Value Greater than Life

[DE5PA1R]

In John Galt's speech, Ayn Rand asserts that the goal and reward of life is happiness. But if an individual values something greater than that individual's life, doesn't the argument fall apart? If an individual can become happy by obtaining something he values and pay for it with his life, it demonstrates that happiness and life aren't necessarily directly correlated. This direct correlation is one of the foundations of Ayn Rand's argument. Can (and if so how would) an objectivist remedy the argument?

[Trebor]

The dead do not value anything; they're dead.

[DE5PA1R]

I see that objectivist-forum-goers can practice evasion just as well as non-objectivists.

Edited July 6, 2010 by DE5PA1R

[DavidOdden]

But if an individual values something greater than that individual's life, doesn't the argument fall apart?

There's an appropriate saying in Yiddish: "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather". The premise that an individual can "value something more than their life" is false, i.e. logically impossible. You are referring not to value but to emotional longing.

In the extreme case that reality hands you a dichotomy "your life" versus "the life of your beloved", you must evaluate whether pursuing values would still be possible if you chose to sacrifice the life of your beloved. That is difficult to judge, but it is not irrational to judge that life would be unbearable especially with the knowledge that you sacrificed your beloved.

Objectivism does not hold that one can justify the primary choice (to exist) by appeal to logic; it holds that given this primary choice, other things follow. The attempt to logically justify the choice to exist, by reference to some other consideration, denies that the choice to exist is indeed primary.

[Trebor]

I see that objectivist-forum-goers can practice evasion just as well as non-objectivists.

True enough, but you are confused, or evading the fact, as to which of us is evading.

A person who does not value their own life, as their highest value, cannot value anything or anyone else.

Edited to add: Perhaps this, from the Lexicon, will help: Values

Edited July 6, 2010 by Trebor

[Ragnar69]

In John Galt's speech, Ayn Rand asserts that the goal and reward of life is happiness. But if an individual values something greater than that individual's life, doesn't the argument fall apart? If an individual can become happy by obtaining something he values and pay for it with his life, it demonstrates that happiness and life aren't necessarily directly correlated. This direct correlation is one of the foundations of Ayn Rand's argument. Can (and if so how would) an objectivist remedy the argument?

A rational human being can not value anything above his own life, and by extension, his own happiness. If it comes to pass that one is in a situation where others prevent him through the use of force from living his life according to his principles, and prevent him from attaining happiness, then it is morally permissable, perhaps even required, to fight for one's values. When you are forced to fight for your happiness, you must also be prepared to kill and die for it. You say that in such a situation, life and happiness are not directly correlated. But the Objectivist says, on the contrary, it is in these situations when the correlation between life and happiness becomes most clear.

[Mindy]

In John Galt's speech, Ayn Rand asserts that the goal and reward of life is happiness. But if an individual values something greater than that individual's life, doesn't the argument fall apart? If an individual can become happy by obtaining something he values and pay for it with his life, it demonstrates that happiness and life aren't necessarily directly correlated. This direct correlation is one of the foundations of Ayn Rand's argument. Can (and if so how would) an objectivist remedy the argument?

I think you are making a false separation of life and happiness. While all living is not happy, all happiness is an episode of living. To give up life is also to give up happiness.

I assume you are implicitly referring to Galt's plan to kill himself to stop Dagny's being tortured. If so, you must realize that Dagny is now a prerequisite to Galt's happiness. So there is no alternative, life or happiness. Given his valuation of Dagny, he would even die to prevent her being tortured. If he were to choose to live through it, he would thereafter be a broken man.

I propose that if Galt's suicide wouldn't serve to prevent Dagny's being tortured, he would not commit suicide. He wouldn't kill himself in order to avoid living in a world in which Dagny had been tortured. He wouldn't commit suicide so that he never had to live with the knowledge that she had been tortured. It is specifically his power to prevent that torture that motivates him. It is something he can do, something he can achieve. When his choices are dying, but preventing her torture, or living and trying to justify betraying his own value system, he chooses the only whole portion of living left to him, the only fragment of living the life of man qua man possible, being who he is, which is saving her from torture. Rand's formulation is sound.

-- Mindy

[Hairnet]

The fact is all things are dependent on one's life, that is a valuer must be alive in order to value. While sure, someone can "value" cocaine more than his life in the economic sense, it doesn't make any sense to do so because his or her enjoyment of cocaine is completely dependent on his or her ability to live. Now if that person doesn't care, and doesn't mind dying in the middle of their high, or perhaps doesn't mind dying and never being high again, that basically means they are more or less suicidal and clearly do not even value cocaine enough to want to stay alive and do it.

It is very clear that there is a strong correlation between valuing ones life and all all of the things dependent on those values. Putting things above your life usually leads to disasters that don't even allow you to enjoy the things which you put above your life in the first place.

[DE5PA1R]

There's an appropriate saying in Yiddish: "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather". The premise that an individual can "value something more than their life" is false, i.e. logically impossible. You are referring not to value but to emotional longing.

In the extreme case that reality hands you a dichotomy "your life" versus "the life of your beloved", you must evaluate whether pursuing values would still be possible if you chose to sacrifice the life of your beloved. That is difficult to judge, but it is not irrational to judge that life would be unbearable especially with the knowledge that you sacrificed your beloved.

But doesn't Rand assume that the decision to live implies the decision to be happy and pursue one's own self-interest? If so, one cannot choose to die for another no matter what the circumstances; the decision to be happy must come after the decision to live. If not, there is no correlation between being alive and pursuing happiness.

A rational human being can not value anything above his own life, and by extension, his own happiness.

False. I know parents who prioritize the life and happiness of their children above their own and are perfectly rational in doing so.

I assume you are implicitly referring to Galt's plan to kill himself to stop Dagny's being tortured. If so, you must realize that Dagny is now a prerequisite to Galt's happiness. So there is no alternative, life or happiness. Given his valuation of Dagny, he would even die to prevent her being tortured. If he were to choose to live through it, he would thereafter be a broken man.

I propose that if Galt's suicide wouldn't serve to prevent Dagny's being tortured, he would not commit suicide. He wouldn't kill himself in order to avoid living in a world in which Dagny had been tortured. He wouldn't commit suicide so that he never had to live with the knowledge that she had been tortured. It is specifically his power to prevent that torture that motivates him. It is something he can do, something he can achieve. When his choices are dying, but preventing her torture, or living and trying to justify betraying his own value system, he chooses the only whole portion of living left to him, the only fragment of living the life of man qua man possible, being who he is, which is saving her from torture. Rand's formulation is sound.

-- Mindy

I was not referring to the situation where John Galt gave himself up to his enemies. I'd hardly call it suicide.

[DavidOdden]

But doesn't Rand assume that the decision to live implies the decision to be happy and pursue one's own self-interest?

Yes, if one is exists according to one's nature. (The decision to live, alone, does not imply such a thing).

If so, one cannot choose to die for another no matter what the circumstances; the decision to be happy must come after the decision to live.

Yes, the latter is correct, if you are operating in the context of a decision to live. But the choice to exist is not irrevocable, so even when you have chosen to live, previously, the primary choice is always available, and you can today decide to die.

[Trebor]

"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.

In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of “life or death,” but as an issue of “happiness or suffering.” Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is an automatic indicator of his body’s welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. Emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss." "The Objectivist Ethics" by Ayn Rand

[Mindy]

I have a different take on what "choosing to live" means. It seems to be used in this discussion as more or less a one-time thing, or at least an infrequently-encountered issue. I think, in contrast, that to choose life is more or less a constant choice.

It is that choice clothed in the choice to "make waves" or let sleeping dogs lie; to tell someone a truth they'll resent, or a tactful lie; to confront a bully or tease or unappreciative boss, etc., versus to keep the peace. It is the choice to earn plenty or to work at something one loves, to marry someone who is OK, or to wait for love; to let insults go or to act to counter them, etc. Essentially, it is the choice to live fully, to live qua man, or to just "go along, get along."

If one doesn't find this choice occurring with some frequency, I would advise them to look more closely, with philosphical principles in mind, at the events of their days. There are benefits to being able to see the philosophical nature of your daily living.

-- Mindy

[Mindy]

I was not referring to the situation where John Galt gave himself up to his enemies. I'd hardly call it suicide.

Why not call it suicide? More importantly, if you weren't referring to that part of Rand's storytelling, what where you referring to? Actually, you merely said, "If" someone valued something more highly than he valued his life... If you don't have a credible example, there is no "argument," as you put it, to deflate.

Your example of parents would not, on the face of it, be a case of a person valuing something above their own life, under the same analysis that makes saving Dagny from torture an affirmation of his life, not the sacrifice of it.

-- Mindy

Edited July 7, 2010 by Mindy