Ultimate Value

[Ryan Hacking]

I read my copy many years ago. I remember no passage in which Dr. Binswanger says that the philosophy of Objectivism -- or any element of it -- is in any way based on a philosophy of any special science. That claim contradicts everything I have heard Dr. Binswanger say about the relationship between general philosophy and the "philosophies" (foundations) of the special sciences.

Please cite a page number in the book where he says what you claim he says. I would very much like to read that passage and -- if I have erred -- straighten out my thinking on the relation of the special sciences to philosophy.

For instance, in his section on value-significance. He does not explictly state "The validity of the Objectivist metaethics is dependent on the validity of its philosophy of biology" but the validity of the Objectivist metaethics IS dependent on its theory of value, which is dependent on its theory of teleology, and thus, biology (that's the point of Binswanger's book--to show that goals are an exclusively biological concept).

Let me ask you this: If the foundation of the Objectivist metaethics is the principle that "remaining alive is the goal of all values," how are we to validate this claim except by observing those entities that value and remain alive, i.e. the realm of biology?

[Ryan Hacking]

Also, Burgess, I do value life, because it is a necessary condition for any valuation. However, there is a difference between valuing life and ultimately valuing life.

[Sherlock]

Thoyd,

You wrote: "You are saying that the foundation of Objectivist ethics are on a mistaken premise. That one's life can't be the ultimate end as biologists have "proven" that humping is."

Umm, no, I'm not saying that. I am saying that Peikoff's statement, "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" is problematic if he means ALL organisms: from a philosophical perspective, the statement is misplaced, as, for example, an amoeba has no volition, and so words like "standard of value", "good" and "evil" are meaningless. From a scientific perspective, his statement is in error as the perpetuation of an organism's genes is the ultimate end. Indeed life itself could not have evolved without this action (reproduction) being the ultimate end: think of the very first living organism to emerge from non-living material. If it did not have the ultimate end of reproduction built in from the very beginning, that organism would simply have lived and died and the whole process of life coming from non-living material would have had to start all over again. Even the division of something as simple as an amoeba involves some very sophisticated and precise movements: clearly reproduction is not in the same category as the other activities you mention. Those activities make possible and further an organism's life so that it can reproduce.

[Thoyd Loki]

But this only demonstrates is that no valuation can take place outside the context of life--I'm not contesting that.  But that does not mean that life is the ultimate value, only that it is a necessary (and sufficient) condition for valuation.  Therefore, any thing that is alive (such as spayed cats) can pursue values--this doesn't prove that living is an organism's ultimate end.  I'm not saying that living is not a huge end for an organism--certainly, it is.  Yet when faced with the alternative of its own survival or the survival of its genes, an organism pursues the survival of its genes through reproduction at the cost of its own life.

I'll have to ask you support your claim then. But, you cannot do it by reference to any kind of choice. The male black widow doesn't weigh options, it doesn't "know" his end is coming, neither for the praying mantis. Why then, has nature programmed that to happen? Who knows and who cares.

But, I am willing to bet that every single cell of that male black widow is fighting for its life. An animal that is mortally maimed defending its young, every part of that animal's organism is fighting for the preservation of that organism.

You can't take life out of life. Biologists that want to play philosophers notwithstanding.

[Ryan Hacking]

I'll have to ask you support your claim then. But, you cannot do it by reference to any kind of choice. The male black widow doesn't weigh options, it doesn't "know" his end is coming, neither for the praying mantis. Why then, has nature programmed that to happen? Who knows and who cares.

But, I am willing to bet that every single cell of that male black widow is fighting for its life. An animal that is mortally maimed defending its young, every part of that animal's organism is fighting for the preservation of that organism.

You can't take life out of life. Biologists that want to play philosophers notwithstanding.

I have not made any reference to choice. I have made reference to the concept of "alternatives," which Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, et al have said apply to non-conceptual organisms. All living organisms face alternatives. Furthermore, every single cell of that male black widow is not fighting for its own life. An organism that is mortally maimed defending its young is not fighting for the preservation of itself, it is fighting for the preservation of its young. Peikoff's claim that "remaining alive is the goal of all values" is false. If it were true, than that organism would fight to remain alive itself, not fight to have its young remain alive.

[Betsy]

I have not made any reference to choice.  I have made reference to the concept of "alternatives," which Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, et al have said apply to non-conceptual organisms.  All living organisms face alternatives.  Furthermore, every single cell of that male black widow is not fighting for its own life.

Maybe he IS. Maybe the spider inherited his penchant for self-destructive mating from ancestors who found it so pleasurable that, if they could talk, would say "Now this is LIVING!"

It could also be the case that 99% of the spider's ancestors' relatives didn't like killing themselves mating and didn't do it. As a result, they didn't have any descendants and didn't pass on a less self-destructive way of mating.

[Ryan Hacking]

Maybe he IS.  Maybe the spider inherited his penchant for self-destructive mating from ancestors who found it so pleasurable that, if they could talk, would say "Now this is LIVING!" 

It could also be the case that 99% of the spider's ancestors' relatives didn't like killing themselves mating and didn't do it.  As a result, they didn't have any descendants and didn't pass on a less self-destructive way of mating.

Sure, but if your account is true, then life is not the organism's ultimate value, but pleasure. That is, when faced with the alternative of pleasure or remaining alive, it pursues pleasure. But than that would contradict Peikoff's claim that remaining alive is the goal of all values--in this case, pursuing pleasure would be the goal, not remaining alive.

Furthermore, the claim that organism's pursue genetic fitness at the expense of remaining alive does not simply apply to organisms that die during mating. Even organisms that survive mating pursue their young's survival at the cost of their own. And its not that 99 percent of the spider's ancestors' relatives didn't like killing themselves mating. This phenomena of pursuing genetic fitness at the cost of survival is found in virtually all organisms. Why? Because as Sherlock noted, if a billion years ago, we had two organisms, one that aimed all of its goals at survival and the other that aimed them all at reproduction, the penchant for aiming all of one's goals at survival would die with that first organism because it wouldn't reproduce. In contrast, given that the second organism aims all of its actions at reproduction, that feature will be present in its descendents. So that is why today, virtually all organisms' ultimate end is reproduction and not survival.

[Thoyd Loki]

Thoyd,

You wrote: "You are saying that the foundation of Objectivist ethics are on a mistaken premise. That one's life can't be the ultimate end as biologists have "proven" that humping is."

Umm, no, I'm not saying that. I am saying that Peikoff's statement, "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" is problematic if he means ALL organisms: from a philosophical perspective, the statement is misplaced, as, for example, an amoeba has no volition, and so words like "standard of value", "good" and "evil" are meaningless. From a scientific perspective, his statement is in error as the perpetuation of an organism's genes is the ultimate end.  Indeed life itself could not have evolved without this action (reproduction) being the ultimate end: think of the very first living organism to emerge from non-living material. If it did not have the ultimate end of reproduction built in from the very beginning, that organism would simply have lived and died and the whole process of life coming from non-living material would have had to start all over again. Even the division of something as simple as an amoeba involves some very sophisticated and precise movements: clearly reproduction is not in the same category as the other activities you mention.  Those activities make possible and further an organism's life so that it can reproduce.

First off, that is not Peikoff's formulation, it is Ayn Rand's from Atlas Shrugged.

Second, it does not require volition. A turtle has no volition as well, are you going to claim that it also does not apply to him? You would have to say that that statement can only apply to man.

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function; it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction."

Atlas Shrgged, Ayn Rand page 1013

So, when we say that life is the standard of value directing an organisms actions we are talking about what nature has programmed it to do. It is the identity of the organism that determines the values it has to pursue to remain alive-and that is the standard of value-life. The same is true of man, but he must choose this volitionally, which is the whole point. Although if you want to reformulate your ethics, passing one's genes has to be the ultimate goal.

It is also a truism that reproduction is necessary for there to be life. It does not make it the goal of life. It makes it a goal of life (and one that plants and animals have no power to avoid), like sunlight for plants, or shelter for animals.

Like I said before, there is a legion of facts that run counter to your claim (all of them actually). Yes, a single cell way back when had to be able to split in two for us to be able to discuss this, but it is merely one feat among billions in the world of living organisms; all serving the ultimate goal-which is life. Life, the object, the actual organism, not an action.

[Thoyd Loki]

  This phenomena of pursuing genetic fitness at the cost of survival is found in virtually all organisms.  Why?  Because as Sherlock noted, if a billion years ago, we had two organisms, one that aimed all of its goals at survival and the other that aimed them all at reproduction, the penchant for aiming all of

This is a false alternative between two organisms that never were. What creature are you thinking of that aimed all of their goals at reproduction? Why is a requirement that nature has set to an organism (reproduction) given top billing over the organism itself?

[Ryan Hacking]

So, when we say that life is the standard of value directing an organisms actions we are talking about what nature has programmed it to do. It is the identity of the organism that determines the values it has to pursue to remain alive-and that is the standard of value-life. The same is true of man, but he must choose this volitionally, which is the whole point. Although if you want to reformulate your ethics, passing one's genes has to be the ultimate goal.

Yes, I am also talking about what nature has programmed organisms to do. And nature as programmed them to reproduce or help their young, when faced with the alternative of that or remaining alive. Has anyone argued against the idea that it is the identity of the organism that determines the values it must pursue to remain alive? No, absolutely not. But saying "The identity of the organism determines the values it must pursue to remain alive" does not, I repeat does not prove that remaining alive is the standard of value. The identity of an organism determines the values it must pursue in order to reproduce. So does that mean reproduction is its ultimate goal?

It is also a truism that reproduction is necessary for there to be life. It does not make it the goal of life. It makes it a goal of life (and one that plants and animals have no power to avoid), like sunlight for plants, or shelter for animals.

Like I said before, there is a legion of facts that run counter to your claim (all of them actually). Yes, a single cell way back when had to be able to split in two for us to be able to discuss this, but it is merely one feat among billions in the world of living organisms; all serving the ultimate goal-which is life. Life, the object, the actual organism, not an action.

So then present the facts that run counter to my claim. And let's cut to the chase: how do we prove what the ultimate goal of value is? Here is my method, tell me if you think I am wrong:

(1) A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

(2) An ultimate value is the value that all of one's values are aimed at, or pursued for the sake of.

Is this wrong?

Reproduction is not "merely one feat among the billions in the world of living organisms"--it is the ultimate one. How does one know this? Through observation. Please answer me this: Why, if remaining alive is that goal at which all of an organism's goals are aimed at, does it always act for the sake of reproduction (and therefore ceases to remain alive), when the alternative is survival or reproduction? If remaining alive were truly the ultimate value, then the organism would never act for something that kills it.

[Ryan Hacking]

This is a false alternative between two organisms that never were. What creature are you thinking of that aimed all of their goals at reproduction? Why is a requirement that nature has set to an organism (reproduction) given top billing over the organism itself?

No "creature" aimed all of an organism's goals at reproduction. Natural selection did. Why? Because an organism that had as a genetic feature only the goal of survival would never reproduce, and thus, never pass that genetic feature on. In contrast, an organism that had as a genetic feature, the goal of reproducing, will reproduce, and thus, pass that genetic feature on to its offspring, who will in turn, pass the feature on to their offspring, and so on.

[Thoyd Loki]

I have not made any reference to choice.  I have made reference to the concept of "alternatives," which Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, et al have said apply to non-conceptual organisms.  All living organisms face alternatives.  Furthermore, every single cell of that male black widow is not fighting for its own life.  An organism that is mortally maimed defending its young is not fighting for the preservation of itself, it is fighting for the preservation of its young.  Peikoff's claim that "remaining alive is the goal of all values" is false.  If it were true, than that organism would fight to remain alive itself, not fight to have its young remain alive.

No, the individual cells are not fighting for their own life. Each of them continues as long as it is able to perform the functions that nature has given for the end of preserving that organism's life. Stick your head under water until you pass out, your heart will beat with all its might to get done what it does.

On the maimed animal example. I was talking about after it is maimed and the healing processes that start to happen for the goal of preserving its life. As to the goal of its action-protecting its young, it is an automatic action that nature has set it to perform, and it does. This merely means that nature has tied its continued existence to that of its offspring; it still does not mean that its life is not the goal of the organism. It is the same fact as nature making the sunlight a requirement of the plant's survival.

And for the last time. We are arguing Ayn Rand's point, not Peikoff's. And being that it is a fundamental point of the entire ethics, you have to disagree with entirety of it. Anything other than the organism's own life has to result in some form of altruism (and, by extension collectivism in politics). I think some form of Eugenics would be in order.

[Thoyd Loki]

So then present the facts that run counter to my claim.  And let's cut to the chase: how do we prove what the ultimate goal of value is?  Here is my method, tell me if you think I am wrong:

(1) A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

(2) An ultimate value is the value that all of one's values are aimed at, or pursued for the sake of.

Is this wrong? 

Reproduction is not "merely one feat among the billions in the world of living organisms"--it is the ultimate one.  How does one know this?  Through observation.  Please answer me this: Why, if remaining alive is that goal at which all of an organism's goals are aimed at, does it always act for the sake of reproduction (and therefore ceases to remain alive), when the alternative is survival or reproduction?  If remaining alive were truly the ultimate value, then the organism would never act for something that kills it.

Was that supposed to be a proof?

How would you suggest that I present the facts that run counter to your claim? We are talking about the same facts here. This is a matter of interpretation of data. I say that ALL the data is against you, you likewise are going to have to say the same because we have already picked the ultimate aims.

How many animals face this "alternative", really? And, why do you assume that they know what they are doing? There is no choice here. But, I'll repeat something that I posted a little bit ago.

. As to the goal of its action-protecting its young, it is an automatic action that nature has set it to perform, and it does. This merely means that nature has tied its continued existence to that of its offspring; it still does not mean that its life is not the goal of the organism. It is the same fact as nature making the sunlight a requirement of the plant's survival.

[Ryan Hacking]

No, the individual cells are not fighting for their own life. Each of them continues as long as it is able to perform the functions that nature has given for the end of preserving that organism's life. Stick your head under water until you pass out, your heart will beat with all its might to get done what it does.

Once again, no one is arguing that an animal does not pursue survival. The question is whether survival is its ultimate goal.

On the maimed animal example. I was talking about after it is maimed and the healing processes that start to happen for the goal of preserving its life. As to the goal of its action-protecting its young, it is an automatic action that nature has set it to perform, and it does. This merely means that nature has tied its continued existence to that of its offspring; it still does not mean that its life is not the goal of the organism. It is the same fact as nature making the sunlight a requirement of the plant's survival.

First of all, on your theory, if nature has not set an organism's goals, what does? God? Survival and reproduction are both automatic actions of an organism. That statement settles nothing. How can you say that its continued existence is tied to that of its offspring? Its existence ceases, not continues, when it acts for the continued existence of its offspring. A plant needing sunlight is a requirement of the plant's own survival; an organism A dying so that its offspring B can live does not help A survive, it helps B survive. In fact, it kills A.

[Thoyd Loki]

  How can you say that its continued existence is tied to that of its offspring?  Its existence ceases, not continues, when it acts for the continued existence of its offspring.  A plant needing sunlight is a requirement of the plant's own survival; an organism A dying so that its offspring B can live does not help A survive, it helps B survive.  In fact, it kills A.

How do you know its existence is going to cease? Are you saying that a mother has never successfully protected her offspring? Are you saying that the parent goes in knowing of a sacrifice?

[Ryan Hacking]

How do you know its existence is going to cease? Are you saying that a mother has never successfully protected her offspring? Are you saying that the parent goes in knowing of a sacrifice?

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that if remaining alive were the goal of all values, why would organisms ever take the risk? And its not just isolated cases, it happens routinely in nature.

I think it all boils down to this:

(1) If X is the goal of all goals for an organism, an organism does not pursue a goal that is not aimed at X.

(2) If remaining alive is the goal of all goals for an organism, an organism does not pursue a goal that is not "aimed" (I use this as short-hand, but I know, it is not consciously aimed) at remaining alive.

(3) A mother "sacrificing" her own life for the sake of her offsprings' is not "aimed" at the goal of her herself remaining alive.

Therefore, remaining alive is not the goal of all goals for an organism.

If I made an error in the above three statements, please let me know.

[Thoyd Loki]

Yes, in number three again. You can't call it a sacrifice because: 1) it is not a choice 2) the mother does not know that it will die, and, it may not 3) it is still valid that nature has "tied" the mother's life to that of its young.

The last point has a counterpart in the human realm as well, but it is a choice. If my wife were attacked, I'd defend her no matter what; if I had children, I'd do the same. My life would not be worth living without it.

Nature takes care of this in the animal kingdom through instinct. That is why a mother can mourn the loss of her young. It is the result of the value that nature has programmed into her for her young. Note also that unlike humans, an animal parent isn't going to help the young of another mother (although, I am not sure how this works in some pack animals) let alone one from a different species.

You can't seperate the things that nature makes a requirement of an organism's survival from the organism's survival. Much like there is nothing outside of a plant's actions that is seperate from its pursuit of lits life? Does it pursue its life as an ultimate value? Yes, but that is a fact that is not seperable metaphysically from its pursuit of water, the blooming of its flowers, or seeking the sun.

And, now, I am going to pursue the goal of sleep. Which I am doing because I need it to remain healthy, for the ultimate goal of remaining alive. BTW, nothing I do is for propagation of my genes, however, I love to practice.

[BurgessLau]

Now, if you are going to ask me, what is my standard of happiness, my answer is that I do not know.  That is why I am interested in the question of the ultimate value.

I am not sure what you mean by "standard of happiness." I have not met that phrasing before. In my understanding, a standard is a way of measuring something. Holding life as my standard, I can decide whether I am doing good things or bad things by whether they increase the length and quality of my life in the long-term.

If standard of happiness means a measure of happiness (which is a state of mind akin to an emotion), then the only measure I know is intensity of feeling.

In my understanding of Objectivism, I would distinguish between a standard and a value in various contexts. A standard is a means of measurement -- here, for example, of success or failure to live. A value is something we want to achieve: life as the ultimate value, and (usually assumed) within that context my highest purpose (value) in life is to be happy.

Now -- and maybe this is where confusion comes in -- once I have established a value, I can use that value itself as a yardstick. For example, to achieve my ultimate purpose in life, happiness, I pursue lesser purposes -- mainly central purpose in life (career), friendships, and play. Each is a personal value. In a sense, each is also its own standard. Am I performing the work I love, to the extent that my circumstances allow? That is my standard for that personal value.

Another element that sometimes causes confusion is the distinction between what I would call preferential values and necessary values. For example, I value central purpose in life, and I choose a certain form of it. That is a preferential value, in my terms. To pursue my central purpose in life, I must be healthy. That is a necessary value; it is something I must do in a certain form -- not for the happiness it brings in itself, but because it enables me to achieve my other values.

To concretize: On my daily To-Do list, I have four major categories. They are:

1. Work (my central purpose in life).

2. Friendships.

3. Play (for me, reading fiction and doing long walks).

4. Necessities.

The last category includes all those things I must do because they are enablers, but I would not do them for their own sake. Examples are careful attention to what I eat ("diet"), doing the laundry regularly, and paying the rent on time.

Ryan, thank you for raising the question that starts this thread. Dealing with it has helped me push back the boundaries of ignorance in my own life.

[Bowzer]

I'm going to be short and sweet with the hopes of jarring readers into a non-mystical revelation: to say that "the propagation of the species" is an actual value to living organisms is an example of the fallacy of reification. Figure out why this is so and you will understand why only life can be the ultimate value.

[BurgessLau]

Here is what I said on Jan. 16, 2005, 10:29 (reproduced in post 26 above):

I read my copy [The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts] many years ago. I remember no passage in which Dr. Binswanger says that the philosophy of Objectivism -- or any element of it -- is in any way based on a philosophy of any special science. That claim contradicts everything I have heard Dr. Binswanger say about the relationship between general philosophy and the "philosophies" (foundations) of the special sciences.

Please cite a page number in the book where he says what you claim he says. I would very much like to read that passage and -- if I have erred -- straighten out my thinking on the relation of the special sciences to philosophy.

You responded, in part:

For instance, in his section on value-significance.  He does not explictly state "The validity of the Objectivist metaethics is dependent on the validity of its philosophy of biology" but [...]

Okay, no evidence shows Dr. Binswanger believes Objectivism, in any element, is based on a special science (whether its "philosophy," that is, its foundation, or its conclusions).

[...]the validity of the Objectivist metaethics IS dependent on its theory of value, which is dependent on its theory of teleology, and thus, biology (that's the point of Binswanger's book--to show that goals are an exclusively biological concept).

[boldface added for emphasis.]

This is where you lose me. "Biology" is a specialized science -- that is, a study that has peculiar objects of study and peculiar methods. By "peculiar" I mean beyond the methods and objects open to philosophers as such (which means anyone who can observe with his own senses and think logically).

You really need to show that Ayn Rand, the creator of Objectivism, used principles and concepts she gleaned from the special science, biology. The burden of proof is on you.

Now, I also wonder, if perhaps there is an unintentional equivocation in your comments -- on the word "biology." Sometimes people use that term very loosely to mean "living things." Once I saw a very young man looking at a dead (formerly living) bird lying on the ground. I asked him, "What are you doing?" He said, proudly, "Studying biology." Of course, he was studying a dead bird, not the conclusions produced by the specialized science of biology.

If you are saying that a philosopher's philosophical observations of living things (people, trees in the park, and pet cats and dogs, for example) can form part of the foundation of his philosophy's ethics, then I think you have a plausible point. But if you are using "biology" in its proper form -- naming a specialized science as distinct from philosophy -- then your claim is wrong.

Let me ask you this:  If the foundation of the Objectivist metaethics is the principle that "remaining alive is the goal of all values," how are we to validate this claim except by observing those entities that value and remain alive, i.e. the realm of biology?

[boldface added for emphasis.]

First, I personally am not familiar with the term/idea of "meta-ethics." Would you please explain it? (Did Ayn Rand use that term/idea? If so, where?)

Second, your final question rests on a non sequitur if "biology" is a specialized science -- that is, a pursuit of knowledge with methods and objects not open to philosophers as philosophers. Given the non sequitur and my ignorance of meta-ethics (if that is a valid idea), I can't even begin to answer your question.

Edited January 17, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Sherlock]

Thoyd,

You wrote: "First off, that is not Peikoff's formulation, it is Ayn Rand's from Atlas Shrugged."

I simply was using the quote that someone had already posted here in this thread, which was said to be from Peikoff. If it is only from Atlas Shrugged and not also from Peikoff's writing, then I stand corrected---sorry.

You wrote: "Second, it does not require volition. A turtle has no volition as well, are you going to claim that it also does not apply to him? You would have to say that that statement can only apply to man. "

Well, that's my point: I don't think it can be applied to ALL organisms, which is why I thought Peikoff was wrong: from a philosophical perspective, volition seems to me to be necessary if one is to use terms such as "standard of value", "good", and "evil". Burgess' formulation, "Every organism has as its ultimate value its own life qua whatever kind of organism it is. Life is self-generated and self-sustained action. If organism X's nature is such that it automatically (instinctually) takes an action which saves its offspring's life, but itself dies in the process, then organism X is acting on its own life as its ultimate value. If a male Z inevitably and always dies as a consequence of mating, then that is what male Z's are, and that is what it means for them to be alive" seems just too broad (philosophically speaking) to be usefully applied to non-volitional organisms, as "standard of value", "good" and "evil" are simply all contained within "life qua whatever kind of organism it is", and cannot then be distinguished. From a scientific perspective, "all organisms" is wrong because the perpetuation of an organism's genes is the ultimate end of non-humans.

You wrote: "So, when we say that life is the standard of value directing an organisms actions we are talking about what nature has programmed it to do."

Yes, I agree. And nature has programmed non-humans to perpetuate their genes.

You wrote: "It is the identity of the organism that determines the values it has to pursue to remain alive-and that is the standard of value-life. "

But if that were so, then many organisms would not reproduce, as it often puts them at serious risk. The other functions that an organism does (feeding, etc.) sustain life, not degrade it, while reproduction often comes at a heavy price. Anyone who lives on a farm or studies the natural world can tell you this from simple observation.

You wrote (different post): "Note also that unlike humans, an animal parent isn't going to help the young of another mother (although, I am not sure how this works in some pack animals) let alone one from a different species. "

That's true: the ultimate end for non-humans is the perpetuation of ITS genes, not necessarily the genes of another of its kind (a competitor).

I've gotta run, but I'll try to answer the other aspects of your posts later in the day.

[Ryan Hacking]

Yes, in number three again. You can't call it a sacrifice because: 1) it is not a choice 2) the mother does not know that it will die, and, it may not 3) it is still valid that nature has "tied" the mother's life to that of its young.

The last point has a counterpart in the human realm as well, but it is a choice. If my wife were attacked, I'd defend her no matter what; if I had children, I'd do the same. My life would not be worth living without it.

Nature takes care of this in the animal kingdom through instinct. That is why a mother can mourn the loss of her young. It is the result of the value that nature has programmed into her for her young. Note also that unlike humans, an animal parent isn't going to help the young of another mother (although, I am not sure how this works in some pack animals) let alone one from a different species.

You can't seperate the things that nature makes a requirement of an organism's survival from the organism's survival. Much like there is nothing outside of a plant's actions that is seperate from its pursuit of lits life? Does it pursue its life as an ultimate value? Yes, but that is a fact that is not seperable metaphysically from its pursuit of water, the blooming of its flowers, or seeking the sun.

Once again, I was just using shorthand. By your own lights, a plant is acting for its own survival when it converts sunlight to energy. Does it matter that it is automatic? No. And you are avoiding my basic point: When organism X is faced with the alternative of its own survival or the survival of its offspring, and it acts for the survival of its offspring, it is NOT acting for its OWN survival. It doesn't matter that its automatic. The fact that the mother does not "know" it will die is irrevelvant. Does a plant "know" converting sunlight to energy will foster its survival? No. So you cannot say that the mother's OWN survival is its ultimate goal--that is, the goal all of its other goals are aimed at, if it acts (once again, automatically) for the survival of its young at the cost of its own life.

[BurgessLau]

Metaethics and philosophy of biology are not disparate points in the hierarchy of knowledge.

They aren't? Are you saying that "meta-ethics" and philosophy of biology are at the same point in a hierarchy of knowledge?

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Harry Binswanger's The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts in which he discusses how the Objectivist position on value is a direct consequence of its philosophy of biology.

Actually what Dr. Binswanger says in the Preface, pp. i-ii, is the opposite:

For my thinking on teleology [part of the philosophy of the special science of biology]was inspired by Ayn Rand's [philosophical] validation of man's life as the standard of morality, and that validation hinges on her analysis of the epistemological roots of the concept of "value":

[My comments and deletions in square brackets; I tried to type accurately, but beware of errors.]

First of all, I have named them--check back up on the thread, I specifically name Richard Dawkins.

For the record, since you implied I have not read the earlier posts, "them" is plural. I did not see any citing of two or more biologists. Yes, I did see the mention of Dawkins, but a "he" is not a "them." However, I suspect this is only a miscommunication, so I think we can set it aside.

Even if an organism does choose to reproduce, not to spread its genes, but to feel the pleasure of copulation, the fact would remain that survival is not their ultimate goal, but rather the pleasure of copulation.

I thought the issue was life, which is self-sustained and self-generated action, not "survival" independent of the organism's nature of acting. If an insect is genetically programmed to act in a certain way -- even if that way, at a certain point, results in its subsequent death -- it is still at that time pursuing its ultimate goal: life, that is, self-sustained and self-generated action -- in a wide variety of forms, including copulation -- and of a certain genetically determined nature.

I still have an inkling that we are suffering from some miscommunication here, for example, an oscillating meaning of "biology" and "biological." (I notice that Dr. Binswanger, at least in the beginning of the book, uses the term "biological" to refer broadly to organisms, which are the object of study of the science of biology.)

P. S. -- I doubt that I can contribute much more to this thread. Unfortunately I do not have time to revisit all the appropriate texts. One way or the other, this thread has been helpful to me.

[Betsy]

Sure, but if your account is true, then life is not the organism's ultimate value, but pleasure.  That is, when faced with the alternative of pleasure or remaining alive, it pursues pleasure.  But than that would contradict Peikoff's claim that remaining alive is the goal of all values--in this case, pursuing pleasure would be the goal, not remaining alive. 

The pleasure/pain mechanism (PPM) is the only guide a non-volitional creature has to how to remain alive. It is true that the PPM may not be an adequate guide for a given organism or in a given environment, and, as a result it (or its entire species) might perish. Too bad, but the PPM is all the poor critters have.

Remaining alive is the goal and seeking pleasure is the means. Where's the contradiction?

[Ryan Hacking]

I thought the issue was life, which is self-sustained and self-generated action, not "survival" independent of the organism's nature of acting. If an insect is genetically programmed to act in a certain way -- even if that way, at a certain point, results in its subsequent death -- it is still at that time pursuing its ultimate goal: life, that is, self-sustained and self-generated action -- in a wide variety of forms, including copulation -- and of a certain genetically determined nature.

Burgess, thanks for your comments. But here is the sticking point for me--why do organisms even bother to copulate and die, or protect their young and die if all of their actions are means to their own survival. What endorsement of Rand's claim requires is that all of an organism's actions are means to survival. An organism could just as easily not copulate or not protect its young, and survive, rather than copulate and die, or protect its young and die. So what needs to be proven by defenders of Rand is how dying to protect one's offspring (an action which the organism need not take to promote its OWN survival) is a means to its own survival.