Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ryan Hacking

Regulars
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified

Ryan Hacking's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Craig, thanks for your remarks. I'm not disputing that one needs to value life, or in your formulation, that "one must value life in order to live." I'm disputing whether we must value life as the ULTIMATE value; i.e. whether ALL of our actions ought to be directed at sustaining our lives. You write: "To live, one must act; therefore all actions should support life." Certainly I agree that to live, one must act. But as it stands, it is invalid to infer from "to live, one must act" therefore, "ALL actions should support life." I could just as easily state, "To reproduce, one must act; therefore all actions should support reproduction." Now it might be responded that one can engage in valuation without valuing reproduction, but that one cannot engage in valuation without valuing life. But that is just to reassert that life is the precondition of valuation. So I'm still not seeing where the ultimateness comes in.
  2. Certainly to stay alive, one must pursue values. But how is it not begging the question to assert that to pursue a value IS SIMPLY to pursue something necessary for life?? The purpose of the praying mantis "gaining and keeping" offspring via mating and thus dying is to stay alive? I don't think so. Also, its not reifying a stolen concept. You say, "To live, one needs to eat. Therefore, one should eat so that one can drive a car." How about: "To see, one needs to maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ. Therefore, one should see, so that one can maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ." No, organisms see in order to deal better with their environment, so that they can survive and reproduce. In the process of surviving, they will also probably maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ, but that is not the FINAL end of sight.
  3. Alright, I have several disagreements, but I'll focus on one. You write "The concept of 'value' is dependent on the earlier concept of 'life' epistemologically." Then you write "Values simply *are* the things that promote your life." Is that supposed to be a proof? If so, please tell me how you move from the first statement to the second. The concept of 'X' is dependent on the earlier concept of 'Y' epistemologically. Therefore, X's simply *are* the things that promote Y. That isn't valid.
  4. So if life is not the ultimate value, why should I hold my life as the ultimate value?
  5. What are we reifying? Genes?
  6. Once again, no one is denying that living organisms need values to live. But organisms also need values to reproduce. So the fact that values are a requirement of organisms remaining alive settles nothing, because values are also a requirement of organisms reproducing.
  7. Ok, so what are values? "That which one acts to gain and/or keep." Only certain entities, i.e. living organisms, have values. But this merely shows that being a living organism is a necessary and sufficient condition for valuing, not that survival is the ultimate goal of values. So I agree--living organisms make values possible, but we cannot conclude from that alone that the ultimate goal of values is remaining alive. "X makes Y possible" does not entail that "The ultimate goal of Y is X". "Being alive makes values possible" does not entail that "the ultimate goal of values is remaining alive."
  8. Sure, but nor does the plant convert sunlight to energy because the organism has "getting energy," or further, survival, as a goal. So I guess the basic question is this: how do we prove that survival is an organism's ultimate goal if not by observing how it acts? (1) An ultimate goal is the final goal for which all other goals are means. (2) Organisms have the goal of reproduction and protecting their young. (3) Reproduction and the protection of one's young, is not a means to the organism's survival (i.e. remaining alive). (4) Therefore remaining alive is not the ultimate goal.
  9. Even if the majority of an organism's time is spent preserving its own life, is that all that its required to prove that survival is an organism's ultimate end? And for organisms that DO place the lives of their offspring above their own, is their ultimate end the perpetuation of their genes?
  10. But in your example, the pleasure/pain mechanism is not a simply guide for what is required for its OWN survival. It gets pleasure from copulation, which is not required for its own survival, but rather the propagation of its genes. How is organism X's copulation a means to organism X remaining alive?
  11. Burgess, thanks for your comments. But here is the sticking point for me--why do organisms even bother to copulate and die, or protect their young and die if all of their actions are means to their own survival. What endorsement of Rand's claim requires is that all of an organism's actions are means to survival. An organism could just as easily not copulate or not protect its young, and survive, rather than copulate and die, or protect its young and die. So what needs to be proven by defenders of Rand is how dying to protect one's offspring (an action which the organism need not take to promote its OWN survival) is a means to its own survival.
  12. Once again, I was just using shorthand. By your own lights, a plant is acting for its own survival when it converts sunlight to energy. Does it matter that it is automatic? No. And you are avoiding my basic point: When organism X is faced with the alternative of its own survival or the survival of its offspring, and it acts for the survival of its offspring, it is NOT acting for its OWN survival. It doesn't matter that its automatic. The fact that the mother does not "know" it will die is irrevelvant. Does a plant "know" converting sunlight to energy will foster its survival? No. So you cannot say that the mother's OWN survival is its ultimate goal--that is, the goal all of its other goals are aimed at, if it acts (once again, automatically) for the survival of its young at the cost of its own life.
  13. No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that if remaining alive were the goal of all values, why would organisms ever take the risk? And its not just isolated cases, it happens routinely in nature. I think it all boils down to this: (1) If X is the goal of all goals for an organism, an organism does not pursue a goal that is not aimed at X. (2) If remaining alive is the goal of all goals for an organism, an organism does not pursue a goal that is not "aimed" (I use this as short-hand, but I know, it is not consciously aimed) at remaining alive. (3) A mother "sacrificing" her own life for the sake of her offsprings' is not "aimed" at the goal of her herself remaining alive. Therefore, remaining alive is not the goal of all goals for an organism. If I made an error in the above three statements, please let me know.
  14. Once again, no one is arguing that an animal does not pursue survival. The question is whether survival is its ultimate goal. First of all, on your theory, if nature has not set an organism's goals, what does? God? Survival and reproduction are both automatic actions of an organism. That statement settles nothing. How can you say that its continued existence is tied to that of its offspring? Its existence ceases, not continues, when it acts for the continued existence of its offspring. A plant needing sunlight is a requirement of the plant's own survival; an organism A dying so that its offspring B can live does not help A survive, it helps B survive. In fact, it kills A.
  15. No "creature" aimed all of an organism's goals at reproduction. Natural selection did. Why? Because an organism that had as a genetic feature only the goal of survival would never reproduce, and thus, never pass that genetic feature on. In contrast, an organism that had as a genetic feature, the goal of reproducing, will reproduce, and thus, pass that genetic feature on to its offspring, who will in turn, pass the feature on to their offspring, and so on.
×
×
  • Create New...