what Miss Rand means by "end in itself" you should go back to the last paragraph on page 17 of the paperback where she uses it the first time -- in your citation style I believe this is paragraph 24 though I'll start the quotation below with paragraph 23:

 

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 itsstandard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.

Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

 

So an "end in itself" is an "ultimate goal" -- and the only things we know of that have goals or ends are living things -- inanimate matter has no goals, it just is.

 

Now, the phenomenon of life is an abstraction, what exists in reality are living entities, in the case of higher animals and man, individuals. And each individual is an end in itself, each individual must attain the things that sustain its life, each individual's life is its ultimate goal. Meaning that if that ultimate goal isn't sustained its life ceases and it goes out of existence. It is a fact that an individual's life is an end in itself: it goes out of existence without action generated by itself.

 

There are several things you must understand about Ayn Rand's writing (really, any good writing). Just as each word logically follows from the words preceding it, so every sentence follows logically from the ones preceding it and each paragraph follows logically from the ones preceding it. That is why pulling a sentence or two out of a logically connected whole can sometimes be detrimental to your understanding and in an argument can leave you open to the charge of dropping context. When I read Ayn Rand and I am confronted with something I don't understand, it is often the case that I can figure it out by rereading the previous one or two paragraphs.

 

Additionally it might be helpful for you to keep in mind the overall structure of the philosophy of Objectivism as Miss Rand's arguments often mirror this structure: Starting with the metaphysical facts of reality from which ethical principles can be derived; going from what is to what one ought to do. A great tool for understanding this structure is Leonard Peikoff's video lecture "Introduction to Objectivism" which you can watch here for free. It is an excellent lecture that I highly recommend. 

 

And now, to get to your question, first let us provide context to your cited quote by quoting the previous paragraph:

 

The virtue of Pride is the recognition of the fact “that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.” (Atlas Shrugged.) The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term: “moral ambitiousness.” It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one’s own highest value by achieving one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.

 

So, starting at the beginning of the paragraph you quoted, what we are talking about here are social/ethical principles. Ethical principles aren't just facts, they are normative statements, meaning that they take the form of if/then statements, either explicitly or implicitly (the "if" part is often absent but always implied) -- they take the form: "If you want this certain outcome, then you must take this action". Notice how the "must" I just stated mirrors the "must" in your quote, which also mirrors the "must" Ayn Rand uses in the first and third sentences of the preceding paragraph.

 

And we aren't just talking about any old ethical principles, we are talking about Objectivist ethical principles, so the implied "if" is: "If you want to live". So an Objectivist might say "you must eat" and what they mean is "if you want to live, then you must eat". If one's goal is something other than living, then the Objectivist ethics doesn't necessarily apply. 

 

Putting it all together we can interpret the paragraph that is giving you trouble. First, Miss Rand states the facts: life is an end in itself and every living human being is an end in himself, i.e., metaphysically, he must sustain his life, he must take action to further the end, which is himself. This necessarily implies that, metaphysically, he is not the means to the ends of others, i.e., feeding himself will not sustain someone else. Or more explicitly: feeding oneself doesn't put food in another's stomach. And, therefore, since these are facts, and since one cannot live by sacrificing himself to others, that he must not sacrifice himself to others if he wants to live according to the Objectivist ethics, which means: if he wants to live. (And to be consistent one can't expect someone else to sacrifice themselves for you).

 

Further than that, ethics is about choice, we all must choose, according to our own judgment, how to live our lives and what actions to take. Therefore, if one wants to live according to the Objectivist ethics (which, again, means: if one wants to live), one must choose never to live by a standard other than life. Which means you must never accept an irrational, sacrificial code of morality. You must choose to live for your own sake and never feel guilty for doing so. And in order not to feel guilty, you must feel worthy (in your own mind) of putting yourself first. The way to feel worthy is by being virtuous, i.e., by choosing to take the actions that further your life and make you happy.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...