Life: Our Highest Value

[ukelelemasta]

I am new to the philosophy of Objectivism but very intrigued. I read Atlas Shrugged and am in the middle of The Virtue of Selfishness -- two very good books. I just want to clear up something because I am a bit confused. In The Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand makes it very clear that man's standard of value and highest value is his life but she also has stated in Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness that there are ideas that one is willing to die for. But if life is man's highest value then why would he be willing to sacrifice it for something that is obviously not as high of a value as his life? that would be altruism. So, this seeming contradiction has been gnawing away at me and I hope you guys can explain it to me.

Thanks,

Tim

[fountainhead777]

If some idea is critical to the living of one's life then dedicating your life to that idea is in a way furthering your ultimate value. In AS the heroes must pursue the spread of their ideas and values so that they will no longer be sacrificed to the looters. There is a chance they would lose their life but their lives would have been unfulfilled.

[Zip]

There are some things without which it is impossible to live as a man.

"Living" as a prisoner in a 4 by 6 cell without the possibility or hope of being freed is not really living. Therefore giving up your life in an attempt to not be a prisoner is worth the possibility, even the probability of death.

"Life" as Rand meant it is not mere existence. It is ones philosophical, material, spiritual and existential existence. Merely breathing is not life.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Zip

[Maximus]

Even thought one's life is, indeed, a high value, there are other values without which one's life would be diminished. Freedom, for instance, or a valued loved one. To live as a slave, denied freedom, would be a life not worth living. To die attempting to free yourself and others from such an existance would not be throwing your life away, but trying to improve it, even though you may fail.

[Myself]

Objectivism holds that your life should be your standard of value, not necessarily your highest value.

For instance:

*A man may value fighting and dying for his freedom rather than live as a slave.

*A man might choose to end his life if he is in terrible, constant pain and derives no pleasure from living.

*A man might die defending his wife and children from thugs rather than live to bury them.

In the above examples freedom, quality of life, and family are higher values than living. They are higher because the person in question has decided that life would be unbearable without those particular values and it would be meaningless for him to continue on without them.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Myself

[DavidOdden]

A frequent confusion is over what it means to exist. Existing -- living -- is not simply "existing, no matter what". To exist means to exist as something. Existence implies identity. So you cannot simply resolve to exist. Once you see that you must exist as something, then you must determine if it is still possible to exist as whatever you are, by nature, given certain facts. So, can you exist (as a human), if you cannot live as a human?

[WhitneyFisher]

The notion that a man has ideas that he would be willing to die for, if with proper reason and knowledge of his highest standard of value, is not a sacrifice. Rand believes that sacrificing anything to what you do NOT hold consistent in your values is immoral, is evil. A man has to live for his values. If a man who steps in front of a bullet for the person whom he holds as one of his highest, selfish VALUEs, then it is not a self-sacrificial act; if he is protecting his highest value against something that threatens it, as a fight to keep that value alive, then it is not a sacrifice. This is a bit of an extreme example of the difference between sacrifice and achieving life. A man should only exist as a rational being; he should NOT sacrifice any of his values at the expense of someone or something else's. Whatever one holds as their highest value towards achievement should stay consistent, which means; live for it, fight for it, and in its most exagerrated sense, die for it rather than sacrifice oneself to that which he knows to be evil. A life of self-sacrifice is a life of self-torture, the end result being self-destruction-- each being the effect of that which YOU sacrificed towards something irrational. A rational man should never have to sacrifice himself and a rational man should never ask for someone to sacrifice themselves. Notice in life how many personal relationships are based upon compromise; notice the anger and resentment one may feel for giving up something they truly held valuable to themselves for someone else's sake; notice they have sacrificed their values to someone else who did not hold the same values, and this is supposed to create a harmonious balance in a relationship, but creates nothing but an eventual hostility between the two parties. You have sacrificed your MIND to another; watch how the other party allows that initial compromise be the jumping off point to "milking you for what you're worth." Sacrifice is not only the slow self-destruction, but also the destruction of what could have been a perfectly rational relationship had one stuck to their own morality.

[CWEarl]

In The Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand makes it very clear that man's standard of value and highest value is his life but she also has stated in Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness that there are ideas that one is willing to die for. But if life is man's highest value then why would he be willing to sacrifice it for something that is obviously not as high of a value as his life? that would be altruism. So, this seeming contradiction has been gnawing away at me and I hope you guys can explain it to me.

It is not a contradiction if you consider it as risk vs. sacrifice. A high value may be worth protecting at the cost of risking one's own life. When we speak of something that is worth dying for, we are saying that we are willing to take that risk; we are not saying that we are simply willing to trade our lives for it.

If I agree to allow someone to kill me so others may be granted freedom, I am sacrificing my life. If I fight for that freedom for myself, at the risk of losing my life in the fight, then I am fighting for a value worth dying for. If I succeed, I am free. If I fail, I am either still a prisoner or I am dead (and neither could be called living).

Furthermore, if I consider a value worth dying for, it is because I don't consider existing in the absence of that value living.

[nanite1018]

The example often given in these discussions is one given earlier by WhitneyFisher, namely jumping in front of a bullet for someone you love. Or alternatively, doing something which you have every reason to think will result in the end of your existence in order to protect someone you love. I do not really understand how this could be anything other than a breach of rationality on that person's part, resulting from an overwhelming emotional reaction.

The only reason to love someone is because they make my life more enjoyable. It is impossible that their existence is the only thing I enjoy. And so, naturally, even with their death I will still find some (if minimal) pleasure from living. And even if I don't have any pleasure whatsoever, and do not enjoy anything at all, it shouldn't matter anyway because existence is by definition preferable to nonexistence. Living in pain and suffering is always better than not existing, because there is the remotest chance it may end (even for terminally ill patients, remarkable recoveries happen). So I do not see how you can ever choose to die for something you value, since by dying you cannot ever value anything and cannot gain any reward from working to protect that value at all.

There is a difference hear between running the risk of dying and certainly dying. If there is a 30% chance that you will die but your loved one gives your life 50% of its enjoyment, than it is rational to run the risk to protect her (since 50% loss is greater than the probabilistic 33% loss). If the risk of death is near 100%, it seems impossible that running that risk can ever, under any circumstances, be rational.

[cliveandrews]

It is not a contradiction if you consider it as risk vs. sacrifice. A high value may be worth protecting at the cost of risking one's own life. When we speak of something that is worth dying for, we are saying that we are willing to take that risk; we are not saying that we are simply willing to trade our lives for it.

If I agree to allow someone to kill me so others may be granted freedom, I am sacrificing my life. If I fight for that freedom for myself, at the risk of losing my life in the fight, then I am fighting for a value worth dying for. If I succeed, I am free. If I fail, I am either still a prisoner or I am dead (and neither could be called living).

Furthermore, if I consider a value worth dying for, it is because I don't consider existing in the absence of that value living.

If I could potentially cure my arthritis at the risk of dying, even with unfavorable odds, I wouldn't hesitate. I would trade arthritis for brain cancer with a 25% chance of survival. Better to have a disease that could kill me than a disease that makes me want to die. Because even though I continue to exist in this condition, it prevents me from living the kind of life that I ought to live, and will eventually compel me to commit suicide at this rate.

Edited September 25, 2009 by cliveandrews

[blackdiamond]

And even if I don't have any pleasure whatsoever, and do not enjoy anything at all, it shouldn't matter anyway because existence is by definition preferable to nonexistence.

You must begin by correcting this premise. It's simply not true.

Existence without "any pleasure whatsoever, and [without enjoying] anything at all" is not existence as a human. It's even worse than existence as an animal.

See DavidOdden's post above.

[nanite1018]

You must begin by correcting this premise. It's simply not true.

Existence without "any pleasure whatsoever, and [without enjoying] anything at all" is not existence as a human. It's even worse than existence as an animal.

But I'm still alive. I understand that if I am to exist I have to exist as something. I would, in this hypothetical case, be living as a human who does not get any pleasure out of life. Certainly it is a monstrously deficient way to live, but at least I exist. If there is absolute certainty that I will die, whatever consequences my death would have would not affect me and so my choice to die could not be moral. If I continue to exist, there is at least the possibility that things will change in the future, and so it is better for me to continue to exist (even if it isn't a flourishing life in any sense) than to die.

I can't think of any case where I would intentionally die for anything at all. Risk death, sure, absolutely. But act knowing that I would absolutely die? No.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

There are some values that are irreplaceable, and if you let those values be destroyed without lifting a hand to save them from destruction, then how could you say they were of that high of a value. The man standing up to hoods who want to rape his wife, for example, realizes that she is such a high value in her response to him that having that happen to her would be unbearable, so he would risk his life not to let it happen. Likewise, if has other values such that life would become miserable without them -- especially if one didn't even try to protect them -- that risking one's own life to protect them is necessary, even mandatory, in a sense, because what would life be without such high values. In other words, the standard human rational life, not existing as a group of living cells. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what values are -- values make your life worth living; and without certain values, life is not worth living -- and it is not a matter of percentages.

[Grames]

Life is the standard of value. That establishes objectivity.

One can apply the concept-formation process of abstraction and measurement omission to one's own life. This means you will have a consciously held identification of your own essence. It is entirely possible to value that essence greater than life itself. If it was an objective value before you selected it, and if your life and mental terrain are clear enough to enable and make necessary the identification of your essence, then the value which is greater than life is still objective.

This is an application of the idea that values are derived by induction (though not exclusively). I don't think this idea is explicitly stated within Objectivism, but it follows from what has been stated. See my notes on Greg Salmieri's lecture series "Ayn Rand's Conception of Valuing", linked in my sig below.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Grames

[nanite1018]

One can apply the concept-formation process of abstraction and measurement omission to one's own life. This means you will have a consciously held identification of your own essence. It is entirely possible to value that essence greater than life itself. If it was an objective value before you selected it, and if your life and mental terrain are clear enough to enable and make necessary the identification of your essence, then the value which is greater than life is still objective.

This is an application of the idea that values are derived by induction....

I can change my essence. People have the capacity to change their hierarchy of values, shift priorities, etc. Instead of placing all that value on my current work, I get a new hobby or go back to school and learn something new. My essence only exists if I exist. I can only have an essence so long as I exist. So existence comes first, essence second. As a result, my current essence can be sacrificed in order to protect my capacity to have an essence.

Something can't be an objective value before I select it, objective values only exist as a relation between me and the universe. If I don't currently value something (and I am fully rational) than it isn't an objective value for me. I never said it wasn't possible to value your essence more than your life, I am saying it is irrational.

There are some values that are irreplaceable, and if you let those values be destroyed without lifting a hand to save them from destruction, then how could you say they were of that high of a value. The man standing up to hoods who want to rape his wife, for example, realizes that she is such a high value in her response to him that having that happen to her would be unbearable, so he would risk his life not to let it happen. Likewise, if has other values such that life would become miserable without them -- especially if one didn't even try to protect them -- that risking one's own life to protect them is necessary, even mandatory, in a sense, because what would life be without such high values. In other words, the standard human rational life, not existing as a group of living cells. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what values are -- values make your life worth living; and without certain values, life is not worth living -- and it is not a matter of percentages.

A man who acts to try to prevent the rape of his wife is probably behaving rationally if he thinks that the loss/pain of that event would outweigh the risk of losing his life. All rational choices among multiple options are about percentages and the weighing of costs and benefits, otherwise there would either be only one possible choice or the choice would not be rational. My "beef" so to speak is with the idea of someone acting when the know (i.e. are as certain as anyone can be) they will die. I do not have a problem with someone risking their life, that can certainly be rational. But I don't understand how anyone could value anything more than their own existence. You have to exist to even have the capacity to value, it is a necessary requirement for it, so to place a value higher than existence seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[Grames]

No, there is an element of necessity in an induction. Your essence comes about from your history meaning what you have done, what you are doing and aspire to do. You don't change your essence directly especially when you get older and have a history, but your essence can change by cumulative force of changes in your life. Most people don't willfully mold essences, they are simply the sum of the things that they have done and the things that happened to them. Because their lives are not willfully, consciously directed then they accumulate a variety of life experiences that cannot be understood in terms of an essence because their diverse and possibly contradictory nature.

As to objective values, my writing was unclear. I meant you had an objective value before it became clear to you it was also your essence. (At no time was it somehow apart from you.)

[nanite1018]

No, there is an element of necessity in an induction. Your essence comes about from your history meaning what you have done, what you are doing and aspire to do...

Then why can't I simply change what I aspire to? People do it all the time, and if you are faced with a situation where you will either 1) be never able to aspire to anything ever again or 2) have to change what you aspire to, then it seems rational to choose path 2. For example, if Roark was in a car accident and was paralyzed from the neck down, he would have to pick something else to aspire to than architecture. I don't think he would just off himself as a result of losing his ability to build. You simply have to adapt to the facts of reality.

[Grames]

You can change what you aspire to, but why would you do that? If you achieved that aspiration, or had not and realized you never would, that would be a response to circumstances. If neither of those applied then that aspiration was lightly felt and not contributing much to your essence in the first place. In any case, history and habits still constitute a defining inertia which can be overcome but not instantly overcome.

We get a good piece of Roark's life in The Fountainhead, and I think he would have different responses at different stages. If he had an accident at the quarry that made him a quadriplegic I can imagine him being repelled by his imagined future so much as to want to die. After the end of the novel he could maintain his essential values and have a life as a quadriplegic architect. He can arrange to continue a career where he does not do any of the drafting. He also would still have Dominique.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm not sure I like the personal essence idea, but there are core values that make you who you are, and if those values were gone then your defining life values would be gone. In such a case, it is definitely better to fight for your values, even at the risk of death, than to let them go without a fight. The very nature of life is a struggle for life-sustaining values, and for man, who has a psychology and is volitional, to live without any such values would be torture. Objectivism has such a mind / body integration, I'm not sure what would have happened to Roark if he became paralyzed. With modern technology, he might be able to be hooked up to a computer and still do drafting, but without that, he would just be a mind without a body. I think it would be his option to continue to live or not.

There are other things that could happen to a person, such that rationality, the primary virtue, is rendered moot or barely functional; and a man may not want to live with that disability. Modern medication and modern surgery might be able to fix that, but if it can't that would be another suicide optional circumstance.

However, the main issue is that life without values is not worth living. One can certainly have a difficult struggle and overcome various problems, which would be heroic; and people survive the loss of loved ones due to their death. But the issue is not one of minimal survival, but rather being happy with one's life such that one wants to continue to live -- and there are many circumstances in which one may not want to live. That's why fighting for a value even at the risk of death is heroic; and in that sense, one can even say struggling to live and pursue happiness even with becoming paralyzed or brain damaged is heroic. But under those conditions, it is highly optional to live or to die with the disability. It would depend on the specific high values that were lost.

Life as the standard means living a full life, a life of a passionate valuer -- it doesn't mean mere existence.

[Eiuol]

Then why can't I simply change what I aspire to? People do it all the time, and if you are faced with a situation where you will either 1) be never able to aspire to anything ever again or 2) have to change what you aspire to, then it seems rational to choose path 2. For example, if Roark was in a car accident and was paralyzed from the neck down, he would have to pick something else to aspire to than architecture. I don't think he would just off himself as a result of losing his ability to build. You simply have to adapt to the facts of reality.

For me, there are no values I have that I'd rather be dead than do without. If you only have one value that makes your life worth living, and you lose it, it really wouldn't matter if you were dead or alive. I would think people should have enough values that should you lose one, a new passion will arise if you really analyze your values. I would argue that the only value one can have that they truly would rather be dead than alive is your rational mind. If you lost that, you wouldn't even be able to find new values, let alone realize that you yourself exist.

[nanite1018]

I agree Eliuol, the only thing that I could lose which would make me want to no longer live is my capacity to think. As long as you have the ability to think rationally, there is no reason I, nor anyone else, should no longer care if they live or die. And that is truly the only case anyone could rationally do something knowing you will definitely die.

[blackdiamond]

For me, there are no values I have that I'd rather be dead than do without... I would argue that the only value one can have that they truly would rather be dead than alive is your rational mind.

Are you saying it would be irrational for you (or someone) to join the army? A soldier would rather die, if necessary, than live under the conquest/victory of a foreign evil state (even if there is a chance that one day the conquest will end). Do you find such a choice irrational?

[Eiuol]

Are you saying it would be irrational for you (or someone) to join the army? A soldier would rather die, if necessary, than live under the conquest/victory of a foreign evil state (even if there is a chance that one day the conquest will end). Do you find such a choice irrational?

Of course it wouldn't be irrational since you would be acting to hopefully secure your freedom. There is a risk, but if I'm able and skilled enough, I won't die at all. There are few situations where you know the results of your actions that will guarantee you dying. It is those situations I'm referring to. I wouldn't say that I would rather be dead than live in under an evil state. I would do what I could to stop the evil in order to be free. If you'd rather be dead then live in an evil state, it would make sense just to kill yourself. But obviously fighting is a better option, and if you succeed, life will be better.

[blackdiamond]

There is a risk, but if I'm able and skilled enough, I won't die at all.

1. So those soldiers who do "die at all," it is (likely) just because they are not "able and skilled enough"?

2. Also, I'm assuming you find irrational any tactical suicide mission in war: say you know that if you crash your plane into that nuclear weapon building, you will immediately win the war, and if you don't you are likely to lose. Would a suicide mission like that be irrational since you know you are dying?

[Eiuol]

1. So those soldiers who do "die at all," it is (likely) just because they are not "able and skilled enough"?

Technically, yes. So you train to be better. If you aren't a good soldier, then being a soldier probably is not the best way to fight for freedom.

2. Also, I'm assuming you find irrational any tactical suicide mission in war: say you know that if you crash your plane into that nuclear weapon building, you will immediately win the war, and if you don't you are likely to lose. Would a suicide mission like that be irrational since you know you are dying?

Yes, if it is literally a suicide mission. As in, it involves dying in order to accomplish (like kamikazes). I won't get *any* benefit out of dying on purpose in such a situation.