Is-ought problem and the will to survive

[brian0918]

I've been interested in the is-ought problem for quite a while now, and liked Rand's take on the idea. I've only read the snippet provided in the A-Z Lexicon, but it seems that she is saying that the existence of life with a will to survive is evidence of an "ought" derived from facts alone. Is this correct? Can anyone elaborate on her line of reasoning?

Now, while I have seen this argument before, I am not sure that it addresses the is-ought problem directly, which is more of a question of whether man can use fact-based reason to determine unconditionally how to act. It's one thing to say "if man wants to survive, he should use his brain". It's another to say, "man has a brain; he should use it". Does this make sense?

On a slightly separate but rather interesting note: I was thinking about the origins of life and how an apparent "will to survive" would come to be. Obviously survival at its core is grounded in reproduction - life lives to beget life, and the will to survive is simply a will to continue making babies. Nobody argues with that, and Rand uses this as the foundation of her argument: "life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action [in bed ]."

[A lot of the following is rambling written at 4am so bear with me]

What is interesting is the following: if you think about how life began and started to evolve, the will to survive disappears. In the beginning there were molecules. They coalesced into different groups that interact in different ways. These groups merged together according to the different rules of chemical bonding. We have the beginnings of DNA.

Now, there existed simultaneously numerous different sets of "codes" (ie, patterns of molecules and compounds) that all did different things. The important bit: Those sets of codes that didn't include the ability to duplicate themselves (by interacting and manipulating other molecules) did not reproduce themselves. Only a set that included the block of code that allowed it to duplicate itself would be able to duplicate itself. To this block of code the label "life" has been attached.

This set of codes duplicated, and over time, additions/subtractions were made to its copies and its copies' copies, etc, all according to the rules of chemical interaction. Those modifications which permitted an "offspring" to duplicate itself more easily, more safely, or generally better would result in a slightly higher likelihood of the duplication occurring. Only if that subsequent duplication occurs is there a chance of the new copy making another copy... and thus leading up to the present day. For all the other copies containing modifications that reduce the relative likelihood of their duplicating, they simply continued trying to make copies at a reduced probability, most likely leading to the eventual demise of their offspring (depending on how reduced their chances of copying are).

There is no survival. There is only the increased relative likelihood of a set of codes, which contains the ability to copy itself, to actually copy itself - this is retroactively seen as a line of progeny persisting as other lines are ended.

The different methods by which these increases in relative likelihood are procured include actions taken to directly increase the likelihood (eg, instinctively staying close to water, getting food), and actions taken to avoid decreasing the likelihood (eg, instinctively avoid larger animals, poisonous plants, etc). There is no real difference between these two types of methods - imagine a line being drawn on a graph; the y-coordinate (likelihood of actually copying) increases or decreases depending on the success or failure of these methods.

The collection of methods potentially capable of increasing this relative likelihood exists simply due to the offspring's predecessor having an increased likelihood in comparison to its contemporaries. Those who had a reduced relative likelihood failed to copy in the long run, and so there are no offspring to exist in the present.

There is no will to survive. There is only the implementation of methods increasing the relative likelihood of a given set of codes ("organism"), which contains the ability to copy itself, to actually copy itself.

Built into the definition of replication in a mutating community is an emergent "will to survive" - that is the process through which methods potentially capable of increasing the likelihood to reproduce are collected from one generation to another, for the simple fact that if they did not attempt these methods, the present time would be less likely to contain their progeny.

What I'm basically trying to say is that the will to survive, even the will to reproduce, is simply a set of preferred actions taken only because if they were not, an observer in the future would be less likely to see a descendant copy.

Can anyone skilled in writing word this better?

Edited February 4, 2008 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

On a slightly separate but rather interesting note: I was thinking about the origins of life and how an apparent "will to survive" would come to be. Obviously survival at its core is grounded in reproduction - life lives to beget life, and the will to survive is simply a will to continue making babies. Nobody argues with that, and Rand uses this as the foundation of her argument: "life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action [in bed ]."

This is not what Rand meant by the will to life, so I guess I'm arguing with it. Your addition completely changes the meaning of what she said. whether or not man is successful in passing off his DNA to progeny says nothing about his own life. She meant your own life is an end in itself.

I've been interested in the is-ought problem for quite a while now, and liked Rand's take on the idea. I've only read the snippet provided in the A-Z Lexicon, but it seems that she is saying that the existence of life with a will to survive is evidence of an "ought" derived from facts alone. Is this correct? Can anyone elaborate on her line of reasoning?

Now, while I have seen this argument before, I am not sure that it addresses the is-ought problem directly, which is more of a question of whether man can use fact-based reason to determine unconditionally how to act. It's one thing to say "if man wants to survive, he should use his brain". It's another to say, "man has a brain; he should use it". Does this make sense?

That is also not correct. Ought implies an ethical evaluation. The choice to live creates the basis for ethics. It is not automatic. However, given the choice to live, what one ought to do results from an objective analysis. That is, it is the choice of life a fundamental value that makes ethics relevant. I'd suggest you read Peikoff's Fact and Value, which is available on his sight. But first I'd sugges you finish Atlas. You're still way off the mark in interpreting Rand.

There is no will to survive. There is only the implementation of methods increasing the relative likelihood of a given set of codes ("organism"), which contains the ability to copy itself, to actually copy itself.

What I'm basically trying to say is that the will to survive, even the will to reproduce, is simply a set of preferred actions taken only because if they were not, an observer in the future would be less likely to see a descendant copy.

This is rationalistic nonsense based upon an incorrect application of evolution to ethics which is not relevant.

Given a set of "codes" there certainly is a will to survive. The will of the organism to perpetuate it's life. Don't believe me? I'd suggest you ask your mother, whose already passed her genetic material on, to go walk out into the nearest superhighway in front of oncoming traffic and see if she's indifferent to the proposition.

By the way, when I say "rationalistic nonsense" what I mean that you are stringing together a set of syllogisms without any reference to reality and arriving at a conclusion ("There is no will to survive") that you are so willing to believe, regardless of the fact that if you look around you you'll see it's a ludicrous conclusion. Rationalism is reason and logic divorced from reality.

Edited February 4, 2008 by KendallJ

[brian0918]

This is not what Rand meant by the will to life, so I guess I'm arguing with it. Your addition completely changes the meaning of what she said. whether or not man is successful in passing off his DNA to progeny says nothing about his own life. She meant your own life is an end in itself.

I was not referring to man. Man is an exception to the normal rules of life. He can make his own will that can run contrary to reproduction. I was only addressing "life" in the much more common sense. I really don't think she was referring to a man's life in the statement quoted in the lexicon. Not only does she never mention man, she refers to "life" in the most general sense possible - as the only "phenomenon" having "an end in itself". Life is the end goal of life; this is exactly what she says there. Whether she goes on to argue about man specifically having different goals, I cannot address. I am simply saying that in that specific quote, she is referring to life in general.

That is also not correct. Ought implies an ethical evaluation. The choice to live creates the basis for ethics. It is not automatic. However, given the choice to live, what one ought to do results from an objective analysis. That is, it is the choice of life a fundamental value that makes ethics relevant. I'd suggest you read Peikoff's Fact and Value, which is available on his sight. But first I'd sugges you finish Atlas. You're still way off the mark in interpreting Rand.

I don't see where we are in disagreement. That segment of my post that you quoted is simply a statement of the is-ought problem. Yes, the choice to live is the basis for the rest of the assumptions about what to do, but getting from the fact that you exist to the choice to perform the actions necessary to continue existing - that is where the is-ought problem comes into play.

This is rationalistic nonsense based upon an incorrect application of evolution to ethics which is not relevant.

Given a set of "codes" there certainly is a will to survive. The will of the organism to perpetuate it's life. Don't believe me? I'd suggest you ask your mother, whose already passed her genetic material on, to go walk out into the nearest superhighway in front of oncoming traffic and see if she's indifferent to the proposition.

I don't believe you have thought much about what I wrote. One can view life as having a will to survive (eg, don't want to step in front of traffic), or one can view life as continuing to persist and reproduce simply because if it didn't, there would be no life for one to view. All the other lines of descent that ultimately did not increase their likelihood of reproducing eventually died out; and long before that, all the other combinations of molecules that did not include the ability to reproduce did not.

Now, you may be correct in that for a given individual, there is a "will to survive" in the most basic sense of the phrase, but I am not sure it makes sense to apply this phrase to the entirity of life. Individual creatures long ago could have had a "will to die", and eventually as one would expect, they all died out. But they were still part of life in that they could reproduce. Whether or not such creatures should be excluded from the definition of "life" is up for debate.

[brian0918]

By the way, when I say "rationalistic nonsense" what I mean that you are stringing together a set of syllogisms without any reference to reality and arriving at a conclusion ("There is no will to survive") that you are so willing to believe, regardless of the fact that if you look around you you'll see it's a ludicrous conclusion. Rationalism is reason and logic divorced from reality.

I think it's simply poor wording on my part that's leading to this confusion (forgivable at 4am?). What I'm saying is that it is possible to discard the whole concept of will when dealing with (non-human) life, and instead look at the situation as being a generalization of the result of massive of amounts reproduction with modification over time.

[KendallJ]

Brian,

Go read the essay that the Lexicon referes to, make sure you're in context, and then if you want to continue to assert that your point is correct or relevant, then let's talk. It's an essay entitled "The Objecitivst Ethics". Ethics don't apply to non-volitional beings so obviously she must be using this issue to leave up to a point that does.

Edited February 4, 2008 by KendallJ