Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Question on Value and Ultimate Value

Rate this topic


VWA

Recommended Posts

@Eiuol

I agree Man is a "rational animal" as reason is our tool to shape the universe to our will.

Living according to that nature logically entails one to observe, think, and plan, before acting, to achieve our purposes (rather than say just acting). That's it.

Note, I never argued why should a person use reason as the method to judge whether an action will contribute to or go against an individual's chosen purpose; I am in complete agreement with Obj Epi in this respect.

But reason is only a vehicle, a method, to get to places. It doesn't tell you where you should go, only how to get there.

Living according to one's nature as a rational animal means using reason as the sole means to achieve your goals (as opposed to blind faith).

Living according to this nature doesn't entail what specific final goals (happiness..etc.) you should have, only that whatever goals you choose, you need to use reason to get there.

 

 

Edited by VWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the definition of Ethics is defined as simply a set of guideline to guide an individual's actions in life, full stop (which is what most dictionary states), then Obj Ethics is wonky, and Ethics is ultimately, subjective.

Do you think Ethics is ultimately subjective, or are you saying "If XYZ, then Ethics is subjective"?

If subjective, do you think any end-goal at all is okay: in the sense that one cannot argue with it using reason. You've said that personal happiness vs. misery is a false alternative. But, granting that there are many possible ends, A, B, C, D, E... and if misery and personal happiness are just two among the long list, can a choice of misery rather than happiness be just as "valid" (basically just as inscrutable and arbitrary. [It isn't just hypothetical: there are some hermits who torture their physical bodies and live a life of asceticism.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean ultimately subjective (intermediate values however are objective).

And yes, if subjective, any end-goal just "is", no objective judgement can be passed onto them, at all. If a person who is masochistic, like the hermit in your example, choose suffering as their ultimate purpose in life, then it is just as "valid" as one who choose happiness along the line of Obj Ethics.

If the hermit wants to live a long-life of suffering but was dumb enough to not take care of his health and dies early due to malnutrition, then it can be said given what he ultimately wants, his meal plan was objectively wrong.

Edited by VWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But no, what bugs me is this view that happiness is a state that is somehow intrinsically all important, that it (and it's opposite, suffering) alone can serve as an ultimate scale to judge everything else.

Except that you and I agree that we are free to select this "ultimate scale." If happiness alone could serve as the basis for such judgements, then Rand probably would have had much less to discuss with respect to ethics. The philosophies against which Objectivism competes offer other possibilities, such as "following the will of God," which may read--to an atheist such as I believe you to be--as "following the will of other men," but perhaps that's no big distinction.

I believe that Rand finds "life" to be "intrinsically all important," in a sense, because there is no such thing as "import" without life, which she regards as the only "end in itself"--for what is an "end" without life? While this may be true, along with her observation about "value" equally deriving from the phenomenon of life, I don't think it's very motivating of itself. We don't put in the work (and there is a lot of work involved in "flourishing") just so that we can say "we did what living creatures do," or to somehow fulfill a destiny encoded in our DNA. But why do we do it, and what gives the very character to life, such that we can sometimes understand it as "flourishing" in the first place? I believe Rand speaks to that here:

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. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.

This sort of claim is not "derivable from first principles," I don't think. It requires a person to have had sufficient experience of happiness, and perhaps some of suffering, as well, and it may not be available to everyone at any given stage of their lives.

Yet it resonates with me and my experience of life, and that's why, in part, I consider myself to be an Objectivist.

Any ideals subjectively selected by a human mind as his ultimate goal can act as a scale to judge everything else. And every action can be objectively judged as to be contributing towards that ultimate goal, or going against it.

As above, we agree that we are free to select this "ultimate scale" or "ultimate goal," and then, yes, we can evaluate actions as contributing or detracting, according to our best use of reason. But as happiness is real, and as it depends upon human nature, if we do not take care to do the things a person needs to do in order to be happy and/or avoid suffering, per our nature, then we will not be happy, but suffer instead.

So a man may choose from among any given philosophy--and there may be a philosophy, or several, for any conceivable "ultimate goal," which offers quite a variety--but unless he is very lucky or very smart about it, he is likely to suffer accordingly.

Perhaps we might say "so what?" in an effort to be consistent about the claim that, given some other "ultimate goal," happiness becomes a non-issue (or at least a disposable value). But is that how (the vast majority of) people actually feel, in reality? Or do people, by-and-large, beyond their stated beliefs--down to their innermost core--want to be happy? If so, do you suppose there's a reason for that?

Again. Not strictly "derivable," but I'm asking you about your actual, lived experience. And it's not rhetorical; you can tell me that you believe that "happiness doesn't matter," or you can opt not to reply, I don't care. But I believe it's something you might profit by reflecting upon, given our discussion.

If the definition of Ethics is defined as a set of guidelines to guide an individual's action in life toward happiness, where by happiness is already embedded in the definition itself as the ultimate goal, then that's that.

As far as I'm concerned, that's that. For after all, what's the point to ethical inquiry, if it isn't to pursue happiness, pleasure, "flourishing," or that which we might roundly call "the good life"? Isn't that where it comes from? Isn't that why we care? (Note that if one wishes his "ultimate value" to be bridge-building, we don't call his subsequent study "ethics," we call it engineering.)

Man is presented with an alternative (again of his nature) in that he may find happiness or suffering, pleasure or pain, life or death. If we were to write some bloodless computer code, these may all seem like equivalent values--or anything else, such as the Science that your Scientist pursues above all, could be plugged in just as easily. But in the internal experience of an actual human being, these things are worlds apart. We are drawn towards one and are repelled by the other, because that is the very nature of our lived experience.

Does this make things like "life," "pleasure," "happiness," etc., an "intrinsic good"? Perhaps. But I think it is pre-rational (or as Eiuol has it "a-rational"). I don't think it can be argued. I can't prove happiness superior to suffering or life to death or pleasure to pain, and I can't strictly disagree with someone who claims to have a different perspective on these issues (though I would mistrust their claims). I only know my own experience, and that I value one and wish to avoid the other.

But if the definition of Ethics is defined as simply a set of guideline to guide an individual's actions in life, full stop (which is what most dictionary states), then Obj Ethics is wonky, and Ethics is ultimately, subjective.

It isn't that the Objectivist Ethics are "wonky," it's that they are the Objectivist Ethics. Ayn Rand defines ethics essentially as the dictionaries you reference:

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

Full stop, as far as that goes.

But then Rand develops her particular "code of values" and I would argue that it is inferable that the motivating reason is her own desire for happiness, or "flourishing," or etc. Which is to say, the Objectivist Ethics are those ethics which hold an individual's life as the standard of value and his happiness as the purpose.

If someone else, yourself included, isn't interested in the same thing--if you truly don't care to be happy, or don't mind whether you suffer--then it's not so much that the Objectivist Ethics are wonky, but that they aren't right for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living according to that nature logically entails one to observe, think, and plan, before acting, to achieve our purposes (rather than say just acting). That's it.

Yes, but as I said earlier, the teleological end of an organism is part of their nature. The purpose of an organism is to live, that's a fact, not a preference of an organism. This applies to people, too. To attain that end, as people, we uniquely use reason. So yes, man's nature does entail a goal. Ethics is concerned about that goal.

Of course we can talk about how to attain ends like suicide bombing, but the end is not compatible with man's nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@2046

If a suicide bomber's ultimate aim is say something else, and blowing himself up to kill civilians is his means of achieving that, then yes, in this case it is very possible he is wrong, in that suicide-bombing won't achieve what he wanted.

But what if his ultimate aim is to just kill those people, full stop?

That's the point here. Objective judgement of right and wrongs can only be passed based whether an action will contribute to or go against an ultimate ideal/goal an individual picks. But there is no objective standard to issue a judgement on the near infinite number of ideals a man could pick as his ultimate ideal/goal. The sort of life a person achieves by following Obj Ethics is just one ideal among a sea of uncounted others.

You've said that what if, e.g., assassinating 5 officials is a suicide bombers ultimate end, but I think you might be misunderstanding what're mean by "ultimate end."

 If his goal is to assassinate 5 people, then you can ask why, and he would point to some other reason, probably ideology, then you ask why does he want that, and he might say some other reason, he wants the best political system or whatever, well why does he want that, and ultimately you will reach an end that is an end in itself. Blowing up people is general a means, or a lesser end, to other ends. 

The ultimate end is, in Aristotelian thought, man's natural end that everyone aims at, due to our nature. Deciding to suicide bomb is made in reference to other ends, which bombing is judged to be the means to, and all means-ends chains culminate in the pursuit of life because action per se affirms life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the purpose of a goal/objective is to achieve something else, then they are intermediate. In these cases you can answer the question "why" with "because 'next step'" And also in these cases, reason can be used to pass down objective judgments of right and wrong based on whether these intermediate goals will logically lead to the "next step".

If a goal/objective isn't chosen as a means to achieve something else, but an end in itself, then in this case that's a final destination/ultimate goal. For these you cannot answer the question "why" because there is no next step (they are "just because", or as software like to say "duh")

So how would you answer the question: Why does man need a code of values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DonAthos

I am sure the majority of people are innately motivated to want to be happy. Ensuring survival and procreation of the gene is a evolutionary commandment. If our psychological pleasure and pain mechanism did not evolve towards that end, we wouldn't be here today due to natural selection.

But what is interesting is that we also have evolved volition, an ability that allows us to choose whether to follow the stick & carrot of our evolutionary biology or to pursue something else entirely.

 

@Eiuol

And what is the teleological end of volition then? If we have the physical ability to ignore the call of our base biology, to pursue any goals of our choosing, what does that teleologically tell us?

 

@2046

I'm sure the vast majority of actual suicide bombing in real life are motivated by other reasons and are not ends in themselves. For my example, I was talking about a specific hypothetical case where by suicide-bombing is an end in itself, or is that too much an impossibility for you?

If you find that's too hard to imagine, then let's have a variation where the ultimate motive for this suicide-bomber been revenge. Killing those targets objectively achieves vengeance, and vengeance in this case is an end in itself as opposed to a means to achieve something else.

 

@dream_weaver

So how would you answer the question: Why does man need a code of values?

Why do you need a blueprint before you build a building? You do it because it promotes efficiency and effectiveness in achieving your goal.

But I think what that question really is asking is "Why does men need a universal code of values".

There really is only one universal value, and that's reason. If a man wants to achieve any goal he envisions, reason is the only way to get there.

Every other values however are relative depending on what you ultimately want to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dream_weaver

Why do you need a blueprint before you build a building? You do it because it promotes efficiency and effectiveness in achieving your goal.

But I think what that question really is asking is "Why does men need a universal code of values".

There really is only one universal value, and that's reason. If a man wants to achieve any goal he envisions, reason is the only way to get there.

Every other values however are relative depending on what you ultimately want to accomplish.

Are you aware that reason is one of the three cardinal values of the Obj. Ethics? What is it that makes reason possible? Another way to ask that is: What does reason presuppose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volition itself only has the function to allow one to make choices. Incidentally, that allows for greater variety of behaviors or motivations. This doesn't tell us at all the nature of man or any organism. It does not tell us the teleological end of an organism, and certainly not of man. The possibility to act against one's life does not mean that those actions fulfill a teleological end, a purpose of an organism. Purpose is not a goal you select, a purpose is essentially what an entire organism moves towards. You seem to be stuck on "well, not all people act to that end", but that's really the whole point. -Ethics- is not that. We're focused on something narrower than only acting. The whole point of ethics is exactly that it is possible to act against one's nature (by "nature" I don't mean an eternal attribute, I mean nature as in what an organism is supposed to be doing). So, we need to figure out how to act in line with one's nature.

This isn't about being compelled to choose to live, it's been repeated many times there is no rational or even irrational basis to choose to do so. Ethics is meant to say how to act according to your nature, not to say why you actually should act according to your nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DonAthos

I am sure the majority of people are innately motivated to want to be happy. Ensuring survival and procreation of the gene is a evolutionary commandment. If our psychological pleasure and pain mechanism did not evolve towards that end, we wouldn't be here today due to natural selection.

But what is interesting is that we also have evolved volition, an ability that allows us to choose whether to follow the stick & carrot of our evolutionary biology or to pursue something else entirely.

Absolutely we have volition and may choose for ourselves. Again, were it not for this fact, Rand would hardly have needed to make an argument for her own ethical philosophy; if we were all bound to pursue the good life, we simply would. It is because we may choose that Rand argues for a particular ethical philosophy.

But we must act in some fashion and, if we are to have values at all, they are either bound to contradict each other, working at cross purposes, or they will serve some "ultimate value." If a person is to have some ultimate value, he may choose one for himself through the volition you cite. With happiness, life, etc., we can perhaps distinguish them through what you're observing here--that they are products of our evolution, and of our nature--and that to deviate from them produces pain, suffering, death--those things that man has historically sought to avoid (and perhaps came to philosophy to do so). We can observe along with Rand that the very concept of "value" is based upon the phenomenon of life, and thus to pursue any other value which contradicts life is also self-contradictory. Does any other "ultimate value" (obeying God, Science, furthering one's "race," etc., etc., etc.) offer these apparent advantages?

But the key I truly think you're missing is the actual experience of happiness, which in terms of "argument," I would contend best "argues" for itself. Honestly, apart from those things which constitute the Objectivist vision of the ultimate ethical end, an end in itself, life and happiness being the standard and purpose, respectively, I doubt that man would have any conception of "the good" at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@2046

I'm sure the vast majority of actual suicide bombing in real life are motivated by other reasons and are not ends in themselves. For my example, I was talking about a specific hypothetical case where by suicide-bombing is an end in itself, or is that too much an impossibility for you?

If you find that's too hard to imagine, then let's have a variation where the ultimate motive for this suicide-bomber been revenge. Killing those targets objectively achieves vengeance, and vengeance in this case is an end in itself as opposed to a means to achieve something else.

 

 

Again, I don't think we are using "ultimate end" in the same way. Just because someone says "my ultimate motive in doing X was Y," that doesn't make Y that person's ultimate end.

When ethicists talk about an ultimate end they mean a standard by which any ethical choice has to include or be measured against, qua choice. It's not "whatever someone states they ultimately value." It's about the formal implications of the fact that man uses means to attain ends. And one of those implications is that if X is necessary for valuing Y, and P values Y, then P necessarily values X.

1. Joe values donuts.

2. Life is necessary for the existence of donuts as a value.

3. If Joe chooses (values) donuts, Joe must choose (value) what is necessary for Joe's valuation of donuts.

4. Joe values donuts.

5. Thus Joe must choose (value) man's life qua man in valuing donuts.

Again, replace donuts with "revenge" or "to assassinate 5 people" or "for Allah's will" whatever else, and it's still the same. Insofar as one is alive and choosing, regardless of the choice, one must choose (value) man's life qua man. Even if Joe walks up to you and says "my only one and singular ultimate motive is to eat donuts" that is a casual statement, and we as philosophers can make a causal analysis of means and ends and human nature that goes beyond a casual reading.

So any story about how someone just wants to blow themselves up will end up in saying that no, blowing yourself up for some sort of goal is a lesser end, or a means, and that what someone may state is their ultimate motive is far different from what man's natural end is.

So if you go well what about someone that is a nihilist and just wants to kill for the sake of killing, the story will be the same. Such a person would probably not make that choice out of a vacuum anyway, and that would be the result of prior choices and prior philosophical mistakes, or mental illness. I mean at the end of the day, someone like that would simply be an obstacle to living for the rest of us that do choose life, no different that if a bear jumped out and attacked you. You would just act to find out the best way to avoid it and live your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...