Why is life the only permissible end in itself?

[brian0918]

What I have not been able to understand is why life is the only permissible end in itself. This ultimate value is supposed to be the entire basis for the Objectivist ethics, but why can't someone accept a different ultimate value on which to base all other values?

Let's say I want to take philosophical thought as my ultimate value, my end in itself, rather than life. What is wrong with that?

[Jake]

What I have not been able to understand is why life is the only permissible end in itself. This ultimate value is supposed to be the entire basis for the Objectivist ethics, but why can't someone accept a different ultimate value on which to base all other values?

Let's say I want to take philosophical thought as my ultimate value, my end in itself, rather than life. What is wrong with that?

I'm surprised nobody has answered you yet. This is one of my favorite aspects of Objectivism: the simple truth of life as the ultimate value. Someone can accept a different ultimate value, but it wouldn't be the correct ultimate value.

Life is the ultimate value, because it is the value upon which all other values are predicated. You must be alive to value; a dead man can't value. You might say, "Philosophical thought is required to properly value, so why can't it be the ultimate value?" I'd counter that you can't think philosophically without being alive. Life is the at the beginning (or end) of any hierarchical chain of values.

Here's a quick example (hopefully it's robust enough):

If you want to be a good violinist, you must practice.

If you want to practice, you must plan time to practice.

If you want to plan, you must think.

If you want to think, you must live.

There may be other things you must do to become a good violinist, but every one of them is predicated on life.

Edit: typo

Edited September 1, 2008 by Jake

[brian0918]

I'd counter that you can't think philosophically without being alive. ... If you want to think, you must live.

So, life is the means to the end of philosophical thought? Philosophical thought is the reason I value my life, not the other way around, right? Then life is not an end in itself, correct?

[musenji]

I think a distinction needs to be made between "life" and "being alive" or "not dying".

"Being alive" is a means to the end of "philosophical thought". "Philosophical thought" is a means to the end of "life". Ask yourself, why do you value philosophical thought? Is it not because in some sense you feel more alive when you are thinking philosophically than when you are thinking about mundane things?

[DavidOdden]

What is your ultimate choice? Don't start talking about values until you answer my question. The concept of "value" itself is not universal and metaphysically given (consider the "values" of a rock). "Value" presupposes certain things -- existence, consciousness and specifically choice. Unlike a rock, you can choose to exist or not exist. Also unlike a snake, you can choose to exist or not exist. Indeed, you must choose. Value is thus logically dependent on the choice to exist. Concepts like "goal, end, value" are subordinate to existence, qua rational volitional being.

[brian0918]

I think a distinction needs to be made between "life" and "being alive" or "not dying".

"Being alive" is a means to the end of "philosophical thought". "Philosophical thought" is a means to the end of "life". Ask yourself, why do you value philosophical thought? Is it not because in some sense you feel more alive when you are thinking philosophically than when you are thinking about mundane things?

I don't know why. Is that the reason? I feel like I'm seeing things in different ways. Is that what you mean by feeling more "alive"? If that is what is meant by "life", then what is meant by the saying that "without life there can be no values" - where do you differentiate between talking about living vs non-living, and about some supreme happiness form of the word "life"? I was responding to a statement regarding the former meaning ("If you want to think, you must live."), but you've responded to my statement with the latter meaning.

Edited September 1, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

What is your ultimate choice? Don't start talking about values until you answer my question.

My ultimate choice is to think about philosophy always. Every second that I can keep myself alive will be a second that I will cherish for having in order to think about philosophy. I will make rational decisions to extend my life so that I can continue thinking about philosophy. I will try to avoid things that can reduce the length of my life, because that will reduce the amount of time I have to think about philosophy. Life, and the extension of my life, is the means to my end of contemplating philosophy.

[musenji]

My ultimate choice is to think about philosophy always. Every second that I can keep myself alive will be a second that I will cherish for having in order to think about philosophy. I will make rational decisions to extend my life so that I can continue thinking about philosophy. I will try to avoid things that can reduce the length of my life, because that will reduce the amount of time I have to think about philosophy. Life, and the extension of my life, is the means to my end of contemplating philosophy.

Will you also avoid reaching conclusions about philosophy? Because when you reach a conclusion, much less thought is required. If your whole purpose is to think philosophically, it seems you would tend to avoid finally coming to answers, because you don't want to give up the process. Of course this in itself changes the nature of the process...instead of honestly searching for answers about the "big questions", you're actually just seeking to continue asking the big questions, forever, without actually getting anywhere.

To put it shortly, it sounds like intrinsicism.

[JMeganSnow]

What I have not been able to understand is why life is the only permissible end in itself.

Permissible by whom? This is like asking why food is the only permissible source of sustenance. It's because if you try eating dirt you're not going to get anywhere.

It has nothing to do with permission. It's a fact of reality that in order for such a concept as "value" to have any validity, it must be based on a fundamental alternative. Live vs. death is the fundamental alternative facing *all* living creatures, which is why it determines what the ultimate value is. Trying to pick something else as your ultimate value is tantamount to starting the construction of a building on the third floor.

[DavidOdden]

My ultimate choice is to think about philosophy always.

You cannot think about philosophy if you don't exist. Hence your supposed ultimate choice depends on the choice to exist. It seems to me that you've misanalyzed your ultimate choice, which could be to think about philosophy always, be adored by millions for your philosophical thoughs, be paid millions of dollars to do so, and have the absolute love of a hot chick, plus a yellow 1968 Corvette. In other words, you've packaged together a lot of choices under a single package deal. Let's rephrase the problem in terms of what exists, and not your attitude. There are two alternatives that face any entity, existence and non-existence. Any other alternatives facing the entity are secondary, because they depend on whether or not the entity exists. If the entity exists, then other alternatives face it. Some entities can choose between alternatives, others (like rocks) cannot choose. The fundamental (most basic, logically prior, irreducible) choice facing any volitional being is whether to exist, i.e. live. Once you have made that fundamental decision, other alternatives will be open and you must make other choices. I think the word "ultimate" is what's getting in the way. Try Galt's Speech around p 930.

[brian0918]

You cannot think about philosophy if you don't exist.

So then life isn't an end in itself, right? Life is the means to other ends, right? It's not the ultimate value, but the means to other values.

Edited September 1, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

So then life isn't an end in itself, right? Life is the means to other ends, right? It's not the ultimate value, but the means to other values.

It's the same as existence (axiom 1) as man (axiom 2).

[brian0918]

It's the same as existence (axiom 1) as man (axiom 2).

What is the same as existence as man? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this and how it connects to the quote to which you replied?

[DavidOdden]

What is the same as existence as man? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this and how it connects to the quote to which you replied?

What it means for a man to live is "to exist, as man". Not "to exist, as the atoms that were a man but now are scattered to the four winds". Anything that exists, exists as something. When you claim that you want to "live", you mean you want to exist, and not just as the constituent atoms or as a dismembered corpse, but as a man.

[typo]

Edited September 1, 2008 by DavidOdden

[D'kian]

What I have not been able to understand is why life is the only permissible end in itself.

Rather each individual is an end in himself.

Let's say I want to take philosophical thought as my ultimate value, my end in itself, rather than life. What is wrong with that?

Philosophical thought to what end? I mean, what are you going to do with it once you have it?

If you said your goal in life is to, say, devise a rational philosophical system, that's a goal whose results can be applied to your life. If you want to own the biggest airline (or an airline), or make the chepaest high grade steel, or the fastest computer, or a good computer, or invent something to substitute for oil, any of that, what would yo do it for? For yourself, in one form or another. For the pride of accomlpishment, for the money it would bring you, for the challenge to achieve it, for the satisfaction of success.

[brian0918]

What it means for a man to live is "to exist, as man". Not "to exist, as the atoms that were a man but now are scattered to the four winds". Anything that exists, exists as something. When you claim that you want to "live", you mean you want to exist, and not just as the constituent atoms or as a dismembered corpse, but as a man.

[typo]

So survival as man (with a consciousness and the capability to be irrational or rational) is the means to other ends, rather than an end in itself? Or what was the purpose in your post in response to mine?

Philosophical thought to what end? I mean, what are you going to do with it once you have it?

I'll think about philosophy some more. It is an end in itself, not a means to any other end. My life is a means to the end of philosophical thought.

If you said your goal in life is to, say, devise a rational philosophical system, that's a goal whose results can be applied to your life. If you want to own the biggest airline (or an airline), or make the chepaest high grade steel, or the fastest computer, or a good computer, or invent something to substitute for oil, any of that, what would yo do it for? For yourself, in one form or another. For the pride of accomlpishment, for the money it would bring you, for the challenge to achieve it, for the satisfaction of success.

Those are all possible realities, but are they the only realities? Of course I will grant that a person can do stuff to further themselves and their life, but so what? Does that mean it's universally true?

Edited September 1, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

Or what was the purpose in your post in response to mine?

My purpose was to get you to understand the axioms of existence and identity, and the fundamental choice. Once you understand that, we might move on to fancier notions like "value", If I can't get you to understand what's logically prior in the basic stuff, I have no hope of explaining about "value".

[RationalBiker]

Life, and the extension of my life, is the means to my end of contemplating philosophy.

Would you die in order to learn something incredibly philosophically important? In other words, if you believed you could learn some ultimate "truth" at the expense of your life, would you seek that 'ultimate value'?

If your pursuit of philosophical thinking was somehow no longer possible, would you kill yourself?

What purpose does philosophical thinking serve in your life?

[brian0918]

My purpose was to get you to understand the axioms of existence and identity, and the fundamental choice. Once you understand that, we might move on to fancier notions like "value", If I can't get you to understand what's logically prior in the basic stuff, I have no hope of explaining about "value".

I understand existence and identity, and that you can choose life and continue to exist, or choose death and no longer exist. I also understand that man has the capability to be rational or irrational. And that's it. Where do I go from there?

If we are born tabula rasa, shouldn't you be able to explain why one should choose life, rather than require that one choose life in order to even start the conversation?

Edited September 2, 2008 by brian0918

[Zip]

What I have not been able to understand is why life is the only permissible end in itself. This ultimate value is supposed to be the entire basis for the Objectivist ethics, but why can't someone accept a different ultimate value on which to base all other values?

Let's say I want to take philosophical thought as my ultimate value, my end in itself, rather than life. What is wrong with that?

So you would be content to be locked in a prison cell, chained to the cell wall, isolated, fed meagre rations (just enough to sustain you) and periodically psychologically and physically abused just so long as you were permitted to indulge in philosophical thought the rest of the time?

I think you would quickly find that the minute day to day things like seeing the sun, walking freely, associating with people you love and all the rest of those things that make up a life are the things that embody the concept of "live". For you it necessarily includes philosophical thought, but that thought alone would not sustain you as a man. Life is the means and the end, all the rest are parts of the whole.

[brian0918]

I think you would quickly find that the minute day to day things like seeing the sun, walking freely, associating with people you love and all the rest of those things that make up a life are the things that embody the concept of "live".

Alright but that is not the usage of the word "live" to which I was replying. I was replying to the literal usage, "if you're not alive, you can't think about philosophy." Sure, you can change the word to mean more than just survival, but that doesn't address the original argument.

[KendallJ]

If we are born tabula rasa, shouldn't you be able to explain why one should choose life, rather than require that one choose life in order to even start the conversation?

I think the formulation of your original question is problematic. Life is not the only "permissible" end in itself. That makes it sound arbitrary. The fundamentality of life as the "ultimate end" is out there in reality. There isn't a specific why to choose life, but the fact that you choose something, anything as a value to pursue, implies that life is chosen. Your question, "Why should one choose life?" is a non-sequitir. It's a bit like asking for a proof of existence.

Peikoff addresses this in OPAR. Life is meta-ethical. It is what gives rise to ethics. There is no "should" ahead of the choice to life, but the choice to life causes the need for ethics. Tara Smith also reviews the whole of Objectivist meta-ethics in her book Viable Values.

[Zip]

Alright but that is not the usage of the word "live" to which I was replying. I was replying to the literal usage, "if you're not alive, you can't think about philosophy." Sure, you can change the word to mean more than just survival, but that doesn't address the original argument.

It is precisely because of that meaning of the word live that your ultimate value can not be something which is a small part of what "to live" means.

[brian0918]

It is precisely because of that meaning of the word live that your ultimate value can not be something which is a small part of what "to live" means.

Then I'll ask it again - why can't I choose contemplating philosophy as my ultimate value?

[KendallJ]

Then I'll ask it again - why can't I choose contemplating philosophy as my ultimate value?

Um... because you can't recognize that implicit in that choice is a more fundamental value that you have to pursue in order to pursue that one. Namely, to live.

The fundamentality isn't in the choice. It's in the nature of everything else you could choose relative to life itself. It is a function of reality itself. Of the nature of life relative to every other activity possible. Look around. You can't choose anything else without implicitly choosing life. That is why life is the ultimate value, and not the "one permissible choice" of value.

Edited September 2, 2008 by KendallJ