Why Live In The First Place?

[Felix]

As far as I understand the Objectivist Ethics, the choice to live is the fundamental choice. And once you accepted life as the ultimate standard, you have a measuring stick which helps you make choices in your life.

But all this seems to lack a foundation, because on which grounds do you make the choice to live in the first place? I value life because I just happen to value it, seems to be the answer. I don't feel right about that, because it makes the very basis of ethics, valuing life at all, subjective.

[DavidOdden]

I don't feel right about that, because it makes the very basis of ethics, valuing life at all, subjective.

So what are you going to do about it, kill yourself? You're basically asking for circularity -- this is the error of rationalist ethics. What if I tell you "God (through his agent Ratzi) commands you to live", from which think you can deduce the principle that you should live. Why should you care about god's wishes? I don't feel right about assuming that god exists, that he commands me to live, or than I should obey his commandments. The choice to live is the fundamental choice, which cannot be justified with reference to anything else. The notion of justification presumes a purpose (something is justified as a means of reaching a goal if it reaches that goal -- you have to have a goal). What does it mean to "value" something? The notion of value depends on life (note, for example, that rocks do not value).

It may help to focus on the metaphysical axioms of existence and identity. In chosing to live, you are making a choice between existence and non-existence. There will never be a way to independently justify the fundamental alternative, since that's what "fundamental" means.

[Felix]

So what are you going to do about it, kill yourself? You're basically asking for circularity -- this is the error of rationalist ethics. The choice to live is the fundamental choice, which cannot be justified with reference to anything else.

So basically the question "Why do you live?" is nonsensical? How do you make the choice to live then? You just do it? I'm still puzzled.

The notion of justification presumes a purpose (something is justified as a means of reaching a goal if it reaches that goal -- you have to have a goal). What does it mean to "value" something? The notion of value depends on life (note, for example, that rocks do not value).

I agree. But what does it say about the choice to live? It is a pre-moral choice then. And why, then, is suicide considered evil? After all that would be a choice beyond the realm of ethics, because you don't realize life as a value in the first place.

[Capitalism Forever]

"Life is a process of self-generating, self-sustaining action."

You are facing an ethical choice because you are alive (inanimate objects do not face alternatives) and your goal as a living organism is to survive.

[B. Royce]

As far as I understand the Objectivist Ethics, the choice to live is the fundamental choice. And once you accepted life as the ultimate standard, you have a measuring stick which helps you make choices in your life.

But all this seems to lack a foundation, because on which grounds do you make the choice to live in the first place? I value life because I just happen to value it, seems to be the answer. I don't feel right about that, because it makes the very basis of ethics, valuing life at all, subjective.

All your young life you have been making the (implicit) choice to live, by eating, learning, playing. Later, you can make it a consciously formulated choice. Or, if you find yourself so miserable, you can choose to kill yourself. But as long as you don't choose that, you are choosing to live, consistently or not, depending on the ideas in your head.

[DavidOdden]

So basically the question "Why do you live?" is nonsensical? How do you make the choice to live then? You just do it? I'm still puzzled.

The question "how" presupposes something, wherein lies your problem. Start with some things that are not problematic -- you do choose. Questions about "why" presuppose a purpose: "Why did you swallow that pill?" presupposes a purpose, such as "getting over this cold" or "so I can stay awake" or "so I can fall asleep". But why do you want to stay awake? So that you won't crash into oncoming cars, or so you can finish this project by the deadline. Why do you want to finish this project? And so on. There has to be an ultimate standard, if you are to have a purposive existence (as opposed to one where you pursue the short-term whim of the moment). That, b.t.w., is a deliberate tautology. I don't see how you can ask a why question without having a foundation.

But what does it say about the choice to live? It is a pre-moral choice then.

Yes. It is the pre-moral choice.

And why, then, is suicide considered evil?

By Ratzi? Because he's a friggin' papist (oh, wait, he actually is the pope). Anyhow, if you chose to exist, then suicide is evil because it is wholely contrary to the fundamental purpose of existing. I don't consider suicide to be an absolute evil, and in some (rare) cases I consider it to be a virtue. If on the other hand you chose to not exist, then suicide is not evil, and continuing to live would be evil. If you reject the goal of existence, that leads to certain conclusions about what you should do next.

[gags]

As far as I understand the Objectivist Ethics, the choice to live is the fundamental choice. And once you accepted life as the ultimate standard, you have a measuring stick which helps you make choices in your life.

But all this seems to lack a foundation, because on which grounds do you make the choice to live in the first place? I value life because I just happen to value it, seems to be the answer. I don't feel right about that, because it makes the very basis of ethics, valuing life at all, subjective.

Given man's nature, THE first choice one makes is to think or not to think. Once you have made that choice, life is the ultimate value. If at some point you choose to stop thinking, then you have also chosen to stop living and will die in fairly short order. Given that man MUST think in order to live, you have chosen life as the ultimate value when you choose to think.

[DrBaltar]

I feel very fortunate to be alive. I could just as easily be a rock, with no perception of what it is, or what it's environment is. I am alive in the form of the most advanced form of life known, and, tragically, only for about 85 years, give or take a decade, if I'm lucky. So since I have all these advantages over a rock, and in fact most everything else that is living and non-human, it would be a monumental waste not to apreciate, as fully as possible, my good fortune, and to take as much advantage of my fortunate situation as possible. So even though I may be here as a result of the natural and accidental evolution of the universe, I am now free to define my own purpose in life and set my own goals, so as not to waste my time that I have during my living years. Because, once the living years are over, I am no more fortunate than the rock that I somehow avoided becoming.

[FeatherFall]

Any moral code presupposes a standard of value. Anything can be judged good or evil if the right (or wrong) value-standard is chosen. There is, however, only one value standard that is objective; the standard of life. Life is the proper standard because no values are possible without it. Does that help?

[Felix]

No, sorry, it doesn't.

Hm. Maybe this way to put it sheds light on my problem:

Does the choice to live have any foundation whatsoever? Yes or No? (I actually want to hear a yes or a no.)

And if no (which is what I think):

(1) Why is it a choice? Or more precisely: What kind of a choice is it? It's not a moral choice, because it presupposes any moral behavior. It's also not an epistemological choice between right or wrong, because this has nothing to do with it.

(2) How come one can make it? How do you make a pre-moral choice? How do you choose if there is no foundation? How do you evaluate your alternatives? (I think you can't.) A choice means that you have alternatives and that you can choose. But without a standard that choice is completely arbitrary. Do I just throw a coin? I mean at that premoral point, before you've chosen life as a value, there is nothing but a big void and zero guidance as to how to make the decision.

Maybe stating my problem this way helped clarify my point.

David, keep pushing. You're trying to tell me something, but I haven't understood what it is you want to tell me, yet. I think you already know the answer. The problem is to make it enter my stubborn mind.

[DavidOdden]

David, keep pushing. You're trying to tell me something, but I haven't understood what it is you want to tell me, yet. I think you already know the answer. The problem is to make it enter my stubborn mind.

What I'm trying to tell you is that you are trying to apply reason to a question that is above reason. The other thing I'm saying is, buy and read this. (BTW, we only have to pay $26.95). I understand the wish to derive all conclusions from... well, that's the problem. The rationalist approach (in general, not just ethics) says that by sheer mental effort, you can reach The Right Conclusion, using nothing but pure will. But this always reduces to something that is not pure reason (criminy, even Kant saw that).

The question of a foundation for the choice is legitimate, but again you seem to be asking these purposive questions about reasons for doing something. Most living things do not have a choice: humans are the only beings that can actually ponder the question "Shall I exist?" Here's a proposal -- just say yes to existence. Let it be arbitrary, the one unreasoned choice you make. Having made this one and only arbitrary choice, this is your axiom of choice (nyuck nyuck), and you never ever have to make another arbitrary choice, because all other choices are evaluated with reference to this one foundational choice.

In exceptional circumstances, non-existence is better than continued existence, say when it would not be possible to live as a rational being, because of extreme mental decay or because physical pain was so intense and unrelenting that the only thing you can do is try to entire the agony for another day. These circumstances amount to the recognition that life is not possible, and by life I mean flourishing, not just morgue-avoidance (to steal a phrase). It's hard to imagine how a person could chose non-existence as their fundamental choice.

[dondigitalia]

I have a different take on this.

I think it's inaccurate to refer to existence vs. non-existence as a choice, and that it's more correct to call it an alternative, as Peikoff did in OPAR. He also says that the fundamental choice is to think or not to think. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I actually think it's an important distinction.

First off, in Objectivism, as you know, volition is a very specific thing--the ability to regulate the conceptual level of consciousness, i.e. the ability to choose one's level of focus. In effect, volition, at its root is the choice to think or not to think, and all other choices are dependant on this one.

Choosing to think or not, in a sense, forces the existence/non-existence alternative in the corresponding direction. In choosing to think, you are taking an action, and action presupposes some end toward which one is acting, some goal, some value. Since value is inseperable from life, choosing to think presupposes life as the standard of value. The point is, though, that the actual choice was not to exist, but to think, and that life as the standard of value is a direct, unavoidable consequence of that action. The only way to avoid (implicitly) taking life as the standard of value is to literally take no action whatsoever.

To attempt to act on any standard of than life is to adopt an explicit premise which contradicts the implicit premise presupposed in your actions.

EDIT- I haven't read Tara Smith's book, and there's a lot in front of it on my list, so I'm not sure how this compares to what she had to say on the subject.

Edited February 4, 2006 by dondigitalia

[RussK]

I'm not sure that you understand. Objectivist morality is for "life on earth," as life and death are the two fundamental choices for living organisms. Objectivist morality is also also based on reason and rationality; therefore, it applies to only those that are capable of making rational decisions. A child doesn't choose life in a moral sense, but once that individual grows older and the rational faculty develops, that individual's life depends on the choices he makes. The basis for Objectivist ethics rests on the foundation of choosing life, not why one makes that choice. In other words, Objectivist ethics follows from choosing to live.

Life or death is the fundamental choice for all living organisms. The reason that Objectivist ethics is based upon this is due to the nature of human beings, and the nature of morality. Human beings cannot live by default, like other living organisms, because they possess volition. Because human beings possess volition, each choice is either 'good or bad'. This is the essence for a code of morality, to determining what is good or bad; and morality only applies to the realm of volition. Life requires a code of values to live by, death does not; existence requires self-sustaining action which requires a code of right and wrong, non-existence does not.

Why live in the first place? An absurd question for a forum, just ask yourself.

Edited February 4, 2006 by RussK

[dondigitalia]

Why live in the first place? An absurd question for a forum, just ask yourself.

It's not an absurd question at all. In fact, philosophically, it's a very important question to answer--especially if one is trying to validate the Objectivist ethics.

[dondigitalia]

To attempt to act on any standard of than life is to adopt an explicit premise which contradicts the implicit premise presupposed in your actions.

I also want to add that this is more a reason to continue holding life as the standard of value, rather than initially adopting it. The intial choice to think is completely arbitrary, as David said, and cannot be made on rational grounds. Rational justification is only necessary once life is already in place as the standard of value.

[RussK]

It's not an absurd question at all. In fact, philosophically, it's a very important question to answer--especially if one is trying to validate the Objectivist ethics.

Really? Why do you want to live? This has nothing to do with validating Objectivist ethics. This is a personal question, which will determine if one will continue to live by Objectivist ethics or need it.

[dondigitalia]

Really? Why do you want to live? This has nothing to do with validating Objectivist ethics. This is a personal question, which will determine if one will continue to live by Objectivist ethics or need it.

Why do I want to live now? After I have already made the arbitrary, fundamental choice, adopted life as my standard of value, and reason as my means of making decisions? There are tons of rational reasons in that context. But that's different from making an initial choice, prior to any standard of value whatsoever.

EDIT: It might help you to regard this question as being outside the realm of ethics proper. It's actually a question of metaethics, meaning: beyond or transcending ethics.

Edited February 4, 2006 by dondigitalia

[Proverb]

By choosing to focus and to think beyond the level of perception you have already chosen to live. Humans must follow their nature which involves being able to perceive and the basic choice to think about those perceptions or not. This choice to think is the choice to live. That's why to think about the question "to live or not" without regards to any context other than the question itself is redundant and self-answering.

[RussK]

Why do I want to live now? After I have already made the arbitrary, fundamental choice, adopted life as my standard of value, and reason as my means of making decisions? There are tons of rational reasons in that context. But that's different from making an initial choice, prior to any standard of value whatsoever.

The alternatives of life and death just provide the basis for a moral system, and why it is needed (because of volition). Either something supports life or it doesn't, and that distinction is never arbitrary. Since morality only applies to the volitional and the rational (ability), the arbitrary 'choice' to survive in the animalistic sense has nothing to do with morality. Choosing life in a the context of morality can only come at the rational level; therefore, choosing life does not have to be, and should not be arbitrary.

[dondigitalia]

The alternatives of life and death just provide the basis for a moral system, and why it is needed (because of volition). Either something supports life or it doesn't, and that distinction is never arbitrary. Since morality only applies to the volitional and the rational (ability), the arbitrary 'choice' to survive in the animalistic sense has nothing to do with morality. Choosing life in a the context of morality can only come at the rational level; therefore, choosing life does not have to be, and should not be arbitrary.

The distinction between life-supporting and and non-life-supporting is not arbitrary, you are right--it is factual. But to use that as support for your position begs the question--it presupposes that life is the standard by which value is judged.

Morality is only applicable to rational, volitional beings, but actually using reason presupposes that one has already chosen life as the standard of value, since holding reason as a value relies on already holding life as the standard. While I haven't read Smith's book, I remember someone telling me once that she makes a similar point.

And, yeah, the choice to survive, and to think or not to think is prior to morality. That was kind of my point.

Edited February 4, 2006 by dondigitalia

[dondigitalia]

By choosing to focus and to think beyond the level of perception you have already chosen to live. Humans must follow their nature which involves being able to perceive and the basic choice to think about those perceptions or not. This choice to think is the choice to live.

You say that chosing to live comes prior to choosing to think, but then you say that they are the same choice, which would mean that neither is prior to the other. Which do you wish to say it is?

I can almost agree to saying that they are the same choice, since my position is that choosing to think requires that you simultaneously adopt life as the standard of value. The reason I draw the distinction is that what you actually do when making the choice is focus.

That's why to think about the question "to live or not" without regards to any context other than the question itself is redundant and self-answering.

When we first make the choice, though, we aren't thinking about it. We can only think about the choice in hindsight, since thinking requires first having chosen to think.

[Proverb]

Which do you wish to say it is?

I was a bit confusing in my wording, but to come out with it, it is the same choice I think. I think that it is human nature to choose to think, initially. I would say that a baby is following its nature when it chooses to think and therefore to live. The choice not to think, can only come later I think; at some point that follows the initial force of nature. Think more on this I will...

[dondigitalia]

I was a bit confusing in my wording, but to come out with it, it is the same choice I think. I think that it is human nature to choose to think, initially. I would say that a baby is following its nature when it chooses to think and therefore to live. The choice not to think, can only come later I think; at some point that follows the initial force of nature. Think more on this I will...

I don't think it's possible for anyone to actually go the extreme non-thinking route. But it's not a binary thing, there are levels. I'm inclined to agree that the choice not to think can only come later, since non-focus is the default state and one must chose to expend the effort to be in focus and stay there. A (pre-conceptual) child can chose to be in focus, or make no choice at all.

I think everyone, at some point, makes the choice to think, which is why I say that it is impossible to consistently hold to any standard of value other than life. If one attempts to hold to another standard, the moment one takes any volitional action whatsoever, one is implicitly acting on the standard of life. But, as I said before, the recognition of that fact cannot come until much later, after one has already adopted the life standard, and cannot be a justification for making the initial choice.

[Felix]

BTW, we only have to pay $26.95.

Don't underestimate me. I just ordered it new for 21.30€, which is $25.60. With free shipping.

The question of a foundation for the choice is legitimate, but again you seem to be asking these purposive questions about reasons for doing something. Most living things do not have a choice: humans are the only beings that can actually ponder the question "Shall I exist?" Here's a proposal -- just say yes to existence. Let it be arbitrary, the one unreasoned choice you make. Having made this one and only arbitrary choice, this is your axiom of choice (nyuck nyuck), and you never ever have to make another arbitrary choice, because all other choices are evaluated with reference to this one foundational choice.

So you agree that it is arbitrary. What ruins it all for me is that the foundation of ethics is built upon such an arbitrary choice where I would expect something ... well ... more solid. And if the very foundation is arbitrary, doesn't it transfer to the entirety of Objectivist Ethics, as they are logically deducted from that first choice? Just like when you wiggle one end of a stick, the rest wiggles, too? That's what still gets me. All this effort to build something based on reason and reality. And then, in the end, it all boils down to an arbitrary choice.

What do you answer a subjectivist who says that the very foundation of Objectivist Ethics is subjective and arbitrary?

Edited February 4, 2006 by Felix

[dondigitalia]

So you agree that it is arbitrary. What ruins it all for me is that the foundation of ethics is built upon such an arbitrary choice where I would expect something ... well ... more solid...What do you answer a subjectivist who says that the very foundation of Objectivist Ethics is subjective and arbitrary?

The initial choice which gives rise to Ayn Rand's morality might be arbitrary, but the principles which follow from having made that choice are not.

Every "must" implies an "if." I might be quoting Ayn Rand on that. Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in every bit of the Objectivist ethics is the qualifier, "If one wishes to live, then..." Recognizing that there is an alternative at the root is what makes it contextual, rather than rationalistic and dogmatic, and keeping it tied to that initial choice is what makes it objective.