What does "life as the standard of value" mean?

[dondigitalia]

Mod's note: Split from original thread.

I don't think this is possible, Don. You can value a spouse so much that you could not live without them, or that you would do anything to save them, but I don't think it's literally possible to value them more than you value yourself just as a simple matter of logic.

If you would forfeit your life to save some value, such as a spouse, then you are valuing that thing higher than your own life. One's life is a high value, to be sure, but the main point in the Objectivist ethics is that life is the standard by which it is judged, not that it is necessarily the top value.

Edited November 10, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Thales]

If you would forfeit your life to save some value, such as a spouse, then you are valuing that thing higher than your own life. One's life is a high value, to be sure, but the main point in the Objectivist ethics is that life is the standard by which it is judged, not that it is necessarily the top value.

I half agree with you. Man's life qua man is the standard of value. This is what establishes that you need to live as a rational animal. However, your life is the highest value. Remember, your life is what determines your hierarchy of values. It's what allows you to answer the question "A value to whom and for what." To you, for your life. It's the virtue of selfishness.

This is why you would value a woman in your life, because she brings you so many positive things. And, often, she would be such a high value that it would be hard to imagine life without her.

[dondigitalia]

Let's attack this from a different angle. I'll present a series of yes or no questions, and I'd like you to answer them as honestly as you can.

Does a rational man act to preserve or obtain the greatest value possible?

Are there some instances where a rational man may choose to forfeit his life to save the life of another, such as his spouse or child?

Are there instances where a rational man may choose to forfeit his life for some non-human value, such as an American soldier who dies to protect individual rights?

Are there instances where a rational man may choose to forfeit his life for some material value?

Remember, your life is what determines your hierarchy of values.

I'll point out that that is what it means to hold your own life as the standard of value.

[Thales]

Okay, Don, I'll do my best here.

Let's attack this from a different angle. I'll present a series of yes or no questions, and I'd like you to answer them as honestly as you can.

Does a rational man act to preserve or obtain the greatest value possible?

Are there some instances where a rational man may choose to forfeit his life to save the life of another, such as his spouse or child?

If they are a supremely high value to him, then it can make sense. Although, the context has to be something that makes sense, such as diving into shark infested waters to save your spouse.

Are there instances where a rational man may choose to forfeit his life for some non-human value, such as an American soldier who dies to protect individual rights?

I wouldn't put it that way. A solider will fight for his values. He's not out to die for his country, but, paraphrasing General Patton, to "Make the other damn sons of bitches die for their country".

RE "Remember, your life is what determines your hierarchy of values."

I'll point out that that is what it means to hold your own life as the standard of value.

There is a standard of value (life of man qua man), and then there is the ultimate value, your life.

I'll quote Ayn Rand from her essay "The Objectivist Ethics", (Virtue of Selfishness, page 25):

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.

It's that ultimate value that establishes a hierarchy of values. That ultimate value stems from the metaphysical fact that there is a choice between life and death. That standard of value stems from the fact that we are beings with conceptual/rational faculties.

I hope that's clear.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Thales

[RationalBiker]

I hope that's clear.

How are you defining life when you say a man's ultimate value is his life? Are you including conditions such as happiness and/or productivity? Or, are you simply referring to "morgue avoidance"?

Edited November 10, 2005 by RationalCop

[Thales]

How are you defining life when you say a man's ultimate value is his life? Are you including conditions such as happiness and/or productivity? Or, are you simply referring to "morgue avoidance"?

As per the Objectivist ethics, it's life as man qua man. That's that standard. So, mere survival at some low level isn't the standard. In fact, that makes life less possible to you long range.

Or, to put it another way, to survive you need to use your rational faculty, which means planning long range and making choices for the long range.

In the end Ayn Rand specifices the standard and the ultimate value, which provide the foundation for her ethics. She does this after she establishes that ethics are necessary to life. You know, the whole "is-ought" problem.

[RationalBiker]

If you would forfeit your life to save some value, such as a spouse, then you are valuing that thing higher than your own life.

For clarity's sake, I'm using "you" in the generic, not "you" in the specific.

I think what is actually going on here is not that you are valuing your spouse's life more than your own, but rather that you are evaluating the impact that the loss of your spouse would have on your life. Your higher values are such an integral part of your ultimate value, your happy life, that the loss of them might mean that you would no longer be happy, and your life would no longer be worth living because happiness would no longer be attainable. Your life is the primary, the loss of the other high value's impact on your life is the secondary.

If your happy life is not the basis for valuing the other person so highly, you are being altruistic.

[Thales]

Rational Cop,

That's it exactly. There are psychological consequences to losing a tremendous value. The pain can be unbearable and last, perhaps, all of your life.

I do think that when someone is a supremely high value to you that it can be hard to keep the hierarchy straight. Life without them would be unthinkable.

[dondigitalia]

After reading through the last few posts, I don't think we are in disagreement, I think there's a miscommunication, and it's my fault.

It's a little unclear what I'm saying because I'm using "life" to denote two different concepts(although I didn't realize it at first). Both uses are valid, but I see how it confuses my point.

In the sense of life being the standard, I mean a happy, flourishing life qua man.

But there are other times when, in order for that standard to be met, it might be necessary to forfeit ones life (in the sense of being alive), for a higher value, but only when life qua man is the standard by which that judgment is made--only when the loss of that value would make meeting such a standard impossible.