What if I choose to die?

[Praxus]

Ayn Rand said that her morality is based on one choice, that is to live. Now say if I choose to die, that is to say I do not want to achieve my values, I simply want to reject reality and go on a rampage until I die, would it be immoral for me to do so since my objective is not to live but to die?

[ex_banana-eater]

Life is the standard of anyone's values; it's a pre-moral fact. Anything else is immoral.

Someone else might be able to expand more than me.

[Brian Faulkner]

Ayn Rand said that her morality is based on one choice, that is to live. Now say if I choose to die, that is to say I do not want to achieve my values, I simply want to reject reality and go on a rampage until I die, would it be immoral for me to do so since my objective is not to live but to die?

If your choice "right now" is to die, then you kill yourself right now. If you choose to "go on a rampage" you are choosing to live and destroy values.

[Praxus]

Isn't morality only for thoose who choose to live?

[ex_banana-eater]

Isn't morality only for thoose who choose to live?

Morality is only being practiced by those who choose to live. Morality is being denied by those evade life. Choosing to die does not change their standard of value; their whim does not change the way they should act.

[Michelangelo]

As silly as it seems, should it be legal for an only parent of a child to commit suicide? Since he is the guardian of the childs rights, isn't he morally and legally responsible to fullfill his duty in this respect?

[gnargtharst]

The choice, "to live" precedes the choices of morality.

If one chooses to die, as a fundamental choice, then such a choice is neither moral or immoral; it is "pre-moral".

The reason why this issue seems to be so at odds with life-affirming Objectivism, is that the act of even considering this issue is an act committed by one who has rejected the fundamental choice to die. Thinking about it, considering it, debating it, discussing it, etc. are all done by one who has chosen to live. The fundamental choice to die, considered literally, is nearly inconceivable -- it would entail simply dying -- killing oneself -- without any thought, any weighing of evidence, any weighing of the values one has inevitably already accrued as an already living entity.

Beyond this stage -- the stage of sort of primitive, pre-thinking, proto-suicide -- a choice of death must necessarily entail a rejection of values, and is thus immoral.

Life is a precondition for values and for morality, but the rejection of that standard could hardly ever be a neutral act -- not for for any living, breathing, already-existing human.

[MisterSwig]

Ayn Rand said that her morality is based on one choice, that is to live.

Actually, that's not what she said. Here's a quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It (p. 99):

Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.

One is not moral or immoral based on the choice to live or not. There is much more to it. For example, it matters why and how you implement that choice.

[Praxus]

Actually, that's not what she said. Here's a quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It (p. 99):

Actually she did, here is the exact quote from page 932 in Atlas Shrugged.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: exsistence exsists -- and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these."

But thanks, that quote helps to explain what she was saying.

[MisterSwig]

Actually she did, here is the exact quote from page 932 in Atlas Shrugged.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: exsistence exsists -- and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these."

But thanks, that quote helps to explain what she was saying.

Ayn Rand was very precise with her word choice. "Contained in" (her words) is not the same as "based on" (your words).

Nevertheless, I'm glad you found the quote helpful.

[Citizen Publius]

Ayn Rand said that her morality is based on one choice, that is to live. Now say if I choose to die, that is to say I do not want to achieve my values, I simply want to reject reality and go on a rampage until I die, would it be immoral for me to do so since my objective is not to live but to die?

Praxus, it looks to me like you are making two choices.

One choice is to die.

The other choice is to go on a rampage until you die.

Given this, it appears to me that your objective is not to die but, rather, to go on a rampage before you die and to use your desire to die as an excuse to slay others.

This is not Objectivism but nihilism. (I am referring to Dictionary.com's definition #2 of nihilism here.)

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

To add to what has been said… anything based on the choice to die is not morality. Death requires no action, ergo if you choose to die any and all purpose you have is lost. Your ideas and actions cannot be judged moral or immoral depending on whether or not they help you die faster, if you choose to die then you have no further need of ideas or actions at all and no need for morality or its antithesis. To have any standard of morality requires to choice to live, morality for someone who chooses to die might as well be a text book on biology for some prokaryote. It is only people who choose life who can have morality. This does not mean that people who choose to die are free from moral judgment – someone who chooses to die is immoral at the most fundamental level (by the standard of people who choose to live – aka the only people who can any kind of morality). The only exception is the case of someone with a proper morality who reaches a lasting situation in which their values are no longer attainable – in this sense they could choose to live biologically but no longer as a person – killing yourself in this sense isn’t a choice to live or not, there is no choice (unless you want to claim that life is only your heart beating… I’d say that is a big part of it , but not all of it).

[SnowDog]

Morality is a code of action, telling us how to Live, is it not? How can such a code be applicable to someone who wishes to die?

The killer-on-a-rampage is an animal, and needs to be treated as such. He is not acting immorally. He is acting a-morally.

The choice to live is the foundation for objectivist ethics. The whole thing can be deduced from this starting point. Morality has meaning, and is applicable to those who wish to live, because it is defined as such -- as a code of action for those who wish to live.

Craig

[stephen_speicher]

Morality is a code of action, telling us how to Live, is it not? How can such a code be applicable to someone who wishes to die?

Life is not an unconditional value. There are circumstances -- such as, for instance, a painful terminal illness -- where it may not be possible to live as a man, in the full sense of the word. The choice of death, under such circumstances, could be morally proper.

[ramKatori]

As silly as it seems, should it be legal for an only parent of a child to commit suicide? 

We could make such suicide punishable by death! (Just joking)

[SnowDog]

Life is not an unconditional value. There are circumstances -- such as, for instance, a painful terminal illness -- where it may not be possible to live as a man, in the full sense of the word. The choice of death, under such circumstances, could be morally proper.

You raise an interesting point: can a moral code tell one to die? I think not.

The moral code is the code telling volitional, conscious, creatures, how to live. Its purpose is derived from the requirements for life. Living volitional creatures need to KNOW how to live, as Right from Wrong. Without the choice to live, there is no such thing as right and wrong. The person who chooses to die, does so without a moral context. As a final act in one's life, it cannot be said to be either right or wrong. By what standard would one measure the decision to die as right or wrong?

A goal is required to derive a moral code. That goal is one's life.

Craig (Houston)

[AndrewSternberg]

Is the choice to live arbitrary? Since I don't think that it is what then is the "is-ought" relationship of this choice?

The best I can come up with (given the 1 minute of new thinking and whatever came to mind from past thinking) is some varient of an appeal to evolution: we evolved for the purposes of living, so we should embrace that purpose. Is there more to it than that?

[Thoyd Loki]

You raise an interesting point: can a moral code tell one to die? I think not.

I think you might want to brush up on your history of moral codes. Unless you mean it in the proper sense and not historically. Then I am merely blowing smoke in your face.

[stephen_speicher]

You raise an interesting point: can a moral code tell one to die? I think not.... By what standard would one measure the decision to die as right or wrong?

By the very same standard we use for all actions: Man's life, as required by his nature and the nature of the world in which man lives. Under circumstances where it is no longer possible to live as Man, it is a recognition of his nature and his love for life that would justify ending it. But, please note that here I am not talking about frustration with work or love as a justification for suicide. Such an act can only be appropriate under extreme and unusal circumstances. It is no accident that today's world of moral confusion was contrasted by Andrew Bernstein titling his ARI editorial "Dr. Death" Is a Defender of Life, in reference to the murder trial of medical suicide assister Jack Kevorkian in 1999.

[SnowDog]

Good Points.

I understand the Is-Ought relationship. Man's nature dictates how Man should act. People should act in accordance with their nature as rational volitional human beings. But morality based on human nature is different than morality based on one's Life as one's primary value, yet we seem to need both.

We can't build an entire moral code on the idea that man should act in accordance with his nature because we have only minimal guidance determining man's nature. We know that living things NEED to choose to live, in order to live as their nature dictates. And we know that the choice to live is not arbitrary. The nature of living things dictate that. But the only thing the Is-Ought relationship gives us, is the requirement that living things choose to live. So this first moral requirement is determined by man's nature.

Afterwards, the choice to live dictates one's moral code. With Life as one's highest value, an entire code of action can be derived from this value. Essentially, prudence dictates the rest.

Now, if there is something in one's moral code which would tell him to commit suicide, then it could only occur if one could not live life as his nature intended. If, somehow, the environment became very unfriendly to life as man's nature requires. Still, if we are unable to obtain the chance to live, which would therefore make it unable for us to choose to live as our nature requres, then death may be our only option. Yet still, this seems a-moral to me. Without the chance to live as man-qua-man, then there is no choice to live as man-qua-man, and without choice, there is no morality. A moral code rquires choice.

Craig

[LuXxAeTeRnA]

You're right. Any moral code requires choice, because the only alternative is coercion, which, regardless of its effect, is immoral because it restricts the right of choice. Although freedom allows for the most depraved things to go on, so also does it let man live life to its fullest, which not many do, depending on what you consider a full life.