Why Do You Have To Lead A "happy" Life?

[AisA]

Thanks for posting this. I think it is very interesting that he says: "I do not care to exist without values." This clearly shows that existence as such is without significance to him. So this "survival and existence" means a life in which happiness (i.e. value pursuit) is possible.

And this is the contradiction I see. I still hold that it doesn't. It's two different things. There are two definitions for survival: One is survival no matter what, and the other is happiness. Objectivist ethics ignores the difference between these and claims they are the same.

Objectivism does not hold that "anything that insures survival" is the standard of value, nor does it assume that anything which keeps one alive is automatically good and leads to happiness. To the contrary, Objectivism holds that man's life qua man is the standard of value. "Man's life qua man" means man's life as a rational being, i.e. man's life as a being that uses reason to produce what his survival requires.

Man's life does not mean the life of an armed robber. It does not mean life as a beggar. It does not mean life as a con man. This is why Objectivism holds that money (or anything else) acquired by theft, by panhandling or by cheating is not a value, even though it may keep you alive in the short run.

The good is not "that which keeps you alive for the moment". The good is all that which is proper to the life of a rational being, i.e. all that which is proper to the life of a being that survives by using reason to produce what his life requires.

".....Not survival at any price -- since there is only one price that pays for man's survival: reason." (Galt in AS page 940)

Unfortunately, this leads me to something else:

Even if Dagny is killed, Galt still has his body and his mind. He'll be horribly miserable. But he'll still be alive and he'll still have a working mind. He won't go completely nuts. Maybe he'll even find someone else. He won't lead the ultimate life he lived before. But if anything apart from perfection is not worth living, we'd all have to commit suicide.

It looks like you don't take your survival as an absolute and live a life (as I described in my post before) as the guy without vacation and fast food. Instead you take a happy life as an absolute and commit suicide if it doesn't reach perfection, which is even stranger.

This just became more complicated, I think.

Remember the context of Galt's remarks. He was about to be captured. He does not say that he will commit suicide because without Dagny, there are no other values to pursue. He says that as a slave, having to obey their whims and exist on their terms, once Dagny is torutured to death, he will be next on the torture rack -- and then there will be no values to pursue.

[hunterrose]

Her point isn't that we pursue happiness in order to live -- it's that life and happiness are two perspectives on the same issue: the achievement of life-sustaining values.

I think part of the problem is that the two don't seem to necessarily coincide.

Suppose some Weevil Knieval decides to put on the world's most amazing stunt show ever, and in order to pull off the show, he has to die as part of it. Doing the show brings him a consummate amount of pleasure; it's so valuable to him that living without doing this show is valueless and untenable to him.

How could you tell Mr. Knieval that this is immoral? The only way I see to make the case that he shouldn't do this is if you argue

1) he only thinks the show makes him happier than he can possibly be otherwise (???)

2) life, even a joyless life, is and must be a value (if not an end value equivalent to happiness.)

In short, my point is that it seems to me that you must justify one's life/existence as an end value even in cases were one has no happiness... otherwise the argument might be made that happiness is the ultimate, and life sometimes a necessity for obtaining that ultimate value.

Of course, I'm going over a lot of the stuff said in this and some other topics, so it's quite possible I haven't yet fully analysed some information

[dondigitalia]

In short, my point is that it seems to me that you must justify one's life/existence as an end value even in cases were one has no happiness... otherwise the argument might be made that happiness is the ultimate, and life sometimes a necessity for obtaining that ultimate value.

Have you read We The Living? In it, the main characters are in a position where no value is possible to them; they are living under a soviet dictatorship. One commits suicide, which was a perfectly moral choice, given the unhappiness ahead of him in the rest of his life. Another, makes one last deseperate attempt to escape to a life abroad where values can be achieved, knowing that she will probably die trying to escape, also a perfectly moral choice. Another, escapes into a world of alcoholism (in my view, the coward's way out).

The point is: life, in essence, is a process of achieving values. If all life would lose meaning without some value, then it is perfectly moral to risk (or knowingly lose) one's life in gaining and/or keeping that value. A life without values is not a life at all, and cannot be worth anything.

Since your specific point was about happiness, I want to make sure in processing the above that you understand that happiness is the emotion which proceeds from achieving values. Without trying to speak for Don, I think that's reallly what he was getting at when he said that life and happiness were two perspectives on the same thing.

[RationalBiker]

Suppose some Weevil Knieval decides to put on the world's most amazing stunt show ever, and in order to pull off the show, he has to die as part of it. Doing the show brings him a consummate amount of pleasure; it's so valuable to him that living without doing this show is valueless and untenable to him.

That's not called a stunt, that's called suicide. A "stunt" is typically associated with a daring display of skill, and / or strength. which is typically designed to be death-defying, not death-seeking. Death-defying is the thrill sought. There wouldn't be anything skillful about it since anyone can do something like drive a motorcycle off a cliff and DIE.

So in essence what he would be saying is, "I can't enjoy life anymore unless I kill myself."

Also, it wouldn't be "doing the show" that caused him a consumate amount of pleasure, it would be the thought of doing the show. Actually doing the show, if he then enjoyed it, would be terminal. And then, he can no longer enjoy the thought of the show anyway.

[hunterrose]

That's not called a stunt, that's called suicide. A "stunt" is typically associated with a daring display of skill, and / or strength. which is typically designed to be death-defying, not death-seeking. Death-defying is the thrill sought. There wouldn't be anything skillful about it since anyone can do something like drive a motorcycle off a cliff and DIE.

So in essence what he would be saying is, "I can't enjoy life anymore unless I kill myself."

Also, it wouldn't be "doing the show" that caused him a consumate amount of pleasure, it would be the thought of doing the show. Actually doing the show, if he then enjoyed it, would be terminal. And then, he can no longer enjoy the thought of the show anyway.

It's suicide if it's your intent to die; if dying is a known, but not necessarily desired effect of an action, it's not suicide.

While driving off a cliff will also kill you, that's not to say this uber-stunt of Weevil's requires no skill.

It might be more proper to summarize it as "attaining my happiness will result in my death," though I disagree with you summarizing only slightly.

Merely thinking of it won't suffice, though. If he merely thought about it, without any intention or preparation for doing it, that wouldn't be of any value to him. And I don't think you are saying that something can't be of value to a person simply because he won't live to see its results.

[Shnoogah]

I contemplated making a new thread, but I decided against it since there are already enough separate discussions on life (:

After recently rereading "The Objectivist Ethics," I came upon several questions that echoed Felix's original one in this thread. When I reviewed some contemporary Objectivist literature on the question of life as a standard of value, I saw that my concerns were part of what one author called the "survival vs. flourishing" debate. Is the purpose of man's life to survive or to flourish (have a productive, enjoyable life)? Why?

It seems logical to say that the purpose of life is survival, given the ultimate choice between life and death. Of course, this seems inconsistent with much of Miss Rand's writing, which focused not only on survival (through productive work) but also on the pursuit of other values, such as love, art, etc. Defenders of the survival doctrine point out that those other values are still necessary for survival, since a self-actualized individual is likely to live longer than one concerned with "mere survival." However, the most significant objection to this position is that it contradicts Miss Rand's ideas on what constitutes a justified suicide. A person who kills himself to save a loved one would be acting immorally if the purpose of his life is survival.

This problem goes away if we say that man's ultimate purpose is flourishing or "living the good life." Clearly, it would not be worth living, if the death of your loved one meant suffering for the remainder of your natural life. But the major opposition to this stance is that it cannot be logically derived from the ultimate choice -- life or death. You may agree with a stance, but until you can logically derive it from actual facts, your acceptance of it is merely subjective.

One could assert that there is, in fact, no gap between flourishing and "survival qua man," since "qua man" implies survival as man or as a rational human being, which requires flourishing. "Mere survival" would mean an existence not as man, but as an animal. However, this has its own implications. For example, it implies there are three options open to man: non-existence, subhuman existence and human existence. I would argue, however, that the first two are one and the same, since man cannot survive acting as an animal, any more than an animal could survive acting like a plant. This, though, brings us to the biggest problem with this assertion: the difference between man and animal. Man has reason and employs that reason for the purpose of survival through productive work. That takes us back to the survival position. Any further differences between man and animal then become irrelevant, because we've already chosen existence over non-existence by choosing or not choosing to use reason.

Even if there are other values we can derive from our use of reason and our need for spiritual health (integrity, love, art, etc.), those values still cannot override, so to speak, our initial choice of existence over non-existence. The most common objection here is that, in the death-of-a-loved-one scenario, for example, choosing your life over the life of your loved one will result in a subhuman life. AisA quoted John Galt saying, "there will be no values for me to seek after that -- and I do not care to exist without values." However, why would the loss of a value, unless it was life itself, invalidate your reason?

Clearly, John Galt valued Dagny highly, but he could not value her more than life itself, since life itself, and the choice between life and death, is the source of value. Also, knowing Dagny is being tortured, while certainly painful, would not logically invalidate all his other values. I value my hosue more than I do my clothes. If I were to lose my house, though, that would not mean I no longer valued my clothes.

Naturally, I do not feel that physical survival should be man's purpose. I even symphathize with the notion of trading my life for my loved one's. And, as Regi from the Autonomist pointed out to me, "even if living as long as possible were the objective, surely it could not be so one would suffer as long as possible. If life is not to be enjoyed, what is it for?" But, I fail to see how we can logically derive flourishing, eudaimonia or enjoying life from the ultimate choice of existence or non-existence.

My question is can you logically demonstrate how, in choosing existence over non-existence, a man would give up his own life to save a loved one? Remember, a logical argument requires a premise (or premises) and then a conclusion. Also, A is A. A is not whatever Miss Rand says. Please refrain from assuming that Miss Rand is infallible and using an appeal to authority. Oh, and please carefully read my post before responding. Thanks

[Illuminaughty]

This thread made me remember something I have wondered about for a long time now: How does the need for "living a happy life" follow from the need for survival? If you lead a miserable life, you're still alive. Your life may suck, but you still have it. If the basic and fundamental choice of a living being is existence and nonexistence, (as Ayn Rand began her logical chain), where does happiness come in? As long as you eat and sleep, you stay alive. Nothing more is mandatory. As long as you have learned to collect berries and hunt down an animal once in a while, that's pretty much all you need for basic survival. And even if you live the happiest and healthiest life possible for a human being, you still die in the end, making the fundamental choice somehow flawed. It is just a matter of time. You don't choose staying alive in an absolute sense, because in the end you die. You choose to stay alive for another while. And at some point you don't have any choice. You will die no matter what.

Because a happiness is your beings way of showing the best possible life. Sure, you can be minimalistic and try to be happy with just being alive... but you'll be much happier and spend a more productive existance reaching to the end of your ability trying to live the best life possible.