Ultimate Value

[Betsy]

Betsy, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that the decision to choose to live is a meta-ethical question, (an a-moral question), which must be answered before an ethical framework can be built? That for those who do not choose to live, their actions lie outside of an ethical framewok?

That's right. If you don't choose to live, what do you need morality for?

In fact, almost everyone DOES choose to live as proved by the actions they take to preserve and enhance their lives. The exceptions are suicides and catatonics, neither of which wants or needs any ethical guidance for living.

[AisA]

Wait a minute. I thnk I've had an epiphany. It seems to me that it may have been mentioned earlier in this discussion, but I just caught it.

Most of this discussion has centered on the idea that there is a disconnect between the idea that "life is the precondition for value" and that "the pursuit of life should be one's ultimate value". I had thought that there was no way to derive the second from the former, but now I think there is. Follow this:

1) It is life that brings about the idea of value. Without life there is no such thing as value.

2) To stay alive, one must pursue values. To pursue a value IS to pursue something necessary for life. I think the disconnect comes when one thinks that a value is simply "that which one acts to gain/keep." While this may be a good definition, the purpose of gaining and keeping anything is to stay alive. This is where the idea of value comes from. This is why the idea 'value' is created.

3) Therefore one must value one's life as one's highest value. To put anything else in its place is to reify a stolen concept. It's the same thing as acting without purpose. Or to work without a goal. It would be like saying, "To live, one needs to eat. Therefore one should eat so that one can drive a car." The purpose of eating is to live. Likewise, the purpose of pursuing value is to live. It can't be anything else without losing meaning.

Does this make sense?

Craig

It does not make sense to me that someone could study Objectivism for 18 years -- and only grasp this now.

Craig, you are restating -- in less precise terms -- something Miss Rand explained some 47 years ago in Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. Galt explains the relationship between the concept of life and the concept of value, as well as the distinction between a standard and a purpose in the field of ethics (which is where I think you are having trouble). Miss Rand elaborated on her tremendous discovery in the essay "The Objectivist Ethics" in "The Virtue of Selfishness".

Can you tell me what part of that essay you disagree with, or don't understand, or find incomplete?

[SnowDog]

Can you tell me what part of that essay you disagree with, or don't understand, or find incomplete?

Hello!

I've read that speech many times. I never disagreed with it; I just didnt' understand it the first time I read it. I still don't understand parts of it.

This morning, (and I don't have the text with me now), I looked back over some things that Ayn Rand had said about value. Paraphrasing she said, to separate Life from Value is worse than (something you would think is bad). I must have read that paragraph dozens of times, but never quite 'got it' until now.

I think learning is different in some people. Some people can read things one time, pick it up, and assume that everyone else who has read it, draws the same thing from it. I, on the other hand, have to understand it thoroughly -- be able to make breakfast with it, so to speak. I'm still not quite sure that my epiphany was correct. I'll be reviewing that for the next few months, even.

Sincerely,

Craig (Houston)

[SnowDog]

I think one of the problems with the idea that values "can only" support life is that it's counterintuitive, and seemingly at odds with the definition of value as "that which one acts to gain or keep". We can see, as has been discussed, that some people, (perhaps most), value their children's lives very deeply, and want to keep them alive and healthy, even at the expense of their own lives. But if a value, as a concept, is derived from the concept of Life, and can only exist as something which supports Life, then it seems it's not accurate to say that someone can value their children's lives, apart from their own lives.

So when a parent sacrifices his life for his kid, what is he valuing? Can it be said that a parent is valuing his OWN life with such an act?

Likewise, if a bodyguard throws himself in front of the President to take a bullet, what is he doing? In this case, it's much less clear because such bodyguards have much less emotional and personal attachment to the people that they protect. Are these types of bodyguards valuing their chosen careers above their own lives? Are they acting irrationally?

Craig

[Betsy]

I think one of the problems with the idea that values "can only" support life is that it's counterintuitive, and seemingly at odds with the definition of value as "that which one acts to gain or keep".

... except for the fact that for human beings values are a matter of CHOICE.

[SnowDog]

... except for the fact that for human beings values are a matter of CHOICE.

OK, so if I undertand your point, then people should ONLY choose those values which support their lives. So people should not sacrifice their lives for their children, or thrown themselves in front of a bullet for the President?

Craig

[Betsy]

OK, so if I undertand your point, then people should ONLY choose those values which support their lives. So people should not sacrifice their lives for their children, or thrown themselves in front of a bullet for the President?

Not at all. There is a big difference between risking your life for the sake of a value that makes life worth living and sacrificing your life for something you don't value that much.

I would hope that parents genuinely value their children and Secret Service men value the excitement and the importance of their work so much that the risks involved are a rationally lesser concern.

[SnowDog]

Not at all.  There is a big difference between risking your life for the sake of a value that makes life worth living and sacrificing your life for something you don't value that much.

I would hope that parents genuinely value their children and Secret Service men value the excitement and the importance of their work so much that the risks involved are a rationally lesser concern.

But you've reduced the idea of a sacrifice to that of just 'risk'. We take risk everyday, (even just driving to work), so I certainly understand that taking a risk for something in which someone has invested a great portion of his life is quite understandable. But your answer also implies, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that a known sacrifice of one's life for anything would be wrong, if the person could conceivably go about living a normal life shortly after the event.

This the conclusion that I draw here, and I find it quite interesting. It looks like Objectivist Ethics can be completely derived from the nature of Life, itself. I had long thought that there was a disconnect here -- a leap from deduction to empirical observation. However, it now looks as if you start with an observation of the nature of Life, then you can deduce the entire ethics.

1) Life requires Action.

2) Action requires Value.

3) Value must support Life.

4) Virtue is derived from value.

5) People must choose their values accordingly, and one's life must become one's highest value.

Etcetera...

I see another disconnect when we get to the Rights of others, but I'll address that later.

Craig

[Dominique]

But your answer also implies, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that a known sacrifice of one's life for anything would be wrong, if the person could conceivably go about living a normal life shortly after the event.

I just want to jump in, and say that isn't it possible to value the abstract *individualism* or for example the life sustaining ideas of America (at her best) that you would take much higher risks, perhaps even to the point of knowing that most likely you are going to die fighting for what you believe in, it would be appropriate to be prepared to die? Especially if the choice is between your ideas-ideals-values or your life, you would pick the ideas, because they will outlive you. I'm thinking of

<----------------------------SPOILER------------------>

Anthem here, and the defense of I where the boy is burned at the stake, but looks proud and happy?

[Betsy]

But you've reduced the idea of a sacrifice to that of just 'risk'. We take risk everyday, (even just driving to work), so I certainly understand that taking a risk for something in which someone has invested a great portion of his life is quite understandable. But your answer also implies, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that a known sacrifice of one's life for anything would be wrong, if the person could conceivably go about living a normal life shortly after the event.

That's right. There is a big difference between risk and sacrifice.

This the conclusion that I draw here, and I find it quite interesting. It looks like Objectivist Ethics can be completely derived from the nature of Life, itself.

BINGO!

That's the basic idea. The Objectivist Ethics are based on the factual requirements of man's life given that he requires particular values that require particular actions to achieve -- and that those values and actions must be chosen.

[AisA]

It looks like Objectivist Ethics can be completely derived from the nature of Life, itself.

This is true. But you need not speculate on it. Just read what Miss Rand has written.

Miss Rand was the first to identify the relationship between life and value. She observed that the concept of value is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question, "Of value to whom and for what"? It presupposes the possibility of choice in the face of alternatives.

Then, in an act of pure induction, she identified the fact that there is only one fundamental choice in the universe -- existence or non-existence -- and it is faced by only one type of entity: living organisms.

The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional. It may change its forms, but it cannot cease to exist.

Life, however, can cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces the constant alternative of existence or non-existence, life or death. Thus, it is only to a living organism that things can be good or bad.

The good, therefore, is all that which supports and sustains life. The bad is all that which retards or destroys it.

This, in barest, barest terms, is the beginning of the Objectivist ethics. Miss Rand goes from here (she explains it much more thoroughly) to derive an entire code of values -- and the virtues they require -- proper to the life of a rational being.

Snowdog, I am posting this in hopes of encouraging you to read (or re-read) Miss Rand's writings on the Objectivist ethics.

[SnowDog]

Snowdog, I am posting this in hopes of encouraging you to read (or re-read) Miss Rand's writings on the Objectivist ethics.

Thanks AisA, but I've read her essays on this several times. I can't get any more knowledge from her at this point, but I do plan to reread 'The Objectivist Ethics' again shortly.

But to the point, the critics will say that this is circular reasoning, (if they haven't already, I don't know). All we're saying here is that living things should live because they are alive. But the key here seems to be that Life is circular -- it is an end in itself -- and does not need to justify itself in any other terms. In other words, living things SHOULD live because they are alive because this is the nature of life.

Notice, also, that it's not just life and value which are interconnected but action as well. For me, the relationship between life and action seems more solid than the relationship between life and value. Note:

1) All living things must act to live, and only living things can act.

2) The reason a living entity can act, is to support its life.

3) Action taken for any other reason defies the purpose and the need for action.

So when we say:

1) Life requires action.

2) Action requires value.

3) Value must be directed to Life.

All we're saying is that Life has certain requirements which must be fulfilled in order to live, and that any sort of self-directed activity outside of this scope has no reason behind it, and therefore is irrational. Therefore, action without reason is a dead-end. It's like Sisyphus and his rock.

But when applied to human life, such logic becomes a little more fuzzy, not because the principles are in question, but because the definition of human life is rather vague. We are far removed from nature where life is a day to day struggle of mind and muscle. Here I sit at my computer thinking, "How am I going to spend my day?" So can one dedicate one's life to being a doctor? Can one dedicate one's life to being a pilot? Can one dedicate one's life to being a philanthropist? What are the limits of human self-directed activity? It seems to me that as long as one is not acting in a self-destructive manner, then one should be able to apply his cognitive fascilities anyway he so chooses so long as it furthers a productive, independent, life.

Craig

[Ryan Hacking]

1) It is life that brings about the idea of value. Without life there is no such thing as value.

2) To stay alive, one must pursue values. To pursue a value IS to pursue something necessary for life. I think the disconnect comes when one thinks that a value is simply "that which one acts to gain/keep." While this may be a good definition, the purpose of gaining and keeping anything is to stay alive. This is where the idea of value comes from. This is why the idea 'value' is created.

3) Therefore one must value one's life as one's highest value. To put anything else in its place is to reify a stolen concept. It's the same thing as acting without purpose. Or to work without a goal. It would be like saying, "To live, one needs to eat. Therefore one should eat so that one can drive a car." The purpose of eating is to live. Likewise, the purpose of pursuing value is to live. It can't be anything else without losing meaning.

Certainly to stay alive, one must pursue values. But how is it not begging the question to assert that to pursue a value IS SIMPLY to pursue something necessary for life?? The purpose of the praying mantis "gaining and keeping" offspring via mating and thus dying is to stay alive? I don't think so.

Also, its not reifying a stolen concept. You say, "To live, one needs to eat. Therefore, one should eat so that one can drive a car." How about: "To see, one needs to maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ. Therefore, one should see, so that one can maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ." No, organisms see in order to deal better with their environment, so that they can survive and reproduce. In the process of surviving, they will also probably maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ, but that is not the FINAL end of sight.

[SnowDog]

Also, its not reifying a stolen concept.  You say, "To live, one needs to eat.  Therefore, one should eat so that one can drive a car."  How about: "To see, one needs to maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ.  Therefore, one should see, so that one can maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ."  No, organisms see in order to deal better with their environment, so that they can survive and reproduce.  In the process of surviving, they will also probably maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ, but that is not the FINAL end of sight.

Cool, but you're reversing the terms in your example, and I think it may make a difference (maybe not). To keep your example in line with the relationship between life and value, it should be: "To see, one needs to maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ. Therefore, one should maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ so that one can see."

Compare that with relationship between Life and Value: "To live, one must value life. Therefore, one must value life in order to live."

This is a bit different than saying, "Life is the requisite of value; therefore all values should support life." While life is the requisite of value, it's also a bit more than that. It's the entire reason for the concept of value in the first place.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think this is a clearer example: "To live, one must act; therefore all actions should support life." To me, this seems intuitively clearer because any other type of direction for action would be completely without reason, and acting without reason seems like an obvious dead-end to me -- like Sisyphus and his rock.

Craig

[SnowDog]

I just want to jump in, and say that isn't it possible to value the abstract *individualism*  or for example the life sustaining ideas of America (at her best) that you would take much higher risks, perhaps even to the point of knowing that most likely you are going to die fighting for what you believe in, it would be appropriate to be prepared to die? Especially if the choice is between your ideas-ideals-values or your life, you would pick the ideas, because they will outlive you. I'm thinking of

<----------------------------SPOILER------------------>

Anthem here, and the defense of I where the boy is burned at the stake, but looks proud and happy?

Maybe, but for me it's a discussion for another time as it opens up a whole lot of ideas. For the example that I was making, I was trying to be clear that the actor would DIE and sacrifice his life -- not just take a high level of risk.

Craig

[Ryan Hacking]

Compare that with relationship between Life and Value: "To live, one must value life. Therefore, one must value life in order to live."

...

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think this is a clearer example: "To live, one must act; therefore all actions should support life." To me, this seems intuitively clearer because any other type of direction for action would be completely without reason, and acting without reason seems like an obvious dead-end to me -- like Sisyphus and his rock.

Craig, thanks for your remarks. I'm not disputing that one needs to value life, or in your formulation, that "one must value life in order to live." I'm disputing whether we must value life as the ULTIMATE value; i.e. whether ALL of our actions ought to be directed at sustaining our lives. You write: "To live, one must act; therefore all actions should support life." Certainly I agree that to live, one must act. But as it stands, it is invalid to infer from "to live, one must act" therefore, "ALL actions should support life." I could just as easily state, "To reproduce, one must act; therefore all actions should support reproduction."

Now it might be responded that one can engage in valuation without valuing reproduction, but that one cannot engage in valuation without valuing life. But that is just to reassert that life is the precondition of valuation. So I'm still not seeing where the ultimateness comes in.

[Marc K.]

SnowDog:

It is imperative that you read “The Ethics of Emergencies” in VOS, all of your questions are answered there. As a caveat to everything that is said here it is critical that one always remember the premise with which Ayn Rand starts and ends the essay: you cannot define a system of value by looking at emergency situations which occur rarely in the course of a life. But what is especially disconcerting to me and the cause of much confusion here is your usage of the word “sacrifice”.

You seem to understand that your children are very valuable to your life:

With regard to sacrificing one's life for one's children, then it seems more logical for a parent to make this choice. A good part of my value structure is to make a good home for my kid. Without the kid, my life seems less significant. So I can understand this, too.

but the issue is confused by the word “sacrificing”, which is antithetical to Objectivist principle.

Remember sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

And recall what John Galt said: “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

Thus, “[a]ny action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him.” -- Ayn Rand, “The Ethics of Emergencies,” VOS

So please, please, don’t use the word “sacrifice” when describing moral Objectivist principle, it really grates on my nerves.

[IDC]

Isn't it true that we could choose anything for our standard of truth, e.g. the Bible, but we choose existence because we want to be objective. Isn't it the same for ethics then? If we take as a given that only alternatives can be values - only things that you have a choice about attaining - then only living entities can be objective. Because it is only to living entities that existence itself is an alternative.

Sure, we could pick anything as our standard of value, but the fact that we're living enables us to use existence.

Edit: and it's not just that we "want to be objective" it is that we are starting our reasoning from the most fundamental given - with nothing else below it, nothing it's validity rests on.

[AisA]

Isn't it true that we could choose anything for our standard of truth, e.g. the Bible, but we choose existence because we want to be objective. Isn't it the same for ethics then? If we take as a given that only alternatives can be values - only things that you have a choice about attaining - then only living entities can be objective. Because it is only to living entities that existence itself is an alternative.

Objectivism holds that truth is the recognition of reality. Since there is nothing other than reality to recognize, there are no other standards of truth.

Sure, we could pick anything as our standard of value, but the fact that we're living enables us to use existence.

To advance this discussion, allow me to ask two questions: What is a standard of value? Why would we need such a thing?

Edit: and it's not just that we "want to be objective" it is that we are starting our reasoning from the most fundamental given - with nothing else below it, nothing it's validity rests on.

What is the most fundamental given you refer to here?