romulus Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 (edited) Hello everyone, I’ve recently began to study Objectivism and philosophy as such. In regards to the Objectivist theory of ethics, I have a question that’s been bothering me for a few days now, one which I’ve been unable to answer. If value is only possible because of the concept of life, yet choosing life is the antecedent precondition for morality to even be at all applicable, why ought one chose to live? They’ve yet to make that choice, as such morality would presumably be unable to guide him in choosing life, choosing a course of action that would lead to death, or simply sit still and do nothing at all. How is man to be guided in this fundamental alternative of existence as against non-existence? Is there a rational choice to be made, and if so, what is it guided by if not a code of values fit for man’s survival? Edited January 28 by romulus Quote
Boydstun Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 (edited) Welcome, Romulus. One is already with values inherent in life before one adds any chosen values. Come to a stage of development in which one adds chosen values, one could choose behaviors without knowing their consonance or dissonance with life of the human animal that one is. One's chosen behaviors need not wait on having a code of values, though so far as I know, children are taught codes of values or at least certain do and don't (brush your teeth; kneel by bed and say your prayer when getting in bed for night; don't play with matches; don't put dried peas in your nose). Rand crafted a code of values that aim to be consistent and unified between its values and between its virtues and unified with one's non-chosen values which came to one with life and its individual human development in a profoundly social setting. There is a mountain of reasons to choose to continue life in that tune. Choosing to continue one's life is implicit in one's choices for rational behavior. Rationality is the fundamental virtue Rand (and others before her) proposed. As I put it, in parallel with Mark, in the address of your issue in the links below: What good would it be to possess all one desired but lose one's rational mind? You Can Leave Your Hat On Edited January 28 by Boydstun Quote
DavidOdden Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 7 hours ago, romulus said: why ought one chose to live? Your question (literally) begs the question. “Ought” refers to actions that are to be chosen in order to reach some end. If your goal is to stay warm in winter, you ought to wear warm clothes, but if your goal is to be cold in winter, or to be naked, you ought not to wear clothes. I can explain why the goal of staying warm in winter is proper, given a higher goal such as “staying alive”, if needed. Any person who exists has already affirmed the choice to exist, if they had made the choice to not exist, they would be dead already. A person can, at any point, change their primary choice and end their existence, but until they do, they’ve made a choice. You may protest that they have not “really” decided to exist, they are in a logical phantom zone where A and Not A are both true. That is just evasion (irrational). The choice to dress warmly and eat food is rational given the choice to exist, and would be irrational given the choice to not exist. Quote
joesweeneybro Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 The choice to live is the axiomatic starting point of ethics. Objectivist ethics asks, "given that people want to live, what is the best way to do that?" You can't reach a conclusion of what you should do without a particular goal in mind. There is no answer to 'why' besides that's just the way people are. If you don't want to live, then Objectivist ethics isn't for you. Quote
whYNOT Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 (edited) On 1/28/2025 at 2:55 PM, romulus said: ... yet choosing life is the antecedent precondition for morality to even be at all applicable, why ought one chose to live? That is, "choosing" MAN's life: the life "proper to man". So to Rand's "the standard of value" of the Objectivist ethics. What you are is what you ought, as do any other life-forms (automatically - by instinct, mimicry, etc. for those) and there is the way to individual self-fulfillment and well-being. To add: staying alive, merely sustaining one's physical life, isn't so hard in contemporary, altruist-collectivist societies; little independent mental effort is required to meet the base requirements for biological living. "Reason, purpose, self-esteem", to my mind have fallen off the (ethical) map, accordingly. Edited January 29 by whYNOT Quote
tadmjones Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 Civilization or societies are by definition the necessary cause of sustaining man’s life. The major element that societies, contemporary or not, provide for even base requirements is the mechanism by which knowledge is shared and stored. Objectivist ethics are post civilization, successful individualists live in caves in the Himalayas and beg for their food. Integrity ought to be a higher virtue than individualism. Quote
DavidOdden Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 An argument that starts by claiming “X is true by definition” is, by definition, faulty. You ought to try to give some reason to believe that “Civilization or societies are the necessary cause of sustaining man’s life”. There is a small element of truthiness to that statement, but as packaged, it is simply wrong. The more-true statement is that “Man flourishes in an uncoerced social context, as a trader”. Post-X means “that which replaces X”, for example “post-communist” refers to that which has replaced communism, “post-feminism” refers to “that which has replaced feminism” and post-individual refers to that which replaces individualism. We can only wonder what you could have in mind by “post-civilization”, but Mad Max and other apocalyptic scenarios would be the negation of civilization. Well, plainly you do not understand Objectivist ethics if you think that has anything to do with Objectivism, since “civilization” and subordination of force to the rule of law is the essence of Objectivist politics. Even invoking civilization as marginally relevant to Objectivist ethics is a stretch, because the Objectivist ethics is a moral code for living your life, and not a guidebook for telling other people how to live their lives. Quote
whYNOT Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 (edited) 5 hours ago, tadmjones said: Civilization or societies are by definition the necessary cause of sustaining man’s life. The major element that societies, contemporary or not, provide for even base requirements is the mechanism by which knowledge is shared and stored. Objectivist ethics are post civilization, successful individualists live in caves in the Himalayas and beg for their food. Integrity ought to be a higher virtue than individualism. It's probable one can be unaware of how distant from the standards of "civilization" humankind has slipped in gradual degrees. When every modern population's "individualism", the civilization's pre-requirement together with rule of law, has been in long retreat from mass collectivism. "Objectivist ethics" would presume upon one's individualism, and go far deeper*: To individualism's radical source and first cause. The mix-up (rational selfishness wrt individualism as manifested in reality) might be simplistically clarified this way - all rational egoists are individualist, while not all - a very few - individualists are rational egoists. Much better explained here: "A political system is the expression of a code of ethics. Just as some form of statism or collectivism is the expression of the ethics of altruism, so individualism - as represented by laissez-faire capitalism - is the expression of the ethics of rational self-interest... [and the nitty-gritty]: "Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one." N Branden HtS * "...a moral code for living *your* life..." DOdden put exactly. Edited January 30 by whYNOT Quote
tadmjones Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 O'ist ethics is fundamentally not ante civilization. Quote
whYNOT Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 There's the precise point Branden made. This ethics is the fundamental pedigree of civilization. Quote
tadmjones Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 (edited) Does that make the ethics a type of psychologic evolutionary product, a quasi transhumanistic recognition of proper roles, in a sense a continuum? Evolution by definition has no end point , yeah ? Edited January 30 by tadmjones Quote
Boydstun Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 1 hour ago, tadmjones said: Does that make the ethics a type of psychologic evolutionary product, a quasi transhumanistic recognition of proper roles, in a sense a continuum? Evolution by definition has no end point , yeah ? The human brain stopped evolving (except for some small shrinkage) about 200,000 years ago. Human knowledge of the world and the kinds of social environments varied considerably over the succeeding years, and morals have taken on shapes fitting those stages of knowledge and social organization. The look of humans in the last century and into the future is surely going see some evolving of morals as the human mind remakes its powers over nature and remakes itself with advancing technology (e.g. in memory and communications). Offhand and speculatively, I'd think that human selves will continue in the setting of more advanced technology, and there will be alternatives for the ways selves behave towards selves, which is to say, the core of what I call morality will continue. Quote
whYNOT Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, tadmjones said: Does that make the ethics a type of psychologic evolutionary product, a quasi transhumanistic recognition of proper roles, in a sense a continuum? Evolution by definition has no end point , yeah ? Seems to me at times, the ethics, rational self-interest, may be taken to be an artificial (maybe - arbitrary) construct (by Rand) - a side-bar feature of O'ism which one can take up or ignore, like any other moral code for life. Despite the pains she took in explicating the ethics tied irrevocably to man's essential, metaphysical, and epistemological ~nature~ and derivative from that. No, so long as "man" is an individual and autonomous and free-willed being with mind, in charge of his/her values, I can't see their evolution (if still active) making a dent in this ethics. Edited January 30 by whYNOT Quote
tadmjones Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 Stephen that is an interesting statement by itself on evolution per se , how is it 'it' stops ? Quote
Harrison Danneskjold Posted January 31 Report Posted January 31 On 1/28/2025 at 6:55 AM, romulus said: Hello everyone, I’ve recently began to study Objectivism and philosophy as such. In regards to the Objectivist theory of ethics, I have a question that’s been bothering me for a few days now, one which I’ve been unable to answer. If value is only possible because of the concept of life, yet choosing life is the antecedent precondition for morality to even be at all applicable, why ought one chose to live? They’ve yet to make that choice, as such morality would presumably be unable to guide him in choosing life, choosing a course of action that would lead to death, or simply sit still and do nothing at all. How is man to be guided in this fundamental alternative of existence as against non-existence? Is there a rational choice to be made, and if so, what is it guided by if not a code of values fit for man’s survival? That's a good question. Properly understood, Rand's moral code doesn't really answer this question, and you'll get a lot of Objectivists saying that no moral estimation is applicable to anyone's choice to commit suicide - for good reason, since that it basically what Objectivism says. Speaking personally, I find something very wrong with this viewpoint on a purely emotional, gut level. Take this for exactly what it is (a feeling) but that's never quite sat right with me. I'm not about to say that suicide is always wrong, in all cases, but it feels clear to me that not all instances of it are equal. Rand, herself, said that someone who killed themselves "in order to hurt someone" deserved no sympathy and that their memory should be spat on, in Atlas Shrugged. Personally, if someone committed suicide in a literal Nazi death-camp I'd consider that very different from someone who committed suicide because the cashier at their local coffee shop called them "sir". I'm not quite sure how to pin this difference down (let alone evaluate it) in a philosophical sense. Like I said; it's a good question. It is just a feeling that tells me you're onto something, and I'd like to be as clear and upfront about that as possible, but I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one who feels that way. Quote
Easy Truth Posted January 31 Report Posted January 31 On 1/28/2025 at 1:45 PM, DavidOdden said: Any person who exists has already affirmed the choice to exist, if they had made the choice to not exist, they would be dead already. A person can, at any point, change their primary choice and end their existence, but until they do, they’ve made a choice. You may protest that they have not “really” decided to exist, they are in a logical phantom zone where A and Not A are both true. That is just evasion (irrational). The choice to dress warmly and eat food is rational given the choice to exist, and would be irrational given the choice to not exist. The question comes up regarding "amorality". When does morality not apply? The answer seems to be: when you stop wanting to exist. But is there a right and wrong way to commit suicide? The moment you choose to die, morality seems to disappear. Meanwhile, living is not necessarily done by choice. Your heart beats and your organs work assuming you are fed. Does that mean you are choosing to live? Is this an unconscious choice or is that a contradiction? As far as the consequentialist angle goes, morality, i.e. right and wrong are demonstrably goal-determined and as you eloquently explained, if you want to live you ought to do this or that. However, I have seen claims that Objectivism also has a virtue ethics aspect. I'm not sure about that. Quote
DavidOdden Posted January 31 Report Posted January 31 9 hours ago, Easy Truth said: When does morality not apply? Morality does not “apply” when existence qua man is impossible. Morality is a code guiding your choices, which implements your goal of existing as man. To take a bizarre but clear scenario, if you fall out of an airplane at 10,000 ft. your existence is now completely out of your control, and nothing you do will affect you impending non-existence. Suicide is different, because it denies the fundamental premise of morality – the goal of existing. You could say that a decision to kill yourself is justified under some circumstance, but it is not moral: it denies the validity of the concept of morality. Many bodily functions are automatic and will continue while you are in a permanent coma. Excluding external medical intervention, you will eventually cease to exist if you do not take certain actions to continue existing, for example eating and drinking. You cannot “automatically eat”, even though your heart does automatically function. That is the point at which “chosing” is concretized. You can be forced to remain alive, by being “fed”. You can choose to live or die, by “eating”, or not. Jon Letendre 1 Quote
necrovore Posted January 31 Report Posted January 31 Morality applies whenever you have a choice. Whether suicide is immoral depends on the circumstances. A rational person would rather live than die, but he might rather die than allow his life to be used against people he cares about. (This is the sense of "what good is my life if that's what I have to do to keep it.") There are fates worse than death. Under ordinary circumstances, though, the situation is good, and so suicide is immoral. There are also bad situations you can be in, where suicide is still immoral, because you can still do better and save yourself (without sacrificing anyone). Quote
whYNOT Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) No, guys. The metaphysics comes first, prescribing the ethics. Existence precedes consciousness. The fundamental ~moral~ choice each faces is not either existing or perishing, which might introduce the possible and irrelevant option of actual suicide, it's living a life by the qualities and capabilities appropriate to "man". In short, how to prevent 'spiritual suicide': THE self-sacrifice; while remaining yet alive.. Your biological life is 'the given' and an immeasurable value, nobody fairly sane will throw it away needlessly. How to go about living it to its fullest is optional and non-automatic, non-given. I remind, Rand most distinctly did *not* state that "life" (one's own - or all life, in general) is the "standard" of value, rather, man's life - the abstraction one each measures our own purpose and performance by. The issue of "Suicide" itself may be amoral, immoral or moral for someone, according to this gauge. Can he/she continue a proper "man's" life under unavoidable and constant physical/mental suffering etc.?, is answerable by them alone. Edited February 2 by whYNOT EC 1 Quote
whYNOT Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 (edited) A lot about ethical choices. There is no choice in the matter in metaphysics. Only seeing, recognition and acknowledgement of what's self-evident. "Choice" comes down the line with - free will, cognition, value-judgment - morality. Self-evident (and observable) every living thing - a man included - is an end in itself: a "closed system", so to speak. ("Autonomous, self-generating, self-directing"). Any other life form, according to AR 's view, has only its own continued biological life - or death - as its (unconscious) 'standard of value', of good or evil. That which ends its life, like a drought, is "the evil". And only one form of life has the conscious means to realize, adopt and pursue an objective measure of good (vs evil) - not measured alone by the criterion of his/her own life-survival, unlike animals, insects, plants, but by the standard: man's life. Ultimately, refuting what other doctrines preach, there can't be an option other than one's life being one's top value, on which one's made and chosen values depend and subtend. Edited February 2 by whYNOT EC 1 Quote
DavidOdden Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 It is often useful to quote Rand's actual words, in trying to explain what Objectivism says about a topic. So, 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. Causality Versus Duty, PWNI 99 Jon Letendre 1 Quote
tadmjones Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 either way and always nature takes its course Quote
DavidOdden Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 (edited) However, nature can be commanded, so you can command nature to take a specific course, if we understand nature.\ I invite the Letendre troll to post yet another laughing hyena emotional outburst in response to Objectivism. Edited February 3 by DavidOdden Letendre is an A-hole Jon Letendre 1 Quote
whYNOT Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 16 hours ago, DavidOdden said: It is often useful to quote Rand's actual words, in trying to explain what Objectivism says about a topic. So, 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. Causality Versus Duty, PWNI 99 Yes. And a "rational ethics" still needs justifying, as all other ethical systems pretend, by what is "good" and "evil" for humankind. Not, the standard of value: "others' lives" nor "Gods", nor "what I feel like today". "Man's life" - the conjunction of consciousness plus existence, mind and body - simply lays the objective foundation for this ethics. Quote
whYNOT Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 (edited) 19 hours ago, DavidOdden said: It is often useful to quote Rand's actual words, in trying to explain what Objectivism says about a topic. So, 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. Causality Versus Duty, PWNI 99 The actual words may be again taken mistakenly to invoke, choose living - or suicide. But, her "basic act of choice", life or death, is above and in many places in Rand's words and fiction, clearly between a rational and selfish life - or, selflessness. The self-less, in the fully consistent practice of their doctrine, must ultimately and soon meet their deaths when nature prevails. (In actuality, nearly all people who preach and admire altruism, are inconsistent in putting it to practice, knowing, at least implicitly, its natural outcome. i.e: suicide by selfless-ness). The rational choice of course is - "life" ... as "man". More of Rand's actual words (following "The Objectivist ethics holds..." VoS) ""That which is required for the survival of man qua man" is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man... "Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man--in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life"... Etc. (Everyone present knows these familiar words backwards, but I find the occasional re-perusal invaluable) Edited February 3 by whYNOT Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.