Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Life as an End in Itself, a Standard, and Ultimate End

Rate this topic


Ifat Glassman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I never said anything about reproducing being the ultimate goal of living things. I said that the functions of the body of organisms lead always to two main goals: self-preservation, and reproduction.

And I asked how one goes from this fact to say that the ultimate, single goal of all living things is their own survival.

I have a hard time understanding what you are confused about. Those two goals that you mentioned, self-preservation and reproduction, are not equivalent in importance. Survival is the primary and everything else, including reproduction, follows from that. I am not telling you anything that you don't already know so what is the confusion?

Also, when it comes to reproduction, it is often only a chance at reproduction. A plant may produce spores but they may never develop into another plant, majority of them don't, a fact that bares no consequences for that particular plant's life.

For individual living organism (not on whole species level) the lack of ability to reproduce (or choice not to when it comes to a human) bares no consequences, when it comes it's survival.

The ultimate goal (notice that I don't say single goal or only goal - I say ultimate, primary) is self-preservation. Living is what makes other goals possible. Again, I don't understand your confusion.

Another problem is with the meaning of "life" used in "life is the standard by which all other values are judged".

My primary goal is to lead a happy life and I know what 'happy life' means for me. It logically follows that I evaluate my choices, actions, options in reference to that primary goal. Is this... enhancing it or is it taking away from it?

My life is my reference. If your life is not your reference then what other standard are you using or proposing in it's place?

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I need my points answered first. Not generally, but specifically. If someone tried to answer them instead of explaining Objectivism to me in general it would be good.
Okay, Ifat, I'm taking a completely fresh approach at the topic. I don't know how to do it without "explaining Objectivism"; but, here goes... ...

Most conventional ethical codes want us to look outward for the standard of value. Religious ethics hold up "God's will" as the standard. The secular altruists say that "community good" is a standard. Other secularists reject that and say that man's own life is the standard for his values. For instance Hedonism would say this and at a certain high level abstraction Objectivism would agree that man's own life should be the standard that guides his actions. [Hedonism would go on to say: man's happiness is whatever he wants it to be. Objectivism would disagree and say that man is an entity with a specific nature, living in a world with a specific nature, and that man has to discover the means of Happiness.]

Saying that man's actions must be directed toward his own life, his own happiness, does not imply that the man's happiness comes from maximizing the number of hours, days, years in his life. That -- i.e. what are the requirements for happiness -- is part of the discovery that man has to make. The "happiness" of a lion comes from living as a lion; so, the happiness of a man comes from living like a man; but, in the case of man, he has to discover what this means.

Life is the standard of values in this sense: because life, therefore values, therefore goals, therefore goal-directed action. The notion of value is meaningless to a rock. Leaving aside reproduction, animals are "wired" to (E&OE) act to further their lives. They are also wired to reproduce new lives, but they owe their own lives to such wiring. The "purpose" of such wiring is life. On its own, one cannot go from "other animals act to further their lives" to a deduction that "humans ought to to so too". However, looking at plants and non-human animals strengthens the induction that acting for our own sakes is natural and normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand Ayn Rand's definition of life (which I think is bad, for the reasons I have states but no one referred to yet), it does mean something like "the physical state of not being dead".
If you were to put a link to where you're stated those reasons here, there is a higher likelihood that one might be able to look at and refer to those reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm not going to start where I left off right now, but I have a nagging question about this very subject:

How is it possible that being alive (as in not being dead) is the criterion of morality, and yet Objectivism holds that on certain cases (when one cannot achieve happiness), it is moral to commit suicide?

There seems to be a contradiction here (to me), because if being alive is the standard of good, nothing can be above it, including happiness. Nothing can contradict one's physical existence and still be considered good, and suicide contradicts one's physical existence.

I would really really appreciate a full, integrated answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Rand's "survival" as "man qua man" wasn't concerned merely with preserving physical existence but with flourishing in the sense of achieving human greatness. But what then is greatness? It has to be more than mere subsistence. Why would Roark need to build the Stoddard Temple and not a shack? Is it his need for self-expression, such that happiness varies for each individual? That's subjective happiness, not necessarily susceptible to measurement-omission and thus conceptualization. But that's a problem from an objective point of view, for the creation of that which gives us pleasure emotionally ought to be conceptually explicable. We shouldn't have to always rely on our feelings to tell us what's good, or reduce our standard of value to subsistence when relying on objective concepts to tell us what's good.

Suppose however that there is something else going on that our feelings can sense but that is beyond our current knowledge. Suppose that there are objective patterns in the universe that are part of us - mathematically precise, orderly, and non-random, and these patterns objectively define what is good. Our achievement of them pleases us emotionally, and could be understood conceptually. Objective beauty is one way to express this, and it can be manifest in many ways - visually, musically, mathematically, verbally, and so forth. Thus happiness is not subjective; nor is it mere survival; rather it is a state of existence which conforms to patterns that are beautiful, joyous, and right. If we could better understand these "patterns of greatness" within nature and ourselves, we could describe them objectively and proceed to create them deliberately, with knowledge and not just feeling. That Rand failed to explicitly describe such patterns does not mean that they do not exist; they merely await our discovery, so that we can use them to create greater happiness. Thoughts?

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being alive is not the Objectivist criteria for morality. In VoS, Ayn Rand speaks of life qua human being. In his excellent lecture series "Understanding Objectivism", Dr. Peikoff makes the point that life is obviously a precondition for action: a Nazi might say: "Yes, live and stay alive as long as possible...in order to serve the state". Mother Teresa might say: "Yes, live and stay alive as long as possible, in order to serve the poor." Take any of the typical ethical theories; regardless of what they talk about, you need to be alive to achieve their version of the "good".

I know you said you want a full, integrated answer; but, since the premise of the question is incorrect, I think it's best to discuss that first. (Also see my post #27 above.)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're posing a false dichotomy. The fundamental choice is between existence and non-existence, living or not living. Recall from Galt's speech "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live". Living doesn't mean anything fancy, and it is emphatically false that the ultimate goal of Objectivists is a happy life; it is, simply, life, meaning "living".

Being alive is not the Objectivist criteria for morality.

What gives?

As for the rest of your post, sNerd, if the standard of morality is the life of a human qua human, how does it follow that the ability to achieve happiness (or simply, happiness) is above one's physical existence (since Objectivism does justify suicide in case that one cannot ever achieve happiness)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the standard of morality is mere subsistence as DavidOdden here implies, then Rand's concept of the Ideal Man would be unintelligible, would it not? Her "sense of life" wasn't just coldly logical. It was passionate. It was romantic. It was filled with a feeling of love and joy that leapt off every page of her novels. For Rand, "life" meant life proper to Man, which meant a great deal more than just not dying. The question for me is how to objectify that beyond a resort to mere subsistence on the one hand, or subjective preference on the other. That's why I suggested the idea of universally "right" patterns of beauty, the creation of which would be the proper Objectivist standard of morality.

By the way, since I'm new here I'll say "hello" to you all. :thumbsup:

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the standard of morality is mere subsistence as DavidOdden here implies, ...
Did David say this in so many words, or is this your interpretation? Could you provide a link to a post, a post#, or a quote, please.

What gives?
:thumbsup: You tell me! In what sense do you mean "criteria"? If you mean life is a pre-condition for action, then I agree. As I indicated in my post, other philosophies will tell you that's true, not just Objectivism. Even Christianity doesn't have rules for behavior in the after-life. However, Objectivism does not say: "stay alive at any cost"? If you're implying that it does, then did you get that from a post in this thread, or from VoS, from "Ragnar" in AS, or elsewhere?

...if the standard of morality is the life of a human qua human, how does it follow that the ability to achieve happiness (or simply, happiness) is above one's physical existence (since Objectivism does justify suicide in case that one cannot ever achieve happiness)?
I'm sorry, Ifat, I really don't understand your question (aside: be patient). By "above", what exactly do you mean? Do you mean "more important than" or "a precondition to" or what? Very roughly, one might say that the bulk of the Objectivist ethics is about how to live a happy life qua human. If one does not want to live a happy life, or if the conditions one finds oneself in are so inimical that one would prefer to die, then Objectivism really cannot make a recommendation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did David say this in so many words, or is this your interpretation? Could you provide a link to a post, a post#, or a quote, please.

That was my interpretation of his quotation from the post preceding mine, "living doesn't mean anything fancy, and it is emphatically false that the ultimate goal of Objectivists is a happy life; it is, simply, life, meaning 'living'." By saying that happiness is not the goal, it seemed to take the side of the survivalists in the "survivalist vs. flourisher" controversy. As I tend to think that from Rand's perspective the dichotomy is false, i.e. that survival and flourishing are inseparable to man qua man, I wished to make the point explicit: a happy life is indeed the ultimate goal of Objectivism. I hope that I did not misunderstand the quotation; I sought to give it its plain meaning.

Once again, I suggest that there exists an objective standard beyond mere existence by which to measure morality, namely the creation of that which conforms to universal, non-arbitrary patterns of beauty and perfection.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeker, I agree with what you're saying, but I think you misunderstood David O.

... an objective standard beyond mere existence by which to measure morality, namely the creation of that which conforms to a universal, non-arbitrary pattern of beauty and perfection.
I won't put words in David's mouth, but I interpret what he's saying as follows: From a philosophic perspective, the standard (a.k.a. "ultimate goal") is to live according to one's nature. Happiness will be the result.

This formulation stresses the objective nature of goals. Here's another way to put the same thing. The hedonist approach is: "this is my goal because it makes me happy", while the Objective approach is "this is my goal because it is right (a.k.a. furthers my life qua human) and therefore is makes me happy". [When I say approach, I mean philosophic reasoning, not a thought process that one has to repeat for familiar categories.]

Now, I hope David does not surprise me with a post from his shack in Montana, saying I completely misunderstood him and that survivalists are the true Objectivists! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By saying that happiness is not the goal, it seemed to take the side of the survivalists in the "survivalist vs. flourisher" controversy.
Well, since I'm a flourishologist and not a survivalist, I'll take mock umbrage at that. What I would have said is that from a philosophic perspective, the standard (a.k.a. "ultimate goal") is to live according to one's nature. Happiness will be the result. However, that would be redundant, I think. This is a small be really important nit to pick. My standard recommendation is Tara Smith's book Viable Values, which really explained to me the difference between "living" and "avoiding the morgue". Or, to put it simply, "life" entails "happy life".

Now back to the shack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mod's note:

If one assumes that life as a standard does not merely mean "staying alive", one is then faced with the question: how does one know what is good for man qua man? Isn't it just subjective choice?

Seeker raised this question, but I've split it into a thread of it's own (link).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it possible that being alive (as in not being dead) is the criterion of morality, and yet Objectivism holds that on certain cases (when one cannot achieve happiness), it is moral to commit suicide?

There seems to be a contradiction here (to me), because if being alive is the standard of good, nothing can be above it, including happiness. Nothing can contradict one's physical existence and still be considered good, and suicide contradicts one's physical existence.

There is no contradiction.

Values are not intrinsic.

Staying alive is not intrinsically 'good'. There are many situations (for example painful terminal illness) in which staying alive may not be rationally considered as 'good'.

If the person seeks to live, the requirements of human life/survival provide a measure by which to make moral evaluations. Life is not the ultimate good in all cases, but instead, if you wish to live, what protects/furthers/ enhances one's life is the good and what endangers/harms/diminishes one's life is the bad. Humans who wish to keep their life must figure out which sorts of actions will foster life and which will hinder it. Life is the criterion of measurement, in that context.

Life is the criterion of measurement of the 'good' or 'bad'. Happiness is a successful state of life. They are connected in a specific kind of relation. If you achieve that which is good by rational standard it will necessary make you happy, however, what makes you happy by some undefined standard is not necessarily the good. Thus whatever makes one happy can not be the standard of morality.

Happiness is the goal of morality not the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An organism's life is it's standard of value: That which furthers it's life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil

Life here is meant the physical state of not being dead, the state in which an organism's processes that further it's life are active.

To sum up the continuation in my own words: Since for man the only way to survive is by living according to his nature, his morality guides him how to live in the only way possible to him: as a rational animal.

The rational is the good, the irrational is the bad. Happiness is the emotional state indicating a man who's every action is moral.

According to the most basic standard of ethics: that which threatens or destroys an organism's life is the evil.

This statement does not carry any exceptions with it.

Now, since committing suicide is destructive of one's life, both in the short term and in the long term (and in every term): it is evil according to the standard of morality.

However, Ayn Rand does justify (which means judges as good) an action of destruction of life when one cannot live a happy life if he stayed alive.

This means that having happiness is more important than having life: it means that life without happiness is worthless, yet the standard of value is that which furthers life: not a happy life, but life.

If we said: A happy life is the standard of good, then suicide could be good. But if we say "Life is the standard of good", then never can an action that destroys life can be good. Just simple logic.

Sophia, you said: "Life is not the ultimate good in all cases"

But it just shows that you are not using the concept "ultimate goal" in the way Ayn Rand meant it:

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means-and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated.

An ultimate goal can not be an ultimate goal sometimes: it is always, and in all cases. You cannot evaluate anything if it's not according to an ultimate value. If you have any other ultimate value which you use to evaluate things on those "other cases" please explain how can one have two different ultimate values, and which one of them wins in your standard of evaluating things, since you cannot have to different evaluations of the same thing and still both be right.

Happiness is the goal of morality not the standard.

Incorrect: Happiness is the result of morality, not the goal. You said it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a subtle but important error in your statement "If the physical state of being alive is the standard by which all other actions of humans are to be judged then suicide is never justified." You must first decide whether to continue living or to not live.

...

IF you have chosen to live, suicide is not a rational means of accomplishing that goal. On the other hand, IF you chose not to live, then feeding yourself is not a rational means of accomplishing that goal. Suicide is rational only if you have death as your ultimate goal. There are circumstances where I could see making that choice.

That which threatens life is the evil, for every organism. Man has the option of choosing: but if he chooses death he chooses evil, since volition being is a private case of an organism. And for ALL organisms life is the standard of good. Thus, if man chooses that which threatens life, their choice, as something that threatens their life is evil.

Moreover, what should man use when making a death or life decision? What is there to guide them if not morality? There is a line of reasoning for justifying suicide. The line of reasoning is a series of evaluations of actions. What is the standard on which these evaluations are based on? The standard is a happy life as the ultimate value. When you say that it is not good to stay alive as a vegetable, that there is no value in it, your standard of value is happy life, whether you have realized it or not.

Moreover, I can give another example in which Ayn Rand would justify choosing something that would threaten one's life, but will increase their happiness: Having children. Children make a man happy, proud, feel good. But one thing they don't do: They do not contribute to one's survival. You might say: but happiness contributes to one's survival, and therefor having children is good: but you would be walking in circles, since happiness should only be the result of one following a moral code, and having children, by itself, does not contribute to one's survival (maybe in some cases, but not always).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the most basic standard of ethics: that which threatens or destroys an organism's life is the evil.

This statement does not carry any exceptions with it.

Now, since committing suicide is destructive of one's life, both in the short term and in the long term (and in every term): it is evil according to the standard of morality.

This is idea of morality as shaped by religion in which life for a volitional being is an intrinsic value, a sentance given to you to serve and you are not in charge of your fate, your life does not belong to you (but to others or God), you have not right to make a decision if you want to live or not. Life by religious standards is a trial, in which you have to proove yourself to be worthy of a better state of existance, which is the after life.

Objectivism says that life not an intrinsic value (objectivism says there are no intrinsic values at all) is yours and you are in charge of it. The decision what you want to do belongs to you.

However, Ayn Rand does justify (which means judges as good) an action of destruction of life when one cannot live a happy life if he stayed alive.

This means that having happiness is more important than having life: it means that life without happiness is worthless, yet the standard of value is that which furthers life: not a happy life, but life.

Happy is a psychological state. I may be happy (for various reasons, success at work, wonderful romantic relationship and family) but in physical pain (which would reduce my overall happiness but not completely destroy it) and still rationally choose not to live. I also don't think that not being happy makes life worthless.

What I think this means is that living must be a value to someone first. If it is not a value for a rational reason, a person is not obligated to keep it. If you don't intend to keep your life morality derived from the requirments for living and for the purpose of keeping life does not apply.

If we said: A happy life is the standard of good, then suicide could be good. But if we say "Life is the standard of good", then never can an action that destroys life can be good. Just simple logic.

I have already given you the answer. Life is only the standard after you choose to keep life.

Sophia, you said: "Life is not the ultimate good in all cases" But it just shows that you are not using the concept "ultimate goal" in the way Ayn Rand meant it: An ultimate goal can not be an ultimate goal sometimes: it is always, and in all cases.

I am repeating myself but.... For volitional being there are no un-choosen obligations, including obligation to live. All values are choosen. Life is the ultimate value after I have made the decision to keep it. For non-volitional organisms situation is different.

Incorrect: Happiness is the result of morality, not the goal. You said it yourself.

The goal of morality is to achieve a successful state of life, which is happiness (and what exactly that means is contextual). You have to be able to keep life in order to achieve any state of it.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia, your post indicates a good ability to understand individual principles: but not to integrate them. You explain individual principles well, but you are not explaining how they come from the same source: but keep on repeating them individually.

I am not at all advocating that man should be morally "compelled"* to keep their physical life at all cost.

I am asking how can suicide be a good thing based on the standard of good as man's life. More accurately, I am pointing at what seems to me as a fundamental contradiction in Objectivism, and asking someone to resolve it.

You have not tried to explain it. Instead you repeat over and over again that "man should not be obligated to keep their life".

*"compelled" in this context is "considered bad if chooses otherwise".

To repeat: I want someone to explain how can it be good to commit suicide, by showing that it furthers a man's life (which is the standard of good).

You try to claim that choosing death is amoral, until one makes the choice, which somehow then generates a standard of values. But that is not true.

Objectivism says that life not an intrinsic value (Objectivism says there are no intrinsic values at all) is yours and you are in charge of it.

...

What I think this means is that living must be a value to someone first. If it is not a value for a rational reason, a person is not obligated to keep it.

First, let me point out something amusing about your sentence: "for a rational reason". Life cannot be a value "for a rational, good reason": life is the standard by which to judge if something is good or rational. I didn't read ITOE yet, but I think this is a "floating abstruction" that you were using here, with the word "rational".

Life is an intrinsic value according to Ayn Rand's statement ("the good is that which..."). Volitional beings are just a sub-case of all organisms. As organisms the basic standard of morality applies to us as well: That which furthers life is the good.

Human beings can choose whether or not to live, but it doesn't contradict the basic principle "that which furthers the life of an organism is the good". It just means that human beings can choose to do what is good for them or what is destructive (bad) for them. But good and bad do not depends on a man's choice. They are Objectively identified as that which is needed to further a man's life. Whether or not someone chooses to live does not change the nature of morality, and if someone chooses a destructive action, if someone chooses death, they chose that which is bad for them.

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia, your post indicates a good ability to understand individual principles: but not to integrate them. You explain individual principles well, but you are not explaining how they come from the same source: but keep on repeating them individually.

Interesting that you came to this conclusion in light of the fact that it is you who is seeing a contradiction where there is not any.

Volitional beings are just a sub-case of all organisms. As organisms the basic standard of morality applies to us as well: That which furthers life is the good.

Morality implies volition, it does not apply to all organisms. Non-volitional animal's actions are amoral. You start from wrong premises and thus you see contradictions.

Man has to hold life as a value by choice. To live is man's basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics wil guide him to actions which are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, he does not need ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That which threatens life is the evil, for every organism. Man has the option of choosing: but if he chooses death he chooses evil, since volition being is a private case of an organism. And for ALL organisms life is the standard of good. Thus, if man chooses that which threatens life, their choice, as something that threatens their life is evil.
Now to repeat the essential two sentences from VOS, "An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil". In the context of life being an organism's ultimate value, that which threatens an organism's life is the evil. In a different context, the question of evil is entirely different (questions of value are meaningless). You can't drop context and turn a contextual truth into an acontextual absolute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a different context, the question of evil is entirely different (questions of value are meaningless). You can't drop context and turn a contextual truth into an acontextual absolute.

"The question of evil" - do you mean "The standard of evil"? As in, what is evil and what is good, is evaluated differently depending on the context?

This isn't possible. You cannot have two sets of ultimate values by which to generate a standard of good/evil, each for different context/case. Agree?

If not, then let me explain why not:

1) Two "ultimate goals" is an impossibility, since one of them, by definition, has to be the lesser goal.

2) Two standards of good and evil is impossible: If they are different, they will necessarily contradict one another in a case that reveals their difference. Since A is A, something cannot be good and evil at the same time.

Sophia: Do you think that suicide can be a good thing in some cases? An action that a rational man should take?

(I am asking this to show you that my question* does NOT present a false dichotomy).

*My question is "How can committing suicide be good according to the standard of good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The question of evil" - do you mean "The standard of evil"? As in, what is evil and what is good, is evaluated differently depending on the context?
What the referent of evil is. The concepts "evil" and "good" exist only when values are possible. If values are impossible, then events that lead to destruction aren't good or bad, they just are. BYW it would also be wrong to conclude that suicide is a good thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the referent of evil is. The concepts "evil" and "good" exist only when values are possible. If values are impossible, then events that lead to destruction aren't good or bad, they just are. BYW it would also be wrong to conclude that suicide is a good thing.

"What the referent of evil is" - Does that mean "what the standard of good and evil is?" (haha).

"The concept evil and good exist only when values are possible" - This is not accurate, and a confusing statement: values are those things which are good for an entity. Your statement seems to reverse the connection between "good" and "value" by saying that if there are no values then there are no good and evil, when in fact it is the other way around: if there is no good and evil, there can be no values. Good and evil can only exist, according to Rand, when few actions are possible, which the existence of an entity (a living organism) depend on. If nothing can destroy an entity - nothing can be good or bad for it. If something can destroy it - it is bad for it.

Moreover, if this sentence of yours is an attempt to deal with the suicide case, then it is not true: a man facing the decision of suicide does have several options, thus good and evil still exist for him. Once a man is dead, nothing can be good/bad for him, until he is dead, that is not the case.

And to the last and most important question: Why would it be wrong to conclude that suicide can be a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, it might be simpler if you would explain your theory of ethics. Is "value" logically dependent on "good" and "evil" or vice versa? What, according to your theory, creates the concept "value", or "good" / "evil"? At some point, I suppose, I should ask how you define "value". I'm just trying to get it in terms of the fundamental axiom, and then what follows from that/

And to the last and most important question: Why would it be wrong to conclude that suicide can be a good thing?
In the context of the choice to live, it is evil (thus not good) because to entirely contradicts the being's fundamental choice and runs completely contrary to the standard of good and evil that this choice entails. On the other hand, the very concept of "value" is impossible in the context of the decision to not exist, and if there is no concept "value" then there can be no concept of a specific value such as "good" or "evil".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...