Leonid

Jake Ellison"I see what you did there: you took Rand's statement that life is an end in itself, and replaced the word end with the word value, thus proving you're right. But you're wrong. "end in itself" is an idiom, which means "an entity existing for its own sake". "value in itself" is another idiom, with a very different meaning (often used in the phrase "knowledge is a value in itself"), which translates to "a thing with inherent value". Just because an existent exists for its own sake, that does not give it inherent value. There's no such thing as inherent value. There's objective value, but no inherent value." Although I'm not great fun of words' games I can play with you on your own terms. "End" means a goal or purpose. Value in Objectivism defined as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" (“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 15.) which is sine qua none of goal or purpose. In Objectivism "Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action." (See above).Therefore the meaning of "end in itself" is identical to the meaning of “value in itself". Your substitution of the word "end" by the word “entity” is not warranted. "End in itself “doesn’t mean” "an entity exists for its own sake", but a goal or value which obtainable for its own sake. Life is the only such a value or goal. Life is a unique phenomenon which Objectivism defines as "value or end in itself". No other things like knowledge, money, freedom etc...could be defined as such, since values of all these things are reducible to the value of life. However the value of life is the only irreducible, primary value. That what makes it intrinsic property of life. This is essential difference of life's value from the values of all other things. Incidentally this doesn't mean that life is indestructible. On the contrary the destructibility of life makes it valuable.

Life, Mind and NIOF principle Objectivism defines life as “a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action” (Galt speech, AS). I’d add that life is also a process of self –organization of the matter. In their book “Biological Self-organization” Camazine et al. (2001: 8) define self-organization: ‘‘As a process in which pattern at the global level of a system emerges solely from numerous interactions among the lower level components of the system. Moreover the rules specifying interactions among the system’s components are executed using only local information, without reference to the global pattern. In short pattern is an emergent property of the system rather than being imposed on the system by an external ordering influence.’’ From this definition one may conclude that if life is self-sustained, self-organized process then it is non-deterministic process, that is-without antecedent cause. Or, as Robert Rosen observed, life doesn’t have efficient cause, this is a process of self-causation. Therefore, any interaction of living entity with its environment is self-initiated, goal-orientated response. (SIGOR) “Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.” (Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 16.) SIGOR exists on any level of biological organization-from viruses to men. It’s manifestation of essential biological feature-the ability to projects goals into the future and to act to achieve them. This is a mechanism of biological self-causation. On the preconscious levels organisms use preprogrammed codes (DNA and others) for this purpose, but on conceptual level the tool is human mind, the only tool of human survival. On conceptual level self-initiated, goal-orientated action becomes volitional-that is by using concepts mind able to make choices about goals or rather purposes. Desire is a goal, projected into the future which is chosen according to Man’s needs. Free will is not an illusion but attribute of Man’s consciousness which is developed from very basic property of living being-the ability to project goals and to initiate an action to achieve them. From other hand, for the same reason a living entity is NOT a mechanism, NOR is mind a computer. .W. Tecumseh Fitch observed i” A crucial difference between a cell (including but not limited to a neuron) and a transistor on a silicon chip is that the former arrangement of matter can autonomously and adaptively modify itself in response to its circumstances, whereas the latter cannot. An everyday example of this biological capacity is provided by the healing response: a damaged organism can often stem the loss of precious bodily fluids, stitch itself up, and (with some scar perhaps) continue living. We all witness this capacity regularly in our own bodies and it is worth stopping for a moment to realize how amazing it is…eukaryotic cells which possess a crucially intrinsic aboutness I dubbed nano-intentionality “ (Nano-intentionality: a defense of intrinsic intentionality, Biology and Philosophy, Media B.V 2007). It is not difficult to see that Fitch’s nano-intentionality is what I call SIGOR and that what is makes living organisms alive. Human cognition as any other biological process is self-regulated, self-organized, self-causated process.. It is an attribute of the living entity-human being, and as such it doesn’t have any efficient cause. Actually antecedent causes can be only harmful to the living process and to the mind. The ethical consequence of this biological fact is the principle of non-initiating of force. Human mind is an essence of human existence and cannot be separated from it, as one cannot separate from a plant its ability to turn its leaves to the light. Any attempt of application of antecedent cause, a force, on mind will be a hindrance, will impede its functions or stop it altogether. Initiation of force therefore is an act which prevents man to live qua man or to live at all.

Dante "And incidentally Leonid, this is why I do not agree with your argument: the automatic values which a man's body pursues are not enough to keep him alive. My digestive system won't keep me alive if I don't eat." Let see: in order to make conscious decision not to eat you have to employ your mind, which means, to expand some energy which your digestive system has to provide to you in the first place. Your decision is an action based on certain valuation, in other words in order to make such a decision you have to be alive, which means your digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular, immune ,and all other systems have to be fully functional. Only in this condition you would be able to make such a strange decision as to kill yourself by starvation. If you imply that life has limitation and requires supply of essential elements to sustain itself, then observe that life by definition is a self-initiated goal orientated process which supplies them. Observe also that you have very limited conscious control over your essential vital functions. You cannot decide not to breathe, or to stop your heart beats. You may kill yourself, but even this action depends on the fact that you are alive.

In Objectivism "objective" means that what pertains to reality. Percepts are self-evident and present reality objectively, as it is, with all its intrinsic properties. To say “I see you now objectively" would mean that I see you not as an illusion, delusion or Kantian phenomenal reflection of some unknown noumenal reality, but as an entity which exists in reality.

The topic is life and value, not man's life qua man. There is no argument about the concept of value which is obviously belongs to the realm of human cognition. I'm talking here about value itself. As Ayn Rand observed "It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” (“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 15.). Note that Ayn Rand doesn't speak here about human life in particular. Her position implies that value is intrinsic to any life. "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... 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.” (Ibid, 17). So life is a value in itself, exists as a part of reality which is independent of consciousness and therefore value is intrinsic property of life. That doesn't mean separation of value from valuer. It means that every living being is a valuer. The owl's life is good for owl. The fact that humans also may benefit from owl's existence is irrelevant. It is important to recognize the fact that valuation is an essence of life because this process represents ontological basis for human consciousness as well. The addition of free will and conceptual faculty doesn't change the fact that mind is a human tool for valuation and survival, not the end in itself. Only human life is. The usage of mind as a tool of life destruction would be contradiction in terms. Suicide is morally justified only when man's life qua man already doesn't have any value.

“ If perception is not subjective,then it is objective which means it reflects objective reality as it is with all its intrinsic properties. Percepts are self-evident. I cannot see the point of disagreement.

You choose your values, but in order to do so you have to be alive in the first place. Therefore, life itself is ultimate value. Your body acts in order to gain/keep its life independently of your consciousness. Your mind is dependent on your life, not other way around. Mind isn't value in itself, it is a tool of human survival.

Intrinsic properties of surface defines our perception of the object. If you ask how the atomic structure of tomato's surface really looks like to man the answer would be : it looks red. The vision perception is objective process which integrates object, medium ( light in this case) and human organs of perception ( eyes). Which one of these three components is subjective in your opinion?

Can you point out which statements exactly did I ignore? Where did I say that value doesn't require a valuer and goal/purpose? In all my posts I've claimed exactly the opposite. What I did say is that valuer is not necessarily has to be conscious; some mechanisms of valuation are build-in, intrinsic to the organism. The essence of life is an action to gain and keep life itself, value therefore is intinsic to life. As long as people alive, untill the last breath and heart beat their bodies pursuit life, independently of their consciousness, contrary to their choice to negate life. When they dead, they don't make any choices anymore. As long as one is alive one cannot stop to act in order to gain/keep life. The only rational explanation of this is that value is intrinsic property of life, that is-it cannot be negated.

cancelled

I usually don't comment on unwarranted statements. Pointing out is not a proof.

Grames "The there are at least two fundamental differences between objective and intrinsic, and those both arise within the field of epistemology. All living things value, but only people need epistemology to value." As you said "All living things value”. Epistemology deals with the question of awareness of value, not value itself. Since not all living things which value possess awareness, value is metaphysical and not epistemic concept. To claim the opposite is to accept the notion of primacy of consciousness. You have to distinguish between fields of epistemology and metaphysics. From metaphysical point of view intrinsic and objective is the same. For example red colour is intrinsic property of tomato and this is objective fact of reality. Value is intrinsic property of life and this is also objective fact of reality. Both facts are independent of consciousness. This metaphysical fact lies in the basis of epistemic conclusion that life is standard of value. Epistemology is reducible to metaphysics, not other way around

Other living beings apart from man also valuate. Plant turns to sun because sunlight has value for it. Amoeba escapes sunlight because sunlight is harmful to it. Since living organism's action is always goal-orientated they act in order to obtain values. The ultimate goal of such an action is life itself.

How so? Intrinsic means property of reality which is independent of consciousness. Objective means exactly the same.

I never said that life has intrinsic value because it cannot be subjective. I gave my reasons in posts above and they don't include this argument. I simply stated that there is no dichotomy because value of life is not subjective. It's objective and intrinsic.

Nevermind quantity of life, but what about its quality? Would you mind to live 3 years longer as a slave or slave driver?

My concept of intrinsic value pertains only to life itself. Since life is standard of value, it connot be subjective and therefore there is no dichotomy.

Amaroq "I'm curious, do you hold the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy? " I'm not sure what do you mean by that.

Valuer is every living thing. It doesn't have to be conscious since it has build-in mechanisms of valuation. Without it its actions cannot be self-initiated and goal-orientated. Human consciousness is basically the same mechanism of survival modified by self-awarness and free will.

Amarog"Let's say for a second that life is an intrinsic value. That must mean that there's a way to measure value, say, with precise, unbiased instruments. Like you'd measure the weight of a gold nugget with a scale, there must be a similar device that will give you a readout of an item's value, yes?" To measure the weight of a gold nugget you need standard of weight measurement-say gram. But can you measure standard itself? No, you only can define it. Life is standard of value by definition. The value to a living being is life itself; thus by definition intrinsic value, metaphysically given, independent of consciousness.

If I do, then Harry Binswanger, the Objectivist philosopher and biologist also does. In his book " The Biological Basis of Theleological Concepts" he dedicated the whole chapter to goal-causation. According to Aristotle, the final cause is thelos, end goal. Since actions of all living organisms are self-generated and goal-orientated, they are driven by self-causation which is goal projected into the future. In case of man the process is volitional. As Dr. Peikoff observed in OPAR " Man chooses the causes that shape his actions" (pg 65) Self generated goal is final cause of action for all living organisms, man included. So it seems that your work is hardly started yet.

Grames “a value which has a cause cannot be intrinsic.” It can if it final cause. Life is self-initiated process, undetermined by antecedent causes. It’s driven by intrinsic cause. Cmac19 “However, wouldn't this line of reasoning, that all life is intrinsically valuable, give very similar rights that humans have to any living thing?” No. Rights are social concept. It also presupposes freedom of choice. RationalBiker “For the concept "value" to even be a concept in the first place requires something capable of understanding concepts; a cognitive rational being. Without a cognitive entity, the concept "value" does not exist; no concepts would exist.” That’s true, but I discuss value in metaphysical, not epistemic terms. Sunlight has value for plant even if plant doesn’t know that.

This is Objectivist definition of value: "“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. 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.I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible." ( “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 15.) Observe that in this definition is nothing which demands existence of human mind or even consciousness. The only prerequisite of value is life itself. Rand defines intrinsic value as "good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness." (“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 22.). Life represents such a reality. It cannot be be reduced to human consciousness; on the contrary-consciousness depends on life. To say "To humans, what matters is not the automatic functions of body but the volitional functions of mind." is to accept the notion of mind-body dichotomy. Mind cannot exist without body and its functions. Therefore life, which is an action " to gain and keep" itself is value in itself, or intrinsic value. Man's ability to make anti-life choices and to act toward self-destruction is based on the fact that he's alive. From the ethical point of view such a choice is wrong exactly because ontologically it represents contradiction in terms, that is-an attemt to refute irrefutable intrinsic value of life. All actions of all living organisms are goal-directed. "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".(“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 17). Rand, however differentiated goal and purpose which is goal accepted by choice.

The topic of this thread is “Why is life not intrinsically good?” My claim that it is. Please note, we are not discussing the conscious life but life as such. Every living organism inherently has a purpose-life itself. Life is an self-generated action of the living entity to gain and keep values. Since one cannot separate the living actor from the process of life, life has a value in itself, that is-intrinsic value. If one explicitly or implicitly denies value of life he simply fakes reality, since even in order to do so he has to be alive. That makes value of life axiomatic, irrefutable and irreducible. Maybe life should be defined as basic axiom and consciousness as life's corollary since only living entities could be conscious and consciousness as faculty of life is reducible to it.

"If one wishes to die, there is no reason to care that you must use your life in order to die.” Indeed. I just brought this up as an example of independence of the value of life from the consciousness. Objectively life is valuable even to suicide bomber. He has to be alive in order to complete his mission. If, say, before mission he becomes sick, must probably he would seek the best available treatment in order to get well soon, so he would be able to proceed with his mission.