Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomas_Tallis

Regulars
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Israel
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Thomas_Tallis's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Hi everybody, I'm new here (and new to Objectivism), signed up to share some thoughts and see if I got something right. I have had an argument with a group of individuals who claimed that while life is a prerequisite for any goal, it's not necessary to hold one's life as the ultimate value, the primary goal. Basically, you could say "I choose life because goal A (some change in the external world, not necessarily related to my existence) is of importance to me, otherwise life is irrelevant and therefore life isn't the ultimate value for me but a means to a different end". This seemed daunting at first, but I tried to break it down and this is what I came up with: To say you choose life for a goal means you already chose life as an ultimate value. The question of life vs. death could not rationally be answered as "life for goal A" as "for A" is only a valid reason in reality, i.e. if you already chose life as important in and of itself. To choose life for life is the only acceptable answer, and therefore you choose life as an ultimate value by choosing life. You could not say you chose life and only then pondered what would you choose to be your goal without already accepting life as the ultimate value: by accepting life for life, every new ultimate goal you would consider has to be evaluated in light of that previous choice of life. If it defies it, you would have to deem it irrational and immoral. Did I get it right? this critique of Rand seems to be everywhere, many are claiming she fails to present more than a subjective ultimate value. Thank you, Thomas.
×
×
  • Create New...