VWA

@DonAthos I am sure the majority of people are innately motivated to want to be happy. Ensuring survival and procreation of the gene is a evolutionary commandment. If our psychological pleasure and pain mechanism did not evolve towards that end, we wouldn't be here today due to natural selection. But what is interesting is that we also have evolved volition, an ability that allows us to choose whether to follow the stick & carrot of our evolutionary biology or to pursue something else entirely. @Eiuol And what is the teleological end of volition then? If we have the physical ability to ignore the call of our base biology, to pursue any goals of our choosing, what does that teleologically tell us? @2046 I'm sure the vast majority of actual suicide bombing in real life are motivated by other reasons and are not ends in themselves. For my example, I was talking about a specific hypothetical case where by suicide-bombing is an end in itself, or is that too much an impossibility for you? If you find that's too hard to imagine, then let's have a variation where the ultimate motive for this suicide-bomber been revenge. Killing those targets objectively achieves vengeance, and vengeance in this case is an end in itself as opposed to a means to achieve something else. @dream_weaver Why do you need a blueprint before you build a building? You do it because it promotes efficiency and effectiveness in achieving your goal. But I think what that question really is asking is "Why does men need a universal code of values". There really is only one universal value, and that's reason. If a man wants to achieve any goal he envisions, reason is the only way to get there. Every other values however are relative depending on what you ultimately want to accomplish.

I mean ultimately subjective (intermediate values however are objective). And yes, if subjective, any end-goal just "is", no objective judgement can be passed onto them, at all. If a person who is masochistic, like the hermit in your example, choose suffering as their ultimate purpose in life, then it is just as "valid" as one who choose happiness along the line of Obj Ethics. If the hermit wants to live a long-life of suffering but was dumb enough to not take care of his health and dies early due to malnutrition, then it can be said given what he ultimately wants, his meal plan was objectively wrong.

@Eiuol I agree Man is a "rational animal" as reason is our tool to shape the universe to our will. Living according to that nature logically entails one to observe, think, and plan, before acting, to achieve our purposes (rather than say just acting). That's it. Note, I never argued why should a person use reason as the method to judge whether an action will contribute to or go against an individual's chosen purpose; I am in complete agreement with Obj Epi in this respect. But reason is only a vehicle, a method, to get to places. It doesn't tell you where you should go, only how to get there. Living according to one's nature as a rational animal means using reason as the sole means to achieve your goals (as opposed to blind faith). Living according to this nature doesn't entail what specific final goals (happiness..etc.) you should have, only that whatever goals you choose, you need to use reason to get there.

@DonAthos I don't think such an argument has been made or is even possible to make. (On the off chance there is such an argument I would be very interested in hearing it of course) But no, what bugs me is this view that happiness is a state that is somehow intrinsically all important, that it (and it's opposite, suffering) alone can serve as an ultimate scale to judge everything else. Any ideals subjectively selected by a human mind as his ultimate goal can act as a scale to judge everything else. And every action can be objectively judged as to be contributing towards that ultimate goal, or going against it. If the definition of Ethics is defined as a set of guidelines to guide an individual's action in life toward happiness, where by happiness is already embedded in the definition itself as the ultimate goal, then that's that. But if the definition of Ethics is defined as simply a set of guideline to guide an individual's actions in life, full stop (which is what most dictionary states), then Obj Ethics is wonky, and Ethics is ultimately, subjective.

If the purpose of a goal/objective is to achieve something else, then they are intermediate. In these cases you can answer the question "why" with "because 'next step'" And also in these cases, reason can be used to pass down objective judgments of right and wrong based on whether these intermediate goals will logically lead to the "next step". If a goal/objective isn't chosen as a means to achieve something else, but an end in itself, then in this case that's a final destination/ultimate goal. For these you cannot answer the question "why" because there is no next step (they are "just because", or as software like to say "duh")

@DonAthos The point I'm making is is that reason cannot be used to determine what the ultimate goal should be for an individual, only how to get there once a goal is chosen. The way you are passing judgement on the suicide-bomber presupposes he either already have picked happiness as his ultimate goal (whether in Heaven or on Earth), or that happiness is somehow an ultimate intrinsic value everyone should pursue. I'm not saying a suicide-bomber's objective should be respected. If your ultimate goal is something along the line of a happy life as proposed by Obj Ethics, then reason dictates that to achieve your goal, it is imperative to take out enemies that threatens such a goal with extreme prejudice. But the same logic applies to the bomber, or any other individuals with different aims.

And pray tell how do you discern what are intermediate destinations without a final one as guide?

@2046 If a suicide bomber's ultimate aim is say something else, and blowing himself up to kill civilians is his means of achieving that, then yes, in this case it is very possible he is wrong, in that suicide-bombing won't achieve what he wanted. But what if his ultimate aim is to just kill those people, full stop? That's the point here. Objective judgement of right and wrongs can only be passed based whether an action will contribute to or go against an ultimate ideal/goal an individual picks. But there is no objective standard to issue a judgement on the near infinite number of ideals a man could pick as his ultimate ideal/goal. The sort of life a person achieves by following Obj Ethics is just one ideal among a sea of uncounted others.

Reason is man's basic tool to achieve anything (survival included), I agree. Reason tells a man how to efficiently/effectively get from point A to point B. That's it, nothing more nothing less. Reason doesn't tell a person what the final destination should be, only intermediate destinations of how to get there. A fanatic suicide-bomber looking to take out as many civilians as possible with his life will also have to utilize reason to achieve that. But I doubt such an example would qualify as adhering to Obj Ethics.

Okay, let's switch that scientist with a suicide-bomber, whose ultimate value is to assassinate 5 high-ranking infidels in his country. This man decides to leave his de-facto obj-happy life and brings down those high-rank infidels; dying in the process. Would you also say this guy is a hero as well? If not, what's objectively different between the two examples? Both are pursuing a subjective ideal of their choosing. Both are utilizing reason to achieve their ideals in the most efficient/effective way possible. And if there is no objective way to evaluate the near infinite number of ideals possible for a man to select as his ultimate purpose, then whatever "destruction" is caused by lack of consideration for Obj Ethics is a non-issue. Because in both cases of the Scientist and the Suicide-Bomber, unless Obj Ethics provide them a more efficient/effective way to achieve their ultimate goal, any breach is simply meet with a "So?".

I agree physically-alive fits as an axiom. To take or plan to take any physical actions as opposed to non-action, you express a choice/preference to be physically-alive as opposed to be physically-dead. To stay physically-alive however, nutrients/hospitable environment are absolute requirements, Obj Ethics is not. Obj Ethics is one way to stay physically-alive in order to achieve some end result If you are looking to stay physically-alive to achieve some other result, then Obj Ethics isn't a necessity. There is nothing axiomatic about Obj Ethics/Obj-life.

I say wonky because while Obj Meta and Epi is derived from self-evident, the root of Obj Ethics is not. Given the objective nature of reality and its laws, reason is there as a tool to tell us how to efficiently and effectively reach from our present state to the ultimate desired future state. Reason doesn't tell us what the ultimate desired future state should be. The root of Obj Ethics states/implies the ultimate desired state is happiness. Is that self-evident? So far the responses either takes this question for granted and imply yes, or give a false dilemma that if an individual's ultimate goal isn't happiness, it must be misery and death.

Hmm, where have I see a similar argument before. "You think it's wonky to identify Bible as the proper standard of value? Wow." And that's why I don't take things for granted. I agree with what you said in the 2 previous paragraphs. But this last paragraph, just because an individual didn't choose the kind of happiness one would achieve by following Obj Ethics does not automatically constitute them actively seeking suffering and death. Suffering and death can be stumbled upon the path in the pursuit of any ideals, Obj included. Take this example: A devoted scientist has developed the ability to travel through a black-hole. He can pass through the singularity unscathed and safely arrive on the other side, which his theory tells him is another universe completely different from ours. But he cannot travel or communicate back in anyway, and it's almost guaranteed that he will die in a year's time once he gets to the other side due to running out of life-support. But to this man, to be able to glimpse and study the greatest mysteries of the universe is his ultimate goal. So he leaves Earth and the Obj-happy life he has, travels through the blackhole, studies the greatest mysteries of the universe, and dies to suffocation in a year. He didn't die happy, as he would if he stayed on Earth, lead a productive life, and raised a family (in accordance with his biological nature), but he died content knowing he achieved his own chosen purpose in life. Now, is this man actively pursuing happiness? Is he actively seeking suffering and death? Or is he seeking something else entirely?

Well, I am in complete agreement with Obj Meta and Epi so I am not looking for any super natural explanations. It's the root of Obj Ethics that I find wonky.

Let's use your definition then, the entire organic state (as opposed to just emotional) of an individual living a life in accordance with his organic requirements. Same question.

So the Ultimate Value, the final end goal, of Obj Ethics, is the achievement of happiness. Life is only a means to that end. So why is happiness so important? Why is the achievement of this emotional state more superior to the near infinite other ideals a human mind can conjure up and pursue?

It's not a "duh". Requirements are conditionals needed to achieve some sort of measurable end result. So exactly what result is achieved when individuals live according to Obj's observation of nature of man? And why is that result objectively superior to any other result achieved by individuals living according to some other ideals? ---

Okay, so Objectivism definition of life, is the kind of life that is compatible with Obj's observation of the nature of man (production, free-trade..etc.) At least that's cleared up. The way I have been using the word was simply "not medically dead". So Obj's Ultimate Value "Life" is actually life proper with Obj's observation of the nature of man. PROPER is actually the standard here. The binary condition isn't medically dead or alive, but whether or not a choice is in accord with Obj's observation of man's nature, or against it. But the question comes back around again: Why is it so important to lead a life compatible with Obj's observation of man's nature?

Objectivism version of life you mean. Choosing to live does not have to be "pre-rational". A scientist can choose to live through the suffering of a terrible disease so he can learn more about the mysteries of the universe. A religious fanatic can choose to live through poverty so he can suicide bomb a special gathering. Yes, every action a person takes will be impact his life (by whatever measures you use, probability of survival, happiness level..etc.) or against it. But every action a person takes will also impact any other state of reality (how many lambs he can sacrifice to his god within the next month) So why is life (by whatever objective measures you use to quantify it), as a standard, somehow deemed objectively superior to the near infinite other state of reality that can also be choose as a standard to judge every actions on? Standards besides Objectivist-life can be destructive towards Objectivism-life, sure. But again why is Objctivism-life objectively better than any other ideals? (The reason I attached "Objectivism" is because the life of say a suicide-bomber before he detonates would hardly be the kind of life Objectivist Ethics is trying to achieve) I've asked this question a lot; it's rhetorical. My argument is simply that is isn't. Objectivism-Life, defined by whatever measures you care to designated to it, isn't objectively better or worse than any other ideal driven lives.

The kind of life that one would lead if he were to follow Objectivist Ethics to the T. While choosing to stay alive as opposed to give-up and die is a clear-cut binary choice, how one choose to lead such a life is not (infinite been a manner of speech, there are a LOT). So then the question comes down to, why choose the Objectivism version/blueprint of life as opposed to all the other near infinite variations one can come up with? It's true, value does presuppose a beneficiary and/or purpose. But why is the beneficiary limited to people (self vs others, egoism vs altruism)? The beneficiary could be any number of near infinite ideals a person care to choose as his Ultimate Value. It could be the self as advocated by Objectivism. It could be God. It could be the invention of a warp-drive. It could be a school-massacre. The list goes on and on..

Life certainly have requirements. But those requirements differ vastly depending on what kind of life one chooses to lead. An individual who looks to stay alive until 100 to see his great-grand kids grow up will have a greatly different set of requirements to sustain his life compared to an individual who looks to stay alive until next month for his opening on suicide bombing a large gathering. So the question comes back again, why should an individual choose the Objectivism version of life?

The choice of "choosing life" is not some binary clear-cut choice. There is an infinite number of types of life an individual can choose to lead. Objectivism has a vision of a type of life that an individual "should" lead, and all other Objectivist Ethical and Political considerations which follow contribute towards that life style. Religion like Christianity also has a vision of a type of life that an individual "should" lead, with all of its own Ethical and Political extensions. Socialism, Confucianism, Islamism..etc. The list goes on and on. There seems to be an assumption made in a lot of previous posts that if an individual is to choose to stay alive, then that somehow automatically constitute a choice to pick the Objectivism version of life as his/her Ultimate Value.

If all our actions stem directly from pre-programmed instincts from birth like all other animals in nature, in that case then yes, sustaining and pro-creating life is then selected by default to be the Ultimate Value, based on objective biologic and psychological make-ups. The reality is however we have this ability called volition to freely choose above our base biology through sheer power of will, in which case life is only an Ultimate Value if we choose it to be. This is where it gets interesting. While it's true that an individual needs to stay alive (choose life) to pursue any other goals he chooses, the quality and length of how he choose to stay alive is completely subjective, and this choice makes a world of difference when acting as the standard for defining all other lesser Values. Consider these two extreme polar examples: ---A productive citizen chooses to stay alive to raise a family (instead of committing suicide by immediate starving) ---A religious fanatic chooses to stay alive (instead of committing suicide by immediate starving) to better serve his God (say by suicide-bombing infidels later on) In both cases, yes, life, choosing to stay alive, is a pre-requisite. However, all other lesser Values would vastly differ. This is interesting because as far as I know, reading Objectivist texts, every other Ethical and Political arguments is ultimately extensions on the Ultimate Value been "Life". But if there is no objective reason as to why an individual should choose the Objectivist version of life as the Ultimate Value, then the choice of what goal should be the Ultimate Value is wholly subjective, and every other lesser Values Ethically and Politically is up for grabs.

Reading up on Objectivism Ethics, at the moment it seems to me Rand arbitrarily designates Life as the Ultimate Value/End Goal. If I understand correctly, her reasoning seems to be that since every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in whether or not he lives or dies, those objectives/goals/states that are pro-life are then Values he should pursue. But by the same reasoning, I can argue that every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in how many lambs he can sacrifice to his favorite deity within the next month; those objectives that increase the amount he can sacrifice are then Values he should pursue. It makes sense that once an Ultimate Value is selected, all other lesser Values can be objectively defined based on the standard of whether they will contribute to achieving the Ultimate Value. But how do you objectively choose what goal should be the Ultimate Value? That choice at the moment looks completely subjective from where I am standing.