human_murda

Okay. @bluecherry : Voldemort's plan wasn't that bad. I mean, he had seven lives didn't he? The only reason he collected allies was to make sure that he would have the upper hand in terms of power [and did have that]. But what was the ultimate thing that destroyed him? his ignorance of positive emotions. This ignorance is what made him [DD : "if he had been able to understand, he could not be Lord Voldemort, and might never have murdered at all"] and what ultimately killed him [DD : "If he could only have understood the precise and terrible power of that sacrifice, he would not, perhaps, have dared to touch your blood..."]. Now, as for the poison in case of [terminal] illnesses, this is similar to the condition of Macbeth I mentioned in post #22 [i.e, committing suicide vs. somebody else killing you]. The question is how exactly a "human nature" comes into play in Objective ethics: (quote by Galt:) So taking the definition for “human nature” from this, your second condition is only a restatement of your first and not a separate concept. So Objectivism still applies to fully conscious [terminal] cancer patients. So I'll be quoting Nicky here [something I never thought I'll do] as it could be relevant: & what about this Rand quote?: Here the "whole of his lifespan" phrase is relevant. You have to make rational decisions until you die [You may ask "What's the point?". But death is an inherent limitation in Objectivism and apparently, you have to live assuming death is never outside your control, which is actually false. So your closeness to death is irrelevant to your actions as I understand it]. The point is that human psychology is only a derivative in Objectivism. It cannot be given a primary importance. The problem [from your perspective] could be that your understanding of "human nature" is different from an Objective definition of it.

Positive emotions are a derivative of pursuing life and are very limited if pursuing life is your fundamental. However the problem lies with assume that there is either a success or a complete failure. The pursuit is to find a balance where productivity is only so much so that you can pursue positive emotions. A productivity below this will lead to altruism and above this is useless. And yes pursuit of positive emotions do need "sheer willpower". Only a limited amount of positive emotions can be obtained from Objectivism. The rest have to be pursued using your rationality [with positive emotion as the ideal]. Now consider the amount of work needed to achieve the limited positive emotions in Objectivism. The work could be higher when pursuing curiosity outside survival ideal. You can only imagine the work needed to gain a full range of positive emotions. Now you assumed that you can achieve positive emotions by merely thinking about it. The point is that this is merely an avoidance of negative emotions and is momentary. It is not viable in the long term. Dumbledore's comment still applies : "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live". The point is that you should not simply dream about positive emotions. Dreams are only longings that are unattainable until you start working for it. They cannot replace "positive emotions" as such and have to be worked upon, with a long-term goal in mind. Furthermore "positive emotions" are attainable if you work hard enough [unlike long-term survival]. The point is that, although we must work to attain these positive emotions, only some of this work is associated with survival. Now, if the work is limited, the emotions you gain are also limited. So positive-emotions, rather than survival should be the fundamental. What exactly are you referring to? Is there a contradiction?

You are making the exact same mistake again : applying properties of inanimate matter to life. All living organisms need to use energy to survive. To use energy, you must use rationality [in the case of man]. Now you are assuming that you can still survive without using energy so that you will continue to obtain energy from the environment even without planning it properly [in the case of brainless parasites]. Just because science could make you live longer doesn't mean that you can throw away all work and still expect to be alive. A different coding of your genes cannot make you a supernatural being that can exist without using energy. You assumed that you can and if a being can somehow be transported to super-existence, Objectivism would break apart. Objectivism says : the choice is between life-qua-man or death. A Leonard Peikoff comment that could be relevant here: Could you prove that [using Objective reasoning], assuming you could become a supernatural being. If you could become a supernatural being, life can never become a standard for value as death is not an option. Nothing can threaten your life and nothing can be evil [within Objectivism]. Nothing can further your life and nothing can be good [within Objectivism]. But the positive emotion fundamental always exists, as long as a being can have positive emotions.

This post needs to be addressed in more detail. Yes, I can't derive my fundamental from first principles apart from saying that it is positive emotions that make our life/existence worth living. But that is not to say, there is no proper derivation. I am also talking about the necessity of this fundamental. This fundamental is strictly for humans and a very deep understanding of our psychology is needed before we can cough up any explanations/derivations for it. I have already implied several times that I don't consider emotion as a "tool of cognition". Rather reason is still the tool of cognition. But the goal is "positive emotions". Merely an avoidance of negative emotions is not in tune with this "positive emotion" fundamental. Rather, reason [which takes your psychology into consideration] is the best way to determine the way to achieve a variety of these positive emotions. In the situations you are talking about [ - remorse about being born with more opportunities than others, about surviving incidents in which others have died (survivor's guilt), about having to kill another when the situation required it (the remorse a soldier often feels coming back from war), etc - ], the problem is that these people could not control what happened to them [they didn't have much of a choice/free-will] and things out of your control is outside any kind of morality. So I can't condemn them for being evil [as it is outside the jurisdiction of morality even though they have arrived at negative emotions]. The only way to rectify the problem would be to appeal to their psychology and make them understand that the situation was outside their control [they didn't really choose the negative emotion that they are experiencing]. The case is very different for Voldemort and for Lily Potter as well. She had a very real choice between positive and negative emotions. If she lived, she would have to live with a survivor's guilt which is very real, as it is based on her choice [Rowling said that Voldemort would have let her live if she had chosen to stand aside. It is exactly this choice that enabled the magical protection on Harry]. Now, I don't understand how "Lily Potter sacrificing her life for her son is entirely appropriate and moral according to Objectivism". Aren't we sacrificing the protector for the sake of the protected; a being with higher values for a baby with lower values ["values" according to Objectivism]? Quotes by Rand that could be relevant, [potential=Harry] Again can Lily Potter's love be considered to be in the same range as the "purer" love [i.e, one where your sacrifice would be for a higher value] Rand was talking about? Also when exactly, according to Rand, do your values become more important that the very thing (life) that gives you your values? Are you implying that growing with Objectivism is like raising a pig for slaughter? [Trying, by building values, to achieve something knowing full well that it can't achieved. Inevitability of death is also very relevant here].

Wrong. I doubt you read what I said anyway. "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." -Rand

You forgot that the choice that a rational being has, regarding life and death, makes value possible [in Objectivism, i.e. ; "The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action." -Galt]. In your example, the only choice is life and whatever you are [even a brainless parasite] is irrelevant to your existence. The problem is that you applied the properties of inanimate matter to life, when Rand made the difference quite clear : "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms". "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." -Galt But according to your situation, the brainless parasite is not just capable of surviving for a few years but, it turns out, forever. Since his actions don't threaten his life, it would mean that they are not evil [according to Objectivism]. The point is that Objectivism breaks down if you assume that your actions in life won't ultimately affect your existence. Since this is the case in your situation [which is light years away from reality anyway], Objectivism doesn't apply. So your conclusion that "his life would be worse than death" is based on a value system outside Objectivism [i do agree to it's truthfulness : but not due to Objectivism. But since the situation is unrealistic anyway, that wouldn't matter].

@bluecherry : So you are saying that Objectivism would neither say you have to continue to live nor would it say that you have to die, as both are supposedly inconsistent with who you are. Since one of the two has to be chosen, Objectivism isn't applicable. Now that I have understood what you are saying, I am confused as hell! What are you trying to prove? Are you just saying that this is a case that should be added to the list of situations Objectivism can't explain [if you are, then this is best left to another thread]? Are you supporting the survival fundamental or positive-emotion fundamental? From this comment: it seems your are supporting a positive-emotion fundamental [with survival as derivative]. But do clarify. Correct me if I am wrong, but your stance could indirectly mean that Objectivism can't make any judgement regarding the kind of life Voldemort chose. Within the Harry Potter universe, immortality is a possibility and Voldemort chose that route. But you can see how Voldemort is clinging to life and steeped in negative emotions [that bloody child in King's Cross is a representation of this state of Voldemort]. Several times in the books, it is stated that Voldemort is less than human. So assuming Voldemort wants to live, which he does, then "goal of living according to your own nature as an individual human being"[as you say] is not possible for him, as the only way to continue to live is to embrace negative emotions ["remorse" could kill him]. Then Objectivism would not be applicable for him [as you say]. Therefore, Objectivism cannot pass a judgement on what he does. So I would say that your second condition that, "goal of living according to your own nature as an individual human being is possible" is not a necessary condition as the reality and identity of different humans is different, that living with cancer [non-terminal] is well within your own nature as an individual human being. That there is a sliver of possibility of recovery is sufficient condition that you should act within your capability to achieve recovery. If you do have terminal cancer, then there is nothing that anyone can say that can make a difference. Even if every philosophy on Earth cries : "live, human, live", since there are no treatments available [except palliative care], counting on recovery isn't realistic. So the problem really isn't "clinging onto life" [as a person with terminal cancer can't decide on that], but accepting that death is inevitable and coming soon [for those who have terminal cancer]. For those who have non-terminal cancer [with a sliver of hope], the choice is between fighting or giving up. The problem is that you applied the choice that is available for non-terminal cancer patients to people with terminal cancer. Objectivism does apply to both type of patients but Objectivism can't advocate that people with terminal cancer continue to live as the length of life available to them is outside their control and they can't choose on it [the point is that Objectivism can't advocate anything that goes against reality]. If anything is at fault here, it is the fact that death is inevitable [for any living being] and Objectivism can't decide on that [Objectivism can't say : "you should live for 200 more years"]. So yes, there is a lack of motivational factor if you apply Objectivism. But that is an inherent problem with Objectivism and the particular case here is not an exception. So Objectivism applies [but cannot extend your life, even if you are the most moral person in existence]. Maybe you should consider some medical conditions like "Persistent vegetative state", which are more suitable to the conditions you mentioned, especially the first. Doctors even have a choice to keep the patient alive [but don't confuse this with the fact that euthanasia is usually illegal]. But it would be better to start another thread, especially if you want to continue your argument that Objectivism doesn't apply.

I don't think I get you. What exactly did you mean by: Cancer really is an unpredictable disease. So why not just fight it which gives you a sense of hope? This is different from life-boat/conjoined-twins situation, where a choice has to made regarding who gets to live. The choices available to a cancer patient is to fight it or to give up. You sound as though you are implying the latter.

I understand that Rand wasn't talking about survival "at all costs" (which is animalistic). She was aiming for survival as the fundamental, so reason is used to achieve survival in the best way. So naturally, she expected all positive emotions to derive from this fundamental. Rand did not believe that emotions are a reality in themselves, but can only become a part of reality when they are derived from the survival fundamental. The problem is that positive emotions are very limited if you follow a survival fundamental. Rand assumed that all positive emotions are derived from this survival fundamental [which is not true as I have stated in post #1 and #15]. I said Objectivists thought that it was a crime to consider positive emotions as the fundamental and survival as the derivative [as I think it is] as opposed to survival as the fundamental and positive emotions as the derivative [as Objectivism puts it]. Post 15 would be a better indicator of this difference. (I am only justifying positive emotions as the fundamental in the present post). Therefore I would advocate the same thing that Rand did : reason. Except reason is used to achieve positive emotions in the best way [as opposed to survival in the best way]. So I would say no to heroin. I don't think anyone will contest the fact that heroine degrades one's life so much so that you are left with nothing but negative emotions. It also limits your capability to love, seek knowledge out of curiosity and several other positive emotions, the pursuit of which I consider a fundamental in life. It also reduces your productivity, so that you have to fight like an animal for your survival leading to more negative emotions. Considering these factors, heroin becomes more of an avoidance of negative emotions, rather than pursuit of positive emotions. (I am talking about the positive-emotion-ultimate here). These people simultaneously live and breathe negative emotions so that the positive emotion of love is stifled. This is again unreasonable. I'm certain that Voldemort's hunger for power is a negative and different emotion from the "love" that Rowling describes [i am not talking about the "love for something" emotion which varies according to the "something", but just "love" in itself, which is specific. For example, curiosity can be loosely described as a love for knowledge, but is a different emotion from "love"]. That said, love for power is not Voldemort's greatest fault. His greatest fault is that he condemns positive emotions. To understand this, we can compare him to Grindelwald, who had the same weakness for power but was later redeemed because of another positive emotion he could feel : remorse. This is the only difference between Grindelwald and Voldemort. This difference is also clear in another way : it is said that Voldemort would have to risk death if he were to feel remorse. So he chose life over this positive emotion. This is in direct contrast what Lily Potter did : she would die for her baby because of the love she harbored for him. [This love is different from Rand's love which was more limited : an acknowledgement of values and ability reflected in another person]. (Basically : positive emotion is the fundamental, while survival is the derivative). @ Dante : Just out of curiosity - what exactly does the Salman Rushdie comment in your signature mean?

@bluecherry : I think you should answer this as well : do you think Shakespeare's Macbeth should have committed suicide just like Lady Macbeth? I don't, because of the importance I give to another positive emotion, 'hope'. I find the following line by Macbeth truly inspirational : "Why should I play the Roman fool and die on mine own sword? Whiles I see lives, the gashes do better upon them". Fortune has been downhill for Macbeth ever since Act I, Scene 4; but this line was said in the scene in which he dies. In fact this hope is the characteristic I find the most admirable in Macbeth. Needless to say, I would advocate the same to cancer patients. This 'hope' is also covered in detail in Harry Potter and began with the character of Sirius Black, who was not affected by Dementors even while he was in Azkaban, because of his conviction that he is innocent and that he still has a chance of redemption by killing Pettigrew.

But you're still focusing on survival in the best way, right? Also, on a second note, I am not sure that "a good character with good virtue" [when it is limited by the survival ideal] appeals much to psychology. You would still be aware that you're basically trying to survive wouldn't you [especially if you are using that ideal as a basis to making every decision in your life]?

But cancer [or other terminal diseases] leads to inhumane conditions only in the most final stages. Before that these diseases are difficult to cope with, but not inhuman. Again I don't get how Objectivism advocates suicide [your cancer is definitely a part of who you are, isn't it? It's part of your reality, your identity and you have to deal with it]. Also cancer isn't hopeless until it becomes terminal. So if you decide to "call it quits on life sooner rather than later", you would be yielding to your fear of the unknown.

He doesn't have to value it or buy it [since he doesn't need it]. But the transistor still has value. For example, the cave man can acquire knowledge about how to use it and then use it. So if he wants to buy it, he still has to pay the price for it. A value "exists" TO someone, FOR something. But its magnitude is determined by its inherent quality.

He was just parroting the majority [here]. His conclusion was not based on free will. Just because I think Objectivism is wrong in some aspects doesn't mean that I understand it any less. And why can't I challenge it? I've already stated that I think it's appropriate to use force to do what is RIGHT [i've already stated the reasons why I think I am right : deserving, balancing, etc].

Who made this transistor? imbalance, a looter-victim relationship. Nope : A value cannot exist without someone to create it and where there is someone to create it, there is someone to use it

Yep [initially. But it turned to sarcasm quite quickly and by the end he was laughing at my stupidity for thinking he is a victim]. The problem is that he is a victim and is praising himself for it [and he aimed that comment at me for not understanding that he wasn't a victim which I believe he is. "Now that has been revealed that I have no say in what I want, I duly expect a refund of the $1.00 I was cheated to be sent to SpiralArchetiect@I_am_a_victim.com"] For the record, I said that because I realized you aren't as objective as you claimed [i couldn't stand being a victim of blatant subjectivity]. Now, this doesn't matter to me anymore as I realized that I was actually not an Objectivist. So your mockery of Objectivism is irrelevant to me now. This is what made me reply [if you care]. (1) I've already found an answer which can preoccupy me for a while : "Labor Theory of Value" (2) You're really not considering my view of the argument. Eg: you concluded that I was supporting your argument when I said "But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality". Your logic is limited by what you have already taken for granted. True False. I just wanted to make sure they don't make any false assumptions [sarcastic comments are easily neglected, but straight forward comments aren't]. The judgement is upto them but can question their validity.

The value of the widget does not change. The new machine was not produced by the widget but your mind, your intellect which did the work. "How it can be used" depends on the nature of the product. "How it WILL be used" depends on your ability/capability, which is what gives value to a product. Not really [this was what I had in mind. I thought you would make the association that a poor guy doesn't own a house while the rich guy did]. Now explain "relative values". I wasn't. I meant that existence of people makes value exist. But how much a product has value for people is decided by its nature. Assuming its nature doesn't keep on changing, its value is fixed. He can do whatever. It's just immoral.

Weren't you the one advocating civility in forums? You evidently don't understand my argument. You enjoy being a victim don't you? You don't understand the difference between thinking and identifying OR whims and values OR objectivity and subjectivity. Worse, you need to side up with someone to prove your point [you are not even trying to make an argument but just a compilation of false claims]. I wonder how you, Greebo, would respond to this post. For any moderators out there : i hope you understand that the only difference btw. mine and Spiral's post is that he was sarcastic while I was straight forward. This is exactly what I am suggesting, I'll look into it. (Why didn't someone suggest me this some 30 posts before?) This thread is getting too long. "It's most famous proponents were Adam Smith and Karl Marx" : hopefully that's not as bad an omen as it sounds.

But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality. Assuming you could acquire it, then it would have an objective value (independent of the person going after it). The use that a product can be put to is the same for different people (and is only dependent on the nature of the product) assuming their goals are the same but "reason" ensures that it is. Assuming the poor guy doesn't have a house and the rich guy does [some rich guys do have several houses. I meant that you accepted that if a value of a product is set it is not upto you to decide the price (as you have accepted that trade is balanced for a fixed price for a particular value, which is not decided by the seller).

By "mystical" (here) I meant something unknown as opposed to something unreal.

So you're saying that value for the same product is variable [but the money-equivalent for a particular value is fixed]. You are saying that a house should cost more to a poor guy [as the relative value is more for him] than a rich guy [basically trying to make off with as much as you can since nobody's stopping you. Again you are abusing the power that you have due to the buyer's disadvantage]. But you do realize that value is defined by your work and not on the buyer's needs ["A trader does not expect to be paid for defaults, only for his achievements."]. There is another common application for this too : online shopping, where a product has the same fixed price [so the price has to be determined objectively and not on "relative" values]. Frankly I think your "relative value" is mystical [you are welcome to prove otherwise]. Also the same thing having different values is a contradiction of "A is A" principle and therefore, too arbitrary and not objective.

Except terminal cancer [or any other terminal illness] cannot be treated. Treatment does not improve your chances by much [or the improved chances are negligible], hence the term "terminal" and death is certain. So your assumption that treatment allows you to "hang on suffering hopelessly with terminal cancer for months longer" is wrong. Terminal illnesses aren't usually treated anyway because of this. They are given palliative care. Any disease [even cancer], which is treated, is assumed to be non-terminal [i.e, there are treatment options available, improving your chances of living]. Only terminal diseases are "hopeless". Non-terminal disease [where treatment is available] is a hopeful case. I don't think you get the different levels at which the comparison is being made. A computer is not a living organism. So, you can't kill/stop a computer by running a virus on it. A computer can run a virus as good as it can run a video game. But neither affects its survival. A video game is an "extra", outside the survival ideal. The only thing that affects its survival is electricity. The only thing that has to be taken care of is how long this electricity is supplied. The wisdom of a computer is to make sure that electricity is supplied [but being a non-living thing, it can't make that choice anyway]. Now we can compare this to a human : Now unlike the computer, we have a choice that can make sure that the "electricity" is supplied constantly. Living wisely [along with several other Objectivist ideals], for us, means long term survival. The point is that all the objectivist ideal is only comparable to, at a maximum, the electricity used to run a computer. Positive emotions outside the survival ideal can be equated to the "video game", a feast outside of the survival fundamental. So the comparison is: (1) Electricity of a computer to Productivity/growth/happiness/wisdom [within the survival fundamental] (2) A Video game to positive emotions (outside survival fundamental) [i realize that a computer can't run a video game by itself nor enjoy anything by running it. But I am only making an analogy here, only for the purpose of understanding. There is no direct relation btw. the two]

No. For two reasons: (1) I am saying that there is a reality to emotions "outside" the goal of survival. To understand this let's compare ourselves to a [hypothetical] alien species. The survival fundamental and the emotions derived from it would be the same for both species. But there are positive emotions which can be felt by one species which the other can't feel depending on how their brains are wired. For example : consider the poem "Tintern Abbey" by Wordsworth, which is about him making a connection with nature and his sister. To me, the poem conveys several positive emotions such as mystery, a loneliness that is almost mystical, nostalgia and also some spiritual aspects. Consider "Ode on a Grecian Urn" by John Keats, which describes a longing for immortality that is almost sad; Or "I'm getting old now" by Robert Kroetsch about a narrator remembering his mother, his root, when he is getting old. Now some [or all] of these particular emotions may not be felt by the alien species depending on their environment and how their brain is wired [if their environment is very hostile, they would have no use for nostalgia or mystical/spiritual aspects]. These emotions don't improve my chances of survival [sadness and nostalgia is felt for something which is lost/unattainable] but that doesn't stop me from pursuing them. The alien species may have some other emotions they value and it is part of their reality and they pursue it. Another thing is knowledge that may not increase our chances of survival. For example, scientists are looking for a particle called "graviton" which might explain how gravitation works. Its discovery would not change the laws of physics [Einstein's's gravitation still holds] but only our understanding of it. Another possible explanation for gravitation can be achieved with Einstein's theory of relativity, which he extended to gravity [so that gravity is not due to "gravitons" but it causes a curvature of space-time, making gravity a part of mechanics]. The point is, the concept of "graviton" can explain gravity as well as the general theory of relativity can. Both arrive at the same "laws of physics" (which is the only thing concerning our survival). But there is a part of physics which questions how these laws come about or why they exist [theoretical physics]. But even if we understand the "why", the "how" part still remains the same [such as for gravity or the root of any physical laws]. It is the "how" part which concerns our survival [Every good character in "Atlas Shrugged was concerned with this "how" part]. The "why" part is curiosity, a positive emotion outside of survival-goal. Objectivism's pursuit of knowledge is fully mechanical, concerned with productivity/growth/flourishing limited by the survival goal. Knowledge in Harry Potter is much more encompassing [hence the reason for the introduction of Luna Lovegood, who is in search of knowledge solely outside the realm of survival. Hermione (an objectivist type) initially despised this, but later come to terms with it, accepting that Luna was simply "different"]. Objectivism does not advocate knowledge for the sake [curiosity] of it, but that which furthers survival. The knowledge of the greatest person according to Rand would be solely mechanical. (Some education experts even advocate that "mechanical" knowledge is rote learning, because brain is wired to work with meanings [the "why"s] rather than simple logic[the "how"s], which according to Rand, is required for survival while everything else is "mysticism"). I am saying that just because anything is outside a survival ideal doesn't mean that it is mystical [as Rand believed]. The only way to bring this about is to consider survival as a premise rather than as a fundamental. (2) As stated in the beginning, survival is an unachievable ideal. One consequence of this is that a mere productive/flourishing life [within the limits of survival] does not make me that happy [a motivation factor is also lacking as survival unachievable]. An unproductive life [a life without consideration for survival] makes me unhappy. A productive life [one where survival is fundamental] makes me neutral [as survival itself is not an achievement but just a premise, as I feel]. A productive life [i.e, with survival] with "outside" positive emotions [outside the survival fundamental] makes me happy. No, I don't believe positive emotions outside the survival fundamental is "mystical" (as Rand feels). Sure, they may be mystical for an alien species or a non-living thing. But they are very much real for a human being [Rand never considered the possible differences between different thinking beings/species, which hints at a reality outside of the survival fundamental, which would be the same for all thinking beings].

I don't how much is enough. The point of this whole thread is to find that out. But I do know that it exists: (quoting myself) Another question : since you must have read the above quote before making your comment, how did you come to the conclusion that "You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box." Or are you suggesting that different prices for the same amount of work is always balanced? If so, justify how that is objective and not arbitrary/mystical. Before making claims ["You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box."], back it up first.

True, except Rand's concept of "greatness" of life is derived from the ideal of survival. A "great", "heroic" person, according to Rand, is someone who has the capability to achieve production, growth; someone who can make proper long-term survival possible. Rand only accepted greatness/achievement as a derivative of survival (the fundamental), not as a separate concept (so you see Taggarts, Galt, etc). This leads to civilization (a sing of 'proper' survival). Anything not derived from the absolute [existence and pursuit of it, survival] is what she considers mysticism. Her concept of "happiness" is also derived from long term physical survival. (quotes by Rand:) "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values." (As stated earlier, Rand thought that achievement of values was based on the fundamental of survival : "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” Happiness is gained in pursuit of survival in a way proper to man, reason) "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." (again, the implied survival ultimate and its correlation with survival). “My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.” ("happiness" achieved through long-term survival goal is a being's purpose, Rand feels) “Joy is the goal of existence, and joy is not to be stumbled upon, but to be achieved, and the act of treason is to let its vision drown in the swamp of the moment's torture.” Doesn't caring about well-being mean that you care enough to keep decay at bay, you care about survival (in the proper way). Wouldn't that imply you care about death? More on Rand's quotes about survival : Abortion: "The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly." (Implying that a mother has the right to abort, which would increase her chance of surviving [as resources are limited]. An embryo (<3 months) has no life, so its survival is irrelevant. The survival of the parents is more important than any positive emotions the parents may harbor for the embryo) "The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents." (survival) "As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs." (long term survival again) "For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." (implying survival) Other quotes: "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." "The concept value is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." (values derived from survival, which is based on an organism's life) “Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. man had no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons - a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and we have comes from a single attribute of man -the function of his reasoning mind.” (survival is the root) “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 that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.” (life is long term physical survival and happiness, the derivative) "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death." (avoiding death is momentary. achieving life is long-term survival) "If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being." (Reason comes after survival) “Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live--that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence" Don't forget Rand's psychological influence, her experience in Russia.