Ifat Glassman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) 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/ I just discovered 2 days ago that Objectivism has a fundamental contradiction. I don't have a new theory yet. Objectivism is what I have been relying on for years. Ask me again in a few years, I'll have an answer then. 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". Everything in what you said is wrong. Good and evil are not generated once a man makes a choice. Good and evil (what they are) do not depend in any way on man's choice. The choice does not create the standard. The good according to Objectivism is that which furthers man's life, regardless of what any specific man might chose. If you try to base the foundation of good and evil on that which serves a man's choice, you get all kind of freakish things. For example: I choose to live like a dog: therefor the good is that which serves my purpose. See? it just can't work. Either morality is Objective, or it depends on people's whims. I am deeply shocked, but I honestly think there is a fundamental contradiction in Objectivism. I don't know how to solve it yet, but it is crystal clear that it exists and there is no way around it. And it is not just on this suicide example, but there are many more. Objectivism treats pleasurable life as an ultimate value, and not life as an ultimate value. It does so implicitly though, like a thief in the night, unnoticed. Well I see you thief! Edited October 31, 2006 by ifatart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) Let me take a stab at this. I don't see a fundamental contradiction, just a disagreement as to definitions. Let's say that "man's life", properly understood, entails happiness and pleasure among other things arising out of his nature. So far I see no contradiction, just a need to better delineate the nature of man to answer questions regarding the life proper to him and thus determine what is good for him. It would be irrational for you to choose to live like a dog, because you are not a dog. It's not your identity. Your identity objectively determines what "the good" is for you, and you ought to observe it. Once you know what is good, you know what is bad. As to suicide, the answer would ultimately depend once again on your identity as a living human. This is a fair matter for debate I think - to me, man's nature is to maximize objective values such as beauty, and since suicide amounts to a zeroing of values, it is contrary to man's nature except in extraordinary cases for individuals whose condition completely forecloses all achievement - but those are obviously rare exceptions. Edited October 31, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Let me take a stab at this. I don't see a fundamental contradiction, just a disagreement as to definitions. Let's say that "man's life", properly understood, entails happiness and pleasure among other things arising out of his nature. So far I see no contradiction, just a need to better delineate the nature of man to answer questions regarding the life proper to him and thus determine what is good for him. Nice try, wrong argument. Read "The Objectivist Ethics" in VoS to see the definition of life which Ayn Rand is using as the foundation of morality: "A process of self-sustaining, self-generated action". She makes it very clear that by "life" she basically means "the state of not being dead". While the problem might be solved by saying that man's life means a happy life, this is not the way it is phrased nor meant in Objectivism. I'm not saying that the problem can't be solved, I'm just saying that there is a contradiction in Objectivism. Of course, contradictions can't exist (metaphysically) so it is possible to solve it. But not without acknowledging first that there is an error. It would be irrational for you to choose to live like a dog, because you are not a dog. It's not your identity. Thank you for pointing that out to me. why, I was just about ready to bark, when you came in and posted this brilliant observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) I disagree as to your interpretation. Rand made clear in "The Objectivist Ethics" that survival means not merely physical survival, but "the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." Since the range of man's choices extends well beyond choosing "the state of not being dead", that is not what Rand meant by survival. The issue remains one of determining the nature of man. For example, if an aspect of man's nature is to create things of beauty, then his survival in that aspect requires certain terms, methods, conditions, and goals. Thank you for pointing that out to me. why, I was just about ready to bark, when you came in and posted this brilliant observation. You're welcome. Edited October 31, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) 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. Would suggest you check the Lexicon, under happiness. Rand specifically addresses this "supposed contradiction" you have found. Sustaining your life, and the pursuit of happiness are one and the same. She says basically something to that exact effect. (I'll quote it when I get home). It is not a case of happiness before, above, below, or beside sustaining life. You are creating a false alternative by taking Rand out of context, and then calling it a contradiction. To say "A happy life is the standard of good" is redundant. That is what "life is the standard..." means. Sophia has this grasped correctly. Edited October 31, 2006 by KendallJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 I disagree as to your interpretation.It is not my interpretation. It is stated explicitly by Ayn Rand. I have quoted her. What she means by "life" and by "survival" was very clear. It is you who is inventing things as if the meaning of words can be replaced at whim. It is you who is ignoring the definition Rand supplied, and instead leaning on your own interpretation, which you supported with no quotes. It is you who proves that you have not read/understood the article by giving a ridiculous interpretations to words that were defined in the very article. Rand made clear in "The Objectivist Ethics" that survival means not merely physical survival, but "the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." Since the range of man's choices extends well beyond choosing "the state of not being dead", that is not what Rand meant by survival. The issue remains one of determining the nature of man. For example, if an aspect of man's nature is to create things of beauty, then his survival in that aspect requires certain terms, methods, conditions, and goals.(bold emphasis mine) Man might have a lot of aspects of existence open to his choice, man might have a lot of terms, conditions and sub-goals through which he can achieve survival. It does not change the meaning of survival. Man might be a rational being. If he to survive, he must recognize his nature. This does not mean that Survival is not what it is. Words are not rubber. Read the article: survival and life are defined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Good and evil (what they are) do not depend in any way on man's choice. The choice does not create the standard. The good according to Objectivism is that which furthers man's life, regardless of what any specific man might chose. If you try to base the foundation of good and evil on that which serves a man's choice, you get all kind of freakish things. For example: I choose to live like a dog: therefor the good is that which serves my purpose. All I can suggest is that if you really believe that you're accurately representing what Objectivism says, then you should make an honest effort to prove that this is what it says. In so doing, I feel reasonably confident that -- if you were patient -- you would understand where your error lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) It is not my interpretation. It is stated explicitly by Ayn Rand. I have quoted her. What she means by "life" and by "survival" was very clear. It is you who is inventing things as if the meaning of words can be replaced at whim. It is you who is ignoring the definition Rand supplied, and instead leaning on your own interpretation, which you supported with no quotes. It is you who proves that you have not read/understood the article by giving a ridiculous interpretations to words that were defined in the very article. (bold emphasis mine) Man might have a lot of aspects of existence open to his choice, man might have a lot of terms, conditions and sub-goals through which he can achieve survival. It does not change the meaning of survival. Man might be a rational being. If he to survive, he must recognize his nature. This does not mean that Survival is not what it is. Words are not rubber. Read the article: survival and life are defined. Your assertion is simply incorrect. I did quote her - from the bottom of page 26, Signet paperback edition. Look it up. She says "such is the meaning of the definition: that which is required for man's survival qua man. It does not mean a momentary or merely physical survival. ... Man's survival qua man means the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." Read the last sentence carefully. It says "survival ... in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice". Not "through" -- "in". Thus, Rand is saying that there is survival in many aspects of existence: there is physical survival, there is intellectual survival, there is psychological survival, and so on. Not merely physical survival. My point is that these aspects derive from man's nature, so to know what "the good" is, you must understand that nature so as to correctly choose the terms, methods, conditions, and goals required for survival in each. Yes? Edited October 31, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) There is more comming from me on this topic later tonight but in the meantime... 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. The choice to live is the choice to accept the realm of reality. It is true that choosing to live is hierarchically prior to recognizing rationality as a virtue but the fact that one is alive while contemplating suicide makes one able to rationally evaluate the value of their own particular life. If one is in chronic, intolerable pain, then being pain free might be a preferred alternative to living in constant pain. It does not mean that one stops to hold life as a standard of value. It only means that this person’s own life as a particular value is not worth maintaining anymore. That is what I ment. Life is an intrinsic value according to Ayn Rand's statement ("the good is that which..."). This is how you understand Objectivist ethics, which is a missinterpretation on your part. I will post more tonight. Edited October 31, 2006 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) I can understand why reading "The Objectivist Ethics" might lead one to conclude that by "survival" Rand meant merely physical survival - most of the article is spent denouncing the collectivist mindset which leads, literally, to physical death, and framed as such it is easy to mistake the argument for something far too limited in scope. Fortunately she does make clear that man's survival means his entire survival - the survival not just of his body, but of his mind, and of all aspects of his existence open to his choice. A far better explanation of Rand's view of man's essential nature can be found in The Romantic Manifesto. I quote the following from "Art and Sense of Life" (p. 36, Signet edition): "An artist (as, for instance, the sculptors of Ancient Greece) who presents man as a God-like figure is aware of the fact that men may be crippled or diseased or helpless; but regards these conditions as accidental, and irrelevant to the essential nature of man - and he presents a figure embodying strength, beauty, intelligence, self-confidence, as man's proper, natural state." (emphasis added). This shorthand could fairly be used to describe the Ideal Man of Rand's novels. The point I wish to make is that Rand's view of man's nature goes well beyond his physical survival, or even the maintenance of a passionless reasoning capacity. The heroes portrayed in her novels are passionate and filled with radiant joy. "This," she seems to say, "is man's essential nature." There is a great deal of truth there that begins to delve into the concept of man's nature in a way that goes beyond physical survival. Once again, it is a fuller understanding of that nature that is required, if we are to arrive at an understanding of what "the good" entails. I don't wish to make it sound trite or easy. I know it isn't - I simply want to suggest that what is needed, more than an argument over whether or not "survival" means mere subsistence, is a thorough investigation into the aspects of man's nature as the link between what those seeking the clarity of the Objectivist philosophy need and what much of Rand's work actually supplies. Edited November 1, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Would suggest you check the Lexicon, under happiness. Rand specifically addresses this "supposed contradiction" you have found. To say "A happy life is the standard of good" is redundant. That is what "life is the standard..." means. Sophia has this grasped correctly. Found it. Under Ultimate Value, not happiness. Reference is "The Objectivist Ethics", VOS 25; pb 29 The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one's own life as one's ultimate value, and one's own happiness as one's highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 My question is "How can committing suicide be good according to the standard of good". The choice to live is the choice to accept the realm of reality and thus a precondition for the very existence of rationality and morality. Therefore one can not use rational and moral justification for the choice to live. Nothing is good or bad for oneself unless one chooses to live, and nothing can be judged reasonable or unreasonable unless it is relative to some goal, and only the choice to live makes goals possible. The authority of rationality stands on two things: the nature of reality and a person's desire to remain within reality, that is, one's desire to live. Reason's requirements arise once a person embraces life. If one rejects life, the moral code is inapplicable. The choice to reject life removes that person from the issue of morality. Commitment to death removes one's basis for reason and morality. Thus the action of suicide is amoral. Because an act is amoral does not mean that there are no basis for others to judge such an act. Arbitrary rejection of life, when a good life is possible, to choose death over life is the ultimate evil -- a rejection of reality itself and it deserves condemnation. You may find this quote interesting: Tara Smith wrote in Viable Values, pp. 108-109: 'What makes life worth living?' is thus a question without a rational answer. My point is not to deny that life is worthwhile; the point is that one cannot reason another person into the choice to live. No roster of wonderful things constitutes the correct explanation of why all human beings should live. The choice depends on what kind of experience a given individual finds satisfactory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Read "The Objectivist Ethics" in VoS to see the definition of life which Ayn Rand is using as the foundation of morality: "A process of self-sustaining, self-generated action". She makes it very clear that by "life" she basically means "the state of not being dead". Except that this is not how she defines the Standard of Value, man's life. Seeker's quote is correct. "the standard by which one judges what is good or evil -- is man's life [not life in general], or; that which is required for man's survival qua man.... 'Man's survival qua man' means the terms, conditions...." Standard = Man's life (not life, in general) = that required for survival qua man = terms, conditions, in all aspects... This is more than not being dead. Based on this, it may be possible to survive, i.e. have life in general as Rand defined it (and as you cling to), but not qua man. In such a case, if you judge suicide by the standard of value of life, then you are correct, it must be evil. But if you judge it by Rand's explicitly stated standard, man's life, then it cannot be evil. While the problem might be solved by saying that man's life means a happy life, this is not the way it is phrased nor meant in Objectivism. Nice try, but wrong. See reference above. "Happy life" is redundant. The problem is solved by you realizing you have used the wrong definition as the standard of value. Rand explicitly states man's life, not life or survival, in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Life is an intrinsic value according to Ayn Rand's statement ("the good is that which..."). There are no intrinsic values according to Objectivism. The intrinsic theory states that 'the good' is inherent in certain things or actions, regardless of context. The good is good in, by, and, of itself. The concept of value is separated from the beneficiary. Since according this theory, life is intrinsically good, man does not have a right to end it. He has to endure life regardless of consequences for him; regardless of conditions of life ending it is a sin for which he will burn in hell for eternity. In contrast to that, Objectivism states that the good is not an attribute of things in themselves. The good is an aspect of reality in relation to man. Rand wrote that: "Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question of: Of value to whom and for what?. Objectivism does not permit the separation of value from beneficiary and purpose. According to Objectivism man does not have a duty to live when a proper life qua man is not possible to him. When the conditions of his life become unbearable - that is the context from which he judges the value of his life as good or bad, for him. Since there is a scenario under which, for a particular person, in a specific context, choosing non-existance maybe better than remaining in existance, life is not an intrinsic value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted November 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Objectivism starts by saying that the good is that which furthers the life of an organism. Then it goes on to discuss different types of Organisms, their nature, and their sets of values. The standard of morality remains the same. Ayn Rand builds man's ethics from this. This is where she starts: this is how she defines the good, for any living entity, man being a sub-case. Based on this, she proceeds to say that the only way man can survive is by living according to his nature, and that the only way to survive is by investing in the long term, since always focusing on the short term will lead to quick annihilation, and to destruction of his life in the near future. Then, somehow, all of a sudden, when it comes to man, a sub-case of an organism, the standard of morality changes. "Life" is not longer a "self-sustaining, self-generated action", but it is "success in business, enjoying children, having happiness, and more". This is what y'all are saying. Where is the logical link between the two? From what I've read, the starting point of morality for man is the same good/evil as it is for all organisms. It is like David Odden said: Life (as in physical existence) is the standard of good/evil. but in order to achieve it, man has to live according to his nature, which means to be rational. From this the rest follows: he must have a productive work, must invest in the long-term, etc'. But the starting point remains the same. Then, from "man must live qua man to survive" she adds "the natural state of man is to experience happiness" and then "if man cannot have happiness, death is a good choice". Well, if this isn't a 0=1 I don't know what is. Unless the starting point of morality is not "furthers life (physical state) is the good", there is a contradiction here. And from what I have read it is the starting point for all life forms. I am going to quote From the article later, and establish what I said here with quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Then, somehow, all of a sudden, when it comes to man, a sub-case of an organism, the standard of morality changes.Ifat, to understand exactly what you consider as a flaw, let me see if I can restate your objection in my own words.Rand shows how other animals, (say) a lion for instance, have certain values that make sense as a means to their survival. Rand would have spoken of a value-pursuing lion as a "surviving lion", not as a "contented lion" nor as a "happy lion". Therefore, you wonder how she can make the leap from "surviving human" to "happy human".Is that a correct restatement of your objection, or is there a nuance that I'm missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) "Life" is not longer a "self-sustaining, self-generated action", but it is "success in business, enjoying children, having happiness, and more". This is what y'all are saying. Where is the logical link between the two? The link is man's nature. The article "The Psychology of Pleasure" (VoS paperback p. 71) states that "pleasure is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need". Thus, man does not survive in his psychological aspect (and thus, survive qua man) without pleasure. There are five areas "that allow man to experience the enjoyment of life: productive work, human relationships, recreation, art, sex." (p. 72). For man, a process of self-generated action that failed to provide pleasure would not be self-sustaining in that man would not survive psychologically. That's the connection. Edited November 1, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted November 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) Ifat, to understand exactly what you consider as a flaw, let me see if I can restate your objection in my own words.Is that a correct restatement of your objection, or is there a nuance that I'm missing? You are missing a nuance. Ayn Rand starts by making a general statement about all living things, about good and evil for all living things. The nature of every animal determines the specific values for it. If a lion is a perceptual being, then sense organs are a value for it. If it eats meat, then rabbits are a value to it. If an animal is conceptual, then reason is a value for it. The standard of value for all creatures, however, is their physical existence. It is never survival of all the aspects of the organism, rather it is: survival of the aspects of the organism are required for it to survive physically. The standard of value for a lion is not: survival of perceptual faculty, survival of legs, teeth, and feel-good-chemical mechanism. The standard of value for it is not "life qua lion" but rather: life (physical state). This is the same for all organisms. The nature of the animal is the thing that needs to be obeyed in order for it to survive physically. Not "the survival of all the aspects of the animal is the good". If a lion looses a leg it is bad because it hinders it's physical existence, not because the existence of it's leg is the standard of good for it. Did I get the nuance clear, or should I explain further? Seeker: my answer to sNerd applies directly to you: Rand builds ethics from this starting point. "The good is that which furthers life (physical state)". And not "The good is that which furthers the survival of all the aspects of an organism's nature". So you did not provide the logical link, probably because you did not see clearly the gap I was pointing at. So here it is, I hope you see it now. Edit: Just want to make clearer why the devil's advocate does not point at the direction of the flaw that I see: Your lion example, sNerd, seems to go in the direction of showing that Rand always meant "life" to be "that which is experienced by the animal, to the best of it's capacity". So "life" for an Amoeba and plant would be a mental blank, life for an animal would be pleasure/pain, and life for a human would be happiness/sadness (or something in that direction). So your next step would be to show that in fact "happy life" was always behind the scenes when she said "life", but only when humans are discussed. But I think this was never meant by Rand: she always meant "life" as physical existence. Edited November 1, 2006 by ifatart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) Seeker: my answer to sNerd applies directly to you: Rand builds ethics from this starting point. "The good is that which furthers life (physical state)". And not "The good is that which furthers the survival of all the aspects of an organism's nature". So you did not provide the logical link, probably because you did not see clearly the gap I was pointing at. So here it is, I hope you see it now. I can't find the exact quotations that support the premise that Rand ever said that survival entails physical existence excluding such aspects as psychological in the case of man. Where specifically does Rand make that claim? Is the idea rooted in the fact that all existents exist physically? The human psyche can, in fact, be described in physical terms - a collection of neurons organized in a particular physical pattern, for example - so could that be the connection you seek? Edited November 1, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Ifat, At first, I thought there were two sub-thread to this thread: whether happiness is a valid goal; and, whether suicide is ever justified I think I now see where you're coming from in seeing these as a single issue. Again, re-stating, in my own words, I think your argument is as follows: A lion fulfilling lion values is a "contented lion", but that contentment is a result of doing the things that promote it's existence. In this sense, the pursuit of life is the primary and the contentment is the result. Similarly, a human pursuing values must pursue values, and happiness is a result. So, if we assume that a man is in a situation where he can pursue his life and be happy, then we can use the terms "pursue your life" and "pursue your long-term rational happiness" more or less interchangeably. However, what if we assume that man is faced with a situation where he cannot be happy in the pursuit of his life? If we find man in such a situation, one what basis can we say: suicide is okay? Is that closer to what you're saying? [sorry if this seems tedious, but I thinks it's important to be really clear.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) The standard of value for it is not "life qua lion" but rather: life (physical state). This is the same for all organisms. The nature of the animal is the thing that needs to be obeyed in order for it to survive physically. Not "the survival of all the aspects of the animal is the good". If a lion looses a leg it is bad because it hinders it's physical existence, not because the existence of it's leg is the standard of good for it. Did I get the nuance clear, or should I explain further? Except that life is not the same for all organisms. You seem to have focused on the abstraction Rand generated to describe all life without recognizing that such abstraction does not exist except in particular concrete instances, each of which has its own specialized requirements. In computer science terms (sorry but this is my field so I understand it better this way) the class "living organism" is an abstract superclass of all concrete subclasses that belong to it such as "human", "lion", etc. There can be no instances of "living organism" as such, but only by instantiation of one of the subclasses. Rand is describing in general terms that apply to all organisms what life is, but that generalization always accompanies the existence of a concrete instance of a more particular class to which attach specific requirements. There is no contradiction because nothing exists only as a living organism abstractly, but always as a living organism of a particular type. So for a lion, the standard of value is "life qua lion" because that is the concrete instance of the abstract concept of "life qua living organism" (which never exists independently). Does this help at all? Edited November 2, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) By the way, lest I be misunderstood, Rand herself explains how to understand what she is saying in the very same article. See "The Objectivist Ethics", VoS p. 21 (paperback): "A concept [is] an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind." The word "organism" denotes just such an abstraction. What she says about a living organism's standard of value is true at that level of abstraction. What she says about man's standard of value is true at that level of abstraction. The two do not contradict each other, but one is more specific because it deals with a more specific level of abstraction. Edited November 2, 2006 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted November 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Except that life is not the same for all organisms. You seem to have focused on the abstraction Rand generated to describe all life without recognizing that such abstraction does not exist except in particular concrete instances, each of which has its own specialized requirements. If a concrete has a feature that contradicts the abstraction describing it - it cannot belong in that group. Rand defines life as a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. From the context in which she uses this word, it is made clear that she means the physical existence of an organism, or that state in which his process of self-generated action is active: An organism's life depend on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from it's physical background, and the actions of it's own body, the action of using that fuel properly. Or how about this: There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence - and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of innate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes it's form, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only for a living organism that faces a constant alternative: life or death. Life is a process of self-generated, self sustaining action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; it's chemical elements remain, but it's life goes out of existence.She is using the word "life" in the biological sense. It is made clear from the first quote I gave. So now, if man is a concrete under the abstraction "organism", then ethics should apply to man the same way it applies to every organism. "The good is that which furthers the organism's life". If ethics as defined for all organisms contradicts ethics that apply to men, then either man is not an organism, or there is an error in one set of ethics. As for survival of man: It is made perfectly clear that by "survival" she means physical state of existence. It is made clear by her use of the word "survival" to describe the state of men who attempt to live (and survive) by reducing themselves to animals, by mimicking others or stealing: The men who attempt to survive not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals. ... If some men do not chose to think, but survive by imitating and repeating .... their survival is made possible only by those who did chose to think... Survival does not mean anything fancy, it simply mean the state of not being dead. Those men succeed at keeping their body operating. They may do that by acting like humans or not, but the word "survive" is used in the biological sense. Yet, When it comes to man, Ayn rand starts by defining ethics in a way that (eventually) contradicts the definition for all organisms. It is the second definition, the definition of ethics for man that I have been always using. She start by saying: The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics - the standard by which one judges what is good or evil - is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Where is the logical link between the two, you ask? well here is the really bad part: the connection is that life (process of self...) is still the standard of value, but since man can only survive (exist physically) as man, ethics become that which is contributes to the survival of a rational animal. This is a tricky one: The survival of man qua man is the good only because there is no other way for man to survive. THAT, is the link. And there lies the problem. Because she starts from something and eventually reaches a conclusion that contradicts it. There is a difference between "The survival of man as an animal that can practice reason, experience enjoyment and achieve happiness is the standard of good/evil" and "The survival of man is the standard of good/evil, and having reason, ability to enjoy etc' are good because they are required for his survival". HUGE difference. The problem is that Ayn Rand builds ethics in the later way, not the former one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Objectivism starts by saying that the good is that which furthers the life of an organism. ... I am going to quote From the article later, and establish what I said here with quotes. This would be a good place to start. I am keenly interested in seeing your argument that this is where Objectivism starts, using quotes. Of course since you are talking about "starts", the quotes can't be taken out of context. The starting point is, obviously, the starting point, and that means you have no more that 2 pages to consider when talking about where Objectivism starts. This is, btw, a striking fact about Rand's presentations which sets her apart from other modern philosophers (and not so modern philosophers), namely that you can actually see her philosophy embodied in her writing. First things really are first, which means that you don't slog your way through battalions of straw men and reams of failed discovery procedures, for pages and pages, only to get to the actual fundamental claim half-way through the article. So grab those two pages, and tell me your justification for saying what you said is the starting point for Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) Survival does not mean anything fancy, it simply mean the state of not being dead. Those men succeed at keeping their body operating. They may do that by acting like humans or not, but the word "survive" is used in the biological sense. But this is exactly where the issue arises, and you illustrate your failure to grasp this point. If Rand had meant that life as survival was the standard of value, then her exact quote directly contradicts her later statements about man's life as the standard of value. If life as survival is the standard of value, then surviving by force and not reason must also be good since it results in survival, i.e. surviving as an animal must also be the good. The implications of this for your case are more than just around suicide. If you believe that Rand was referring to life, in general, as the standard of good, then you must also advocate that living by force is part of the good, becase Rand said that those who survive by force still survive (albeit as an animal) It destroys any of the other Objectivist values you hold. It is not just a small contradiction, it turns you into a non-Objectivist. We know that survival by force is specifically evil, and here you have an example where survival as an animal is specifically used in a derogatory context. Therefore, survival qua man MUST be something different than just plain survival. If it wasn't, then surviving as an animal, by the use of force, would be the good for man. Life, i.e. surviving in general includes only those things that are true of all life. Surviving as a man, must include more than this. The sub abstraction does not contradict the abstraction, it also includes those things that are only true of the sub-abstraction, in addition to the more general requirements. The broader abstraction does not in any way mean that specific sub-abstracions MUST ONLY include characteristics of the broader abstraction. X characteristics define the concept Life. X+Y characteristics define the concept Man's Life. The concept lamp is defined by a) light giving, and device The concept table lamp is defined by a) and c) of a size and shape to set on a table This is in no way contradictory. Seeker has this correct. Edited November 2, 2006 by KendallJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.