Does the end justify the means in this case?

[Hank Reard3n]

Let's consider this scenario as true:

1. In this century, either through biotechnology/medicine advancements or through the occurrence of a Technological Singularity, we will beat aging and achieve indefinite lifespans.

2. We don't know when it will happen, but the richer one is, the higher the likelihood of him achieving indefinite lifespan, given his higher access to the most advanced medical care available. That is, radical life extending therapies/technologies, the ones that will cure aging, though gradually becoming more accessible, are initially only affordable to the super rich. Another benefit of being super rich is being able to devise the best diet/lifestyle available, through personal trainers and cookers, to maintain oneself in the best shape possible today.

3. The older are, the wiser we get, so it is totally moral to try to live for as long as possible, knowing that with time we'll only get better and better at dealing with life, becoming consequently happier. With radically life extending therapies or if we merge with machines after a technological singularity, no matter how old we are, we'll not become frail; our bodies will indefinitely stay at the peak of health.

Now back to today, after having considering these premises as true, could you say that it is wrong, just for example, to try to become rich in immoral ways (like stealing, through fraud, government corruption etc) if one's end is to get rich with the sole purpose of preserving his life in the decades to come? There are many other areas where one would have to change his course of action, though, like picking a career that pays well instead of doing what one loves etc.

According to Rand, the goal of morality is life, but she didn't live nor ever consider a scenario with this variable: the possibility of radically extending life itself by money. Now with this variable, is Objectivism, or any other philosophy for that matter, still valid?

The issue of whether the scenario is true could fill other 5 topics. Let's just say that after having studied it VERY deeply and diligently, I give the possibility of indefinite lifespan in this century a 50/50 chance of happening. But even if the premises are wrong, the mere possibility that they're true make me think deeply about which course to take and which code of life to adopt.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Hank Reard3n

[Grames]

How does this scenario differ from the ordinary pre-singularity rationalizations that criminals already employ to justify their actions?

I don't see the problem. I think the problem is that you didn't and still don't see the problem with stealing your food right now.

[RationalBiker]

To generalize this question;

If things weren't as they actually are based on several questionable variables, would things be different?

[New Buddha]

Wouldn't it be easier to become rich by "moral" means instead? Is it really easy to become rich by stealing? And I'd hate to become immortal, only to end up serving a life sentence in jail....

[freestyle]

You are misunderstanding "life" as the ultimate value.

It is not merely being biologically alive. When Rand describes *life* as the standard of value she means more than "time spent while not dead". :-)

Exactly:

"The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement."

[Marc K.]

Exactly:

"The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement."

I like that quote very much, can you give us a citation please?

[Element]

Socrates had this metaphor where there are bunch of things inside you. One of them is a man and the rest are beasts. If you do predatory things you will feed the beasts, and if you do rational things you will feed the man. If you feed the beasts to much the man will be overrun inside you, and you begin to loose your virtues. If you feed the man you can domesticate the beasts and control when you need to be mean/predatory.

This was his argument against the idea that "virtue is not in one's self interest" argument. It is somewhat convincing.

[freestyle]

Sorry - was typing from my phone:

That's from A.R. in The Virtue of Selfishness, essay entitled "The Objectivist Ethics"

You can find a bit more of that quote online here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ultimate_value.html