Why Live In The First Place?

[dondigitalia]

Pleasure/pain presupposes life, but it doesn't presuppose life being an infant's standard IMO. (Are you saying that all of an infant's actions are non-volitional? Some of a baby's actions can be considered reflexive actions, but I believe that some are indeed volitional.)

No, an infant's actions are not volitional. Introspect. Volition (in the Objectivist sense) only occurs on the conceptual level.

I spent a half-hour observing my 2 month year-old nephew and I saw some definate patterns in the way he observed various objects around the room. Most of it was probably the perceptive stage that precedes actual abstraction, but all of it seemed very purposeful. Life is a very complex set of equations that begin with a single choice of affirmation or denial, though it seems that at that early of a stage the affirmation is almost a given.

I'm not sure if you mean to disagree with me or Hunter, here--I see a number of ways this statement can be interpreted.

I will agree that the actions of an infant are purposeful, but not volitional, as volition is not possible at the perceptual level.

[Capitalism Forever]

But there is a standard - everyone starts out with a standard of pleasure and pain.

Exactly. This is what I meant when I wrote that the life standard is a part of your nature as a man.

[Capitalism Forever]

In the context, I don't think fact #1 is very significant at all. Statistically, it's not a momentary 50/50 choice that all men happen to make one way with no standard. Rather, it's a constant 50/50 choice one makes, every waking moment that could tip in either direction, until it actually does tip in the other direction. So just by sheeer statistics, you can say say that 99.99999999% of all men are eventually going to choose to think (made-up statistic).

That is not how volition works. It is not like a coin flip that has a known probability of going either way and can be repeated independently of the outcome of the previous flip.

A good man typically starts out good, and stays good throughout his life. An evil man typically starts out evil, and dies evil. Consider the lives of Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey.

And, while beginnings might often have something special about them, it is arbitrary to assume that they do with out evidence.

I was not assuming that this particular beginning had something special about it. I was assuming that it might have something special about it.

[dondigitalia]

That is not how volition works. It is not like a coin flip that has a known probability of going either way and can be repeated independently of the outcome of the previous flip.

If there is no standard by which a choice is made, how is there not an equal probability? How is it not a constant, i.e. ongoing choice?

A good man typically starts out good, and stays good throughout his life. An evil man typically starts out evil, and dies evil. Consider the lives of Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey.

Good and evil depend on some standard of value, though. Someone who doesn't choose to live can be neither good nor evil. That's the whole point!!!

Anyway, I strongly disagree with the idea that most men start out good or evil and stay that way. Ayn Rand's characters were abstractions, not real people. Most people are neither all-good nor all-evil, and most people's moral status changes over time. Many of the very good people I know, at one time in their lives were not-so-good, corrected their wrongs, and moved forward (myself included).

I was not assuming that this particular beginning had something special about it. I was assuming that it might have something special about it.

It's not really all that useful to consider might-bes without looking at what it would mean to take them as ares.

I'm abandoning this topic (I might return to it if I see something that really pique's my interest). I've said just about everything I have to say on the subject.

[hunterrose]

Exactly. This is what I meant when I wrote that the life standard is a part of your nature as a man.

Ah on looking back at what you said, I see that I too was missing your point. I indeed largely agree with you.

The things discussed would seem to suggest IMO that the original choice to live is based on that preexisting standard.

• every person has a metaphysically-given standard
  
• this standard exists before the choice to live
  
• the choice to live closely corresponds to the metaphysically-given standard
  
• the choice to reject life closely corresponds to rejecting the metaphysically-given standard
  
• no one originally chooses to die
  
• no one originally chooses to reject the metaphysically-given standard
  

That said, I keep seeing the same basic (fallacious) counter-position over and over, so unless I see something truly new, like a reason for choosing one way or the other that does not appeal to some standard of value, I've said everything I have to say here.

But if you've agreed that there is a metaphysically-given standard that exists before this choice to live, then how is it fallacious, considering everything, to suggest that the (original) choice to live is based on the metaphysical-given standard?? What possible argument is there that, at whatever point the choice to live is made, that it isn't based on the preexisting, metaphysically-given standard, but is unreferenced?

[softwareNerd]

To live is in man's nature. I doubt that anyone (other than a suicide who changes his mind) makes an explicit choice to live?

However, when exploring ethics, one can trace back to the fundamental fact of life. It is then that one realizes that life is a fundamental choice (or fundamental alternative, as "dondigitalia" would prefer ).

As human beings we do have the choice to live or die. It is in our nature to live; yet, we can choose to die. There's no conflict between those facts.

[dondigitalia]

But if you've agreed that there is a metaphysically-given standard...

The standard that exists prior to the choice to live is a standard of action, not a standard of value. It is a standard (of sorts), but is not a moral standard.

...(or fundamental alternative, as "dondigitalia" would prefer ).

I actually changed my position on that preference, when I learned (as part of this discussion )

that the choice to think and the choice to live are the same exact thing, viewed from a different perspective. I still recognize a difference between "alternative" and "choice," but I've lost any reservations about referring to the fundamental choice as "a choice to live."

[Capitalism Forever]

If there is no standard by which a choice is made, how is there not an equal probability?

Probability is an epistemological concept characterizing the possible outcomes of deterministic processes. It is not applicable to volitional choices.

If you flipped a coin a hundred times in an unbiased way, you could validly say that the number of heads will probably be around fifty, that it is extremely unlikely that there will be no heads at all, and other things like that. The reason you can validly say this is that you know that the flip is unbiased, that the coin always obeys the same laws of physics, and so on. If the coin had a will, it could decide to be a "good" coin and always fall with the head side up, messing up all your statistically-based predictions.

Besides, there IS a standard by which the fundamental choice is made: the standard of life. As I said, we all have this standard; it is entailed in the metaphysically given facts about man's nature. The standard determines what the outcome of the choice ought to be, but it does not automatically cause everyone to get the choice right. That's why it's a choice.

How is it not a constant, i.e. ongoing choice?

It is an ongoing choice, but it's unusual for a person to fluctuate between rationality and irrationality. You don't typically decide, "I'll be rational until Friday next week, and then I'll see." When you choose reason or unreason, you typically make a choice for life, and then you ongoingly affirm that choice (with more or less consistency) without changing your mind about what you plan to choose throughout the rest of your life.

Good and evil depend on some standard of value, though. Someone who doesn't choose to live can be neither good nor evil. That's the whole point!!!

You don't choose to live. I believe this misconception is at the root of most of the mistaken ideas in this thread. You choose to think, and with it you choose life, i.e. the attainment of your standard, as a consequence--or you choose not to think, and with it you choose death as a consequence, which is the failure to meet your standard. Again, the actions you may choose are thinking and non-thinking; life and death are the consequences of either action you may choose. When you choose to think, you might say, "I am choosing to live," but that means "I am choosing to do what is necessary in order for me to live" ; you are only indirectly choosing to live; what you directly choose to do is think.

(Or you might say, "I am choosing to attain my standard," which again is really saying, "I am choosing to do what is necessary to attain my standard." And conversely, person who chooses not to think might as well be saying: "I am choosing to fail to meet my standard," which means, "I am choosing not to do what is necessary to meet my standard.")

It's not really all that useful to consider might-bes without looking at what it would mean to take them as ares.

Well, if this particular might-be were an is, i.e. if there were indeed something special about the beginning of conceptualization, that would mean that my hypothesis was correct. Although I think it might be that this is not the thought you meant to prompt me to.