Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why do you value life?

Rate this topic


BrassDragon

Recommended Posts

Why choose to live? Why choose to value life?

I don't think this is an ethical question, per se. I know that Ayn Rand said that there is no ethical validation of life, since life is the basis of ethics (and not the other way around).

Still, it would be nice to have some sort validation for choosing life -- a more absolute reason to say, "life is good" -- rather than just saying, "you either choose life or you don't; if you choose life, ethics proceeds from that point." This makes it seem like the choice is almost arbitrary.

There are some other threads which touch on this topic, but which I didn't find satisfying. In case anyone wants to look them up:

Why choose to live?

What if I choose to die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why choose to live? Why choose to value life?
I'm afraid that you'll need to say what you didn't find satisfying about those threads. The only two relevant issues I thought about immediately are: you value life because life is good and not miserable, and once that is decided (first and then continually), you can decide what, why, how, who, where, etc. And after a super quick skim of those threads, I saw both of those were addressed already, by Stephen Speicher and softwareNerd, respectively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you value life because life is good and not miserable

I think you mean "life is good and not miserable" by the normal ethical standard, i.e. life. What I am looking for is a reason to choose life over death in the first place, other than arbitrary whim or inertia. Or the knowledge that you can gain values which are fulfilling and which make you happy --- where "values", "fulfilling" and "happy" arise from the fact that life is your chosen standard of value, and aren't some greater validation of life.

I didn't really understand your presentation of the second relevant issue you bring up; could you clarify what issue you're talking about?

Actually, I'd say the "Or the knowledge that you can gain values which are fulfilling and which make you happy" thing is a pretty convincing reason to choose life. :thumbsup: I'm starting to feel like that's just the answer and this was a silly question which I probably could have answered for myself... but if anyone has anything to add, please do so.

Edited by BrassDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'd say the "Or the knowledge that you can gain values which are fulfilling and which make you happy" thing is a pretty convincing reason to choose life. :thumbsup: I'm starting to feel like that's just the answer and this was a silly question which I probably could have answered for myself...
I agree, that's the answer. It's what I meant by "not miserable." It's usually implicit in all human life from the get-go that values are possible, which I guess is why the question seems silly, and why people don't usually think to ask it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of a newbie, but I don't really see the point of the question. You either choose life, or die. And if someone chooses death, then that is pretty much the end of the conversation, the way I see it.

Do you actually have people trying to argue with you that death is a better standard? If that is the case, then really, what can you say to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its a silly question just a very basic question. A question which if more people asked themselves and figured out the answer they would be much better off.

As you alluded to and as both posters suggest: life is the basis of all value, if you aren't alive you can't value. So the question as stated is almost a paradox and could be simplified to either: why do you value? or why do you live? And then since these are such basic questions even the answers to them seem paradoxical: why do I value? -- to live; why do I live? -- to value (not quite but close enough -- I live to be happy and how am I happy? -- by achieving my values).

The reason these are important questions is because their answers are the basis of ethics upon which an entire code of morality may be formed: why do I act? -- in order to live; how should I act? -- in a way that promotes my life; what should I act for? -- the things that promote my life. And don't ever fall for the trap that happiness and life can be separated, they go together. To an Objectivist "life" implies "happy life".

So if you know for certain that the only thing life holds for you is cruelty or pain or despair and that happiness is not possible, then it could be a rational decision to end your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do I value? -- to live; why do I live? -- to value (not quite but close enough -- I live to be happy and how am I happy? -- by achieving my values).

Isn't life supposed to be the ultimate value, the value that is not the means to any other value, but an end in itself? Here you say that life is the means to having any values at all, such as happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why choose to live? Why choose to value life?

"What have you, then, which attaches you so strongly to life?"

"Oh! a thousand reasons!"

"What reasons, if you please?"

"What? The air, the sky, the morning, the evening, the moonlight, my good friends the thieves, our jeers with the old hags of go-betweens, the fine architecture of Paris to study, three great books to make, one of them being against the bishop and his mills; and how can I tell all? Anaxagoras said that he was in the world to admire the sun. And then, from morning till night, I have the happiness of passing all my days with a man of genius, who is myself, which is very agreeable."

- Victor Hugo in Notre-Dame de Paris

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't life supposed to be the ultimate value, the value that is not the means to any other value, but an end in itself? Here you say that life is the means to having any values at all, such as happiness.

Life is the standard of values - values are meaningless without reference to life. Values are pursued to further your life, so that you may then achieve further values. Why you do this, ethically, is for your own happiness (assuming we're talking about rational egoism here). You recognise life is possible, and that the living of it allows you to attain things important to you. This is why suicide is only moral if the achievement of values has become impossible.

I mean, one values life of course, but only because it is the source of values, the starting point of all evaluation. It isn't some arbitrary choice, so in answer to a similar question you asked, no, you couldn't just choice some other random value and make it the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

BrassDragon

'Still, it would be nice to have some sort validation for choosing life -- a more absolute reason to say, "life is good" -- rather than just saying, "you either choose life or you don't; if you choose life, ethics proceeds from that point." This makes it seem like the choice is almost arbitrary.'

It would be really nice. But Rand doesn't give one. You just have the choice between existence and non-existence - if you choose existence, well, then you've chosen life and Rand continues on from there. If you don't choose existence, you don't need a code of values, because non-existence doesn't require goal directed action to achieve. That's it.

If you find this unsatisfying, you're not alone. It's noted in (King, 1984) and (Robbins, 1974).

brian0918

'Isn't life supposed to be the ultimate value, the value that is not the means to any other value, but an end in itself? Here you say that life is the means to having any values at all, such as happiness.'

This isn't a justification for choosing life though - you don't decide to live and pursue your rational self interest as a means to various OTHER things you happen to value, like happiness, or seeing sunsets, or eating strawberries. "The Objectivist viewpoint... is not that life is a precondition of other values - not that one must remain alive in order to act. This idea is a truism, not a philosophy" (OPAR 213).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BrassDragon

'Still, it would be nice to have some sort validation for choosing life -- a more absolute reason to say, "life is good" -- rather than just saying, "you either choose life or you don't; if you choose life, ethics proceeds from that point." This makes it seem like the choice is almost arbitrary.'

It would be really nice. But Rand doesn't give one. You just have the choice between existence and non-existence - if you choose existence, well, then you've chosen life and Rand continues on from there. If you don't choose existence, you don't need a code of values, because non-existence doesn't require goal directed action to achieve. That's it.

If you find this unsatisfying, you're not alone. It's noted in (King, 1984) and (Robbins, 1974).

cmdownes,

Thanks for your response and for pointing me back on the right track, which is to do some reading on my own in OPAR. :-)

Ultimately, what Peikoff says (and presumably Rand said) is that you just have to choose life or not - and there can be no reason, because this goal is the basis of all values. For example, it's what gives happiness meaning in the first place--and thus you can't say, "I choose to live because I know I can be happy and achieve values." I'd encourage people to look at the pg. on p. 211-212 of OPAR. Here is an excerpt (the final sentence):

"In regard to the sum of reality as such, however, there is nothing to do but grasp: it is--and then, if the fundamental alternative confronts one, bow one's head in a silent 'amen', amount to the words: 'This is where I shall fight to stay.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...