Ought from Is

[softwareNerd]

Yes, but it dosn't result in survival for the individual organism acting to reproduce, ...

Forget mere survival, it results in the very existence of the individual organism. Here's an organism that does what it does. It does not choose, at least in this regard, it simply does things it was "programmed" to do. If reproduction was not part of that "program", it would not exist. That part of the program only as part of the individual because it is the mechanism by which that individual exists. That mechanism is one of many that allows that organism to exist. That reproductive mechanism, along with various other mechanisms exists in order to further life.

An amoeba divides because that's the way it comes into existence. If it didn't, it wouldn't.

[Seeker]

Not everything about an organism has survival value. Mortality is bad for an organism, but ethics is concerned with making choices given alternatives.

This discussion won't get anywhere without establishing the proper context. Reproductive success may be the ultimate goal of genes, but the context is individual human minds because that is the only context to which an argument about ethics can apply - because only individual human minds make choices.

Every living organism acts to satisfy needs deriving from its unchosen nature. Man does so volitionally using his mind, others do it automatically, but the end goal is the same.

People rationally choose to reproduce to fulfill unchosen physical and psychological needs that reproducing can serve. People eat, drink, breathe, expel waste, seek pleasure, and build empires for the same fundamental reason, to meet their unchosen needs. People do not invent their needs out of thin air. They are metaphysically given. Each man, being volitional, must choose to meet his needs, but he does not have a choice as to what his needs are or how, given his circumstances, he can best fulfill them.

Rand's idea of survival is more than a momentary or physical survival. It is survival in every aspect of a man's life open to his choice across the whole of his lifespan. For example, man requires a healthy psyche to undertake long-range action for his survival. He has psychological needs he therefore must meet to sustain the existence of that aspect of his being, and thus himself. This is not redefining "existence", but applying it to man.

Man is given a psychological urge to choose to pursue pleasure. The choice is his to make, but by design he is given a powerful psychological incentive to want to focus his mind and pursue happiness. To function properly, the built-in incentive of his pleasure/pain mechanism requires he have a proper understanding of what his needs entail.

Every argument of this type must ultimately reduce to a debate about what man's unchosen needs are. We need not fully know and grasp those needs to understand them as the basis of Rand's ethical argument and to validate that argument conceptually. We do however need to refrain from dropping context - which is the prerequisite of every attack on the Objectivist ethics.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Seeker

[Onar Åm]

Mortality is bad for an organism,

Actually, that is not as obviously true as it sounds. There is significant evidence that with rather simple genetic modifications many species can live dramatically longer. Aging it seems is not simply a passive accumulation of errors, mutations and "rust", the organism actually actively turns its self-maintenance off. Organisms commit organizational suicide, and live much shorter than they otherwise would. Why is this? Because death has survival value. Not for the individual that dies of course, but for the next generation. The next generation benefits from the previous generation dying off, thereby releasing scarce resources. This is a wonderful example of how the survival of the individual needs to be balanced to maximise the long term survival of the lineage.

This discussion won't get anywhere without establishing the proper context. Reproductive success may be the ultimate goal of genes, but the context is individual human minds because that is the only context to which an argument about ethics can apply - because only individual human minds make choices.

Even though an individual obviously has to take care of itself, it will be a dead end if it does not also takes step to reproduce. Reproduction is every bit as much part of human nature as individuality. A philosophy of individualism that does not also take into account genetic survival is incomplete. From a survival point of view, not reproducing is irrational.

[Onar Åm]

Whether the mantis knows he is going to get killed is not the issue here. A mantis dosn't know that eating will sustain its existence, so by this line of reasoning you would not be allowed to draw the conclusion that the mantis acts for its own survival either.

Correct.

But as Friedman points out, careful observation reveals that reproduction trumps existence, and this would make, according to the method Rand herself seems to use, reproduction a more ultimate end.

That's a false dichotomy. In order to reproduce, one also needs to exist and prosper as an individual. But in any case, reproduction amounts to a very small percentage of the time an individual exists. To trumpet this short period of the whole chain of existence as the "more ultimate end" is to blatantly ignore the rest of biological existence. The correct view is of course that ALL parts of the chain are equally important. Survival does not merely consist of reproduction. In fact, each and every one is part of a billions of years long unbroken chain of successful individual lives. Each of them must have lived at least long enough to reproduce and secure the well-being of their offsprings. That's a whole lot of existence!

I take this to mean that Rand observes that since the plant act to obtain the objects needed for its continued existence this must be the plants final end. What Friedman says is that organisms also obtain the objects needed for reproductive success, and that this is more fundmental since it trumps survival.

Reproduction is not more fundamental. Reproduction can be viewed as a necessary evil that comes straight out of our mortality. The very fact that we are mortal means that reproduction is the ONLY means of long term survival. For if we didn't reproduce we would at some point ensure our own extinction. Looking at the lifespans of bacteria, extinction would have been imminent 4 billion years ago without reproduction. If it hadn't been for reproduction, we wouldn't exist as individuals.

But reproduction also lead to the fantastic ability of evolutionary learning. By the process of natural selection new individuals that are better at individual survival could be shaped. And look how far that has gotten us. From primordial goo to rational animals with a healthy lifespan of over 70 years. If reproduction was the ultimate goal we'd all still be primordial goo reproducing at an insane rate.

Evolution permits the existence of an animal that commits suicide in order to provide itself as food for its offspring if this action is conductive towards the end of spreading the genes of the parent. Such an animal dosn't currently exist, but altruistic behavior to lesser degees are norm in nature for evolutionary reasons.

Notice that no animals sacrifice their own lives for arbitrary causes. They don't sacrifice themselves so that volcanoes or distant species relatives may live. No they do it for their nearest genetic relative, usually their offspring. Obviously that's no coincidence, or what? WHY do they do this? Because they are repeating the instinctive actions of their ancestors which lead to their own successful existence. Again this goes to show that *total survival* is the ultimate end of life, not individual survival alone, not reproduction alone.

The problem with Binswagers account is that he introduces a chicken and egg problem where non exist. If we take reproductive sucess as the final end of action, then this explains the observations made in nature,

No it does not. Does it explain why chimps relax in the shade, enjoying life, socially picking flees off each other? Does it explain why humans build skyscrapers? Nope. Viewing life only in terms of reproduction gives an incredibly impoverished view of life. Sure, reproduction is a necessary evil to ensure the continued existence of someone very similar to yourself, but life is more than reproduction, something we humans are vivid examples of.

Now, Binswanger wants survival to be the ultimate end which forces him to bizarre claims such that suicide (in the case of the organism I mentioned above) is a survival value to the very organism that commits suicide.

And I think he managed to demonstrate this very well. If an organism is allowed to live 10 successful years because it is born with a suicide gene, then sure it is to its survival advantage in the 10 first years of its life.

He also says that it is a value to the organism to have been born, which is also absurd becuase to the organism this is not an alternative (the very question presupposses an exising organism) so it cannot be a value.

So because life didn't ask to evolve on Earth it is meaningless? C'mon! Most organisms can't "ask" anything, they're pretty unconscious about their own existence. This does not change the fact that they exist as mortal beings, and no matter how they came into existence, this mortality gives their existence value.

Values presupposes life, no one will claim otherwise. The problem is that this by no means imply that existence/non existence is a fundemental alternative in a value signinficant sense.

You said it yourself: no life, no value. (that's what "value presupposes life" means) Hence existence/non-existence IS the fundamental alternative in the value significant sense.

Rand seeks support for this argument by observing the result of actions performed by organism, but observations in nature dosn't support her account becuase evolution tells us that reproductive success is more important than existence from a value perspective. Organisms act to gain or keep reproductive success at the expense of their survival.

I hope I've shown that this is false. Reproduction is a necessary evil that derives directly from our mortality, but I see evolution as evidence that the individual is striving to gain more and more existence in the form of longer and more individually oriented lifespans. Some life forms such as trees, turtles, elephants and humans have achieved individual lifespans that corresponds to millions of generations of bacteria. Obviously there's a lot more to life than mere reproduction.

[hunterrose]

I remember someone talking about the point of life -- whether it is to reproduce or not, but I couldnt remember the name of the thread. So, if someone could direct me to that, it would be appreciated.

This may be the thread you were referring to.

[Seeker]

Actually, that is not as obviously true as it sounds. There is significant evidence that with rather simple genetic modifications many species can live dramatically longer. Aging it seems is not simply a passive accumulation of errors, mutations and "rust", the organism actually actively turns its self-maintenance off. Organisms commit organizational suicide, and live much shorter than they otherwise would. Why is this? Because death has survival value. Not for the individual that dies of course, but for the next generation. The next generation benefits from the previous generation dying off, thereby releasing scarce resources. This is a wonderful example of how the survival of the individual needs to be balanced to maximise the long term survival of the lineage.

Even though an individual obviously has to take care of itself, it will be a dead end if it does not also takes step to reproduce. Reproduction is every bit as much part of human nature as individuality. A philosophy of individualism that does not also take into account genetic survival is incomplete. From a survival point of view, not reproducing is irrational.

But this is a perfect example of forgetting that the ethical context is a human individual, not his species. The only way for reproduction to be a moral choice for an individual is that it serves the needs of that individual - whether it serves offspring is secondary and important only insofar as the offspring brings value to the parent. Releasing scarce resources to others by choosing to die is pure altruism, and it is BAD for the individual that does it. There is no moral justification for the "balancing" of interests that you describe. That doesn't mean reproduction does not fulfill a person's needs. It does, but that and that alone is why it is moral to reproduce. When you say that "reproduction is every bit as much part of human nature as individuality" you are posing reproduction as something contrary to the needs of individual that requires sacrifice, rather than part of those needs that demands rational self-interest. Moral reproduction is a selfish choice, because it satisfies the needs of the individual - not in a chicken-and-egg you-needed-it-to-exist way, but by directly satisfying an individual's needs in the present. Survival of the species may explain why reproduction is in the unchosen needs of an individual, but does not support an ethical claim of any sort or demand that a philosophy of rational self-interest take such reasons into account. In an ethical context, survival means individual survival - nothing more or less.

[Freddy]

Here's an organism that does what it does. It does not choose, at least in this regard, it simply does things it was "programmed" to do.

Of course, but I don't see why that is important. My impression is that Rand tried to support her account of survival as the ultimate value by pointing out that a plant obtained the objects necesseray for its continued existence. But I have a hard time seeing that she could just as well have used an organism that commited suicide to support her conclusion, but such creatures are permitted by evolution.

If reproduction was not part of that "program", it would not exist. That part of the program only as part of the individual because it is the mechanism by which that individual exists. That mechanism is one of many that allows that organism to exist. That reproductive mechanism, along with various other mechanisms exists in order to further life.

Let me offer an analogy here. Assume a person, A, born with no arms due to a defective sperm. If we think about it, A would not have existed if he had arms. Why? Because if another sperm, without the defect, had reached the egg, A would not have been born. Thus we can conclude that A could not have existed without this trait, it's a metaphysical fact so to speak. The alternative is no arms or no existence. Now, does this mean that having no arms is a survival value to this individual? No, of course not.

I posited an animal that killed itself and served its flesh to its kids. Is this trait a survival value to this individual just becuase the alternative is to have this trait or to not exist at all? No, for the same reason as above.

Survival means to further ones existence, this is a forward oriented concept that applies to existing organisms. Killing yourself dosn't further your existence even though you would not have existed without the trait, having no arms is no survival value either. I think Binswangers attempt to reconcile observations with survival as the ultimate end doesn't work.

This discussion won't get anywhere without establishing the proper context. Reproductive success may be the ultimate goal of genes, but the context is individual human minds because that is the only context to which an argument about ethics can apply - because only individual human minds make choices.

In Rands argument the context is all living things. She seems to infer an ultimate goal from observations of non-volitional organism (look at the plant example quoted from Galts speech further back in the thread), and then she seems to transfer this goal to humans. But the goal she infers, individual survival, dosn't fit as an ultimate value becuase it dosn't explain why an organism can be programmed to act as its own destructor.

Reproduction is not more fundamental. Reproduction can be viewed as a necessary evil that comes straight out of our mortality.

But then you assume what you want to prove, we are seeking support for what is an organisms ultimate end by observing how organisms act. Values is that which and organism act to gain to act or keep. We observe that when an organism is faced with the alternative to either invest energy in its offspring or invest energy in its own survuival it acts for the former, therefore we conclude that this is the ultimate end and this determines what is good. Reproduction is therefore the good. A sterile organism is, according to this, a depraved existent stripped of its purpose.

[Onar Åm]

But this is a perfect example of forgetting that the ethical context is a human individual, not his species.

I was not talking about the species, but the individual organism and the lineage to which it belongs.

The only way for reproduction to be a moral choice for an individual is that it serves the needs of that individual - whether it serves offspring is secondary and important only insofar as the offspring brings value to the parent.

Reproduction most definitely served the interest of the individual when its parents created it. Reproduction is thus part of the individual's nature. To defy it is to defy our nature. Now, this doesn't mean that everyone *has* to reproduce themselves in order to be moral, but everyone should try to pass on their genes to future generations to ensure some continued existence. This can be done indirectly through nieses and nephews etc.

Releasing scarce resources to others by choosing to die is pure altruism, and it is BAD for the individual that does it.

No, it's not pure altruism. One is not releasing scarce resources to the moon or to volcanoes, but to an individual that is very, very closely related to you. You are doomed to die because you are mortal, yet some part of you can live on through your offsprings.

When you say that "reproduction is every bit as much part of human nature as individuality" you are posing reproduction as something contrary to the needs of individual that requires sacrifice, rather than part of those needs that demands rational self-interest.

I agree that it is part of your self-interest to reproduce, if you include your offsprings in your notion of self-interest. If you only look at each individual separately then there will be some conflict between reproduction and the individual.

[Freddy]

You said it yourself: no life, no value. (that's what "value presupposes life" means) Hence existence/non-existence IS the fundamental alternative in the value significant sense.

There is no implication between necessary conditions and ultimate values, there is however a connection between necessary conditions and instrumental values. That values presupposes life only means that we have to be alive in order to achieve any goal, but it does not determine the goals, it does not determine what we _ultimataly_ act to gain or keep. A human being could without contradiction choose reproductive success as his ultimate value and let this end trump his existence.

[Seeker]

I was not talking about the species, but the individual organism and the lineage to which it belongs.

Reproduction most definitely served the interest of the individual when its parents created it. Reproduction is thus part of the individual's nature. To defy it is to defy our nature. Now, this doesn't mean that everyone *has* to reproduce themselves in order to be moral, but everyone should try to pass on their genes to future generations to ensure some continued existence. This can be done indirectly through nieses and nephews etc.

No, it's not pure altruism. One is not releasing scarce resources to the moon or to volcanoes, but to an individual that is very, very closely related to you. You are doomed to die because you are mortal, yet some part of you can live on through your offsprings.

I agree that it is part of your self-interest to reproduce, if you include your offsprings in your notion of self-interest. If you only look at each individual separately then there will be some conflict between reproduction and the individual.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that your offspring are not you. Not in the sense of an individual, which is the only context to which ethics can apply. The idea that "I can live through my children" is incorrect. When you die, you're dead. You don't live on through someone else. There is no "continued existence" for you through your children. Rational self-interest begins and ends with the individual ("looking at each individual separately"). To the extent that your unchosen nature demands that you invest in offspring, it is your needs and your nature that you are serving and that is moral. But your needs are the primary concern for you, not theirs.

[Marc K.]

Reproductive success may be the ultimate goal of genes

Careful, you're giving away the baby on the side argument of whether reproductive success is the ultimate goal. Genes have no goals, only living entities do.

Reproductive success or evolution is the observed phenomenon that occurs when living entities act toward their own survival. Natural selection does not imply any teleological principle operating in insentient nature ... to borrow a phrase.

You should also be careful here:

Not everything about an organism has survival value. Mortality is bad for an organism, but ethics is concerned with making choices given alternatives.

You may have meant death is bad for an organism which is fine. But mortality itself, meaning: able to die, is part of the alternative of life vs. death, existence vs. non-existence, which allows us to value. If we were unable to die we would have no ultimate value and therefore would not value at all.

As a side note the title of this thread should really be "Ought from Is" meaning: ought or what one should do is derived from what is or reality.

[Seeker]

Genes have no goals, only living entities do.

Point taken; that is correct.

You may have meant death is bad for an organism which is fine. But mortality itself, meaning: able to die, is part of the alternative of life vs. death, existence vs. non-existence, which allows us to value. If we were unable to die we would have no ultimate value and therefore would not value at all.

By "mortality" I was referring to a living entity's terminal, not conditional, nature. Eventual, unavoidable death is what I meant.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Seeker

[Onar Åm]

There is no implication between necessary conditions and ultimate values, there is however a connection between necessary conditions and instrumental values.

Hold it right there. You admit that life is a precondition for value. Only living beings can have values. WHY? What is it that enables life and nothing else to have values?

[softwareNerd]

Hold it right there. You admit that life is a precondition for value. Only living beings can have values. WHY? What is it that enables life and nothing else to have values?

Is that a rhetorical question? If not, then one must ask what "values" mean in the first place. What is the concept being discussed? What are its referents? The concept of values implies life as a precondition, even if it does not obviously imply it as a standard.

[Onar Åm]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that your offspring are not you. Not in the sense of an individual, which is the only context to which ethics can apply. The idea that "I can live through my children" is incorrect. When you die, you're dead. You don't live on through someone else. There is no "continued existence" for you through your children. Rational self-interest begins and ends with the individual ("looking at each individual separately"). To the extent that your unchosen nature demands that you invest in offspring, it is your needs and your nature that you are serving and that is moral. But your needs are the primary concern for you, not theirs.

Take a step back and consider this: you are the last link in a 4 billion year long unbroken chain of survivers. You exist today because every single one of them successfully lived out their individual lives and reproduced. Are you saying that now that you have discovered rational self-interest, it may be time to break that chain and end four billion years of biological existence!? I'm sorry, but if that's the case then you simply have the wrong concept of survival. One way of looking at it is this: due to this 4 billion year long chain of continuous biological existence you have been fortunate enough to gain a limited time here on Earth, 80 or so years if you're an average guy. 20 of those years you need to invest in downpayment on that life you were given, namely making sure that the chain continues, preferably in a better state. Also notice that since you are a rational, intelligent being with free will, you are equipped with an enormous power to improve that chain of life dramatically. What a shame that just now, after 4 billion years of emancipation from the collective survival strategy of reproduction you decide to end it all by not reproducing. That's not rational, that's wreckless.

[softwareNerd]

...you are equipped with an enormous power to improve that chain of life dramatically.

That begs the question as to why one would want to "improve the chain of life".

[Ifat Glassman]

If we were unable to die we would have no ultimate value and therefore would not value at all.

Not true. Life for a human means spiritual existence as well, and that can still exist or not exist even when physical death is impossible.

[Seeker]

Take a step back and consider this: you are the last link in a 4 billion year long unbroken chain of survivers. You exist today because every single one of them successfully lived out their individual lives and reproduced. Are you saying that now that you have discovered rational self-interest, it may be time to break that chain and end four billion years of biological existence!? I'm sorry, but if that's the case then you simply have the wrong concept of survival. One way of looking at it is this: due to this 4 billion year long chain of continuous biological existence you have been fortunate enough to gain a limited time here on Earth, 80 or so years if you're an average guy. 20 of those years you need to invest in downpayment on that life you were given, namely making sure that the chain continues, preferably in a better state. Also notice that since you are a rational, intelligent being with free will, you are equipped with an enormous power to improve that chain of life dramatically. What a shame that just now, after 4 billion years of emancipation from the collective survival strategy of reproduction you decide to end it all by not reproducing. That's not rational, that's wreckless.

I didn't say it may be time to break that chain. My point is that the continuation of that chain, if it is a value to me, is so because of my unchosen nature, that it is my needs that I am serving by continuing it. You insist upon emphasizing the survival of the species as a foundation of ethics, and I am stopping you there and saying no, ethics is founded on individuals because only individuals make choices requiring a moral code. You will have to do more than say I simply have the wrong concept of survival: you will need to back up your claim with reasoning. The chain does not reason; the chain does not make choices in the face of alternatives to further its life; the chain is not concerned with good or bad; the chain needs no code of ethics. Why should I want to improve the chain of life? What value will it be to me?

Edited December 15, 2006 by Seeker

[Onar Åm]

I didn't say it may be time to break that chain. My point is that the continuation of that chain, if it is a value to me, is so because of my unchosen nature, that it is my needs that I am serving by continuing it.

Oh yeah, absolutely. It just so happens that evolution has encoded self-interest in a *circular* manner such that *your* self-interest coincides with that of *your children*. In particular, you are born with a need for self-realization through having children (or the equivalent). Therefore there's a good chance you won't be happy if you do not attend to this aspect of your nature. I'd like to put it this way: reproductivity is a subset of the virtue of productivity. As Ayn Rand pointed out sloth is not a path to happiness. You have to produce to be happy. Now, one of the things you need to produce in order to lead a full, happy life is another life. Reproduction is an important path to self-realization.

You insist upon emphasizing the survival of the species as a foundation of ethics,

I do no such thing. First of all, your child is not "the species." Second, "foundation of ethics" implies that reproduction goes *above* the needs of the individual. I say no such thing. The life of an individual is not a mere means for the genes to reproduce. However, if there was no reproduction there would be no individual. Therefore reproduction is every bit as much a part of you as any other aspect of your nature.

Why should I want to improve the chain of life? What value will it be to me?

Why does Roark want to build skyskrapers? Self-realization. Due to an entrenched 4 billion year long habit reproduction is a major avenue for self-realization.

[Freddy]

Hold it right there. You admit that life is a precondition for value.

Preconditions have instrumental values, but they don't determine the goal. If I want to play football I need a descent pair of shoes, does this mean that the shoes are more important, more ultimate, than the end of playing football? No.

Only living beings can have values. WHY?

If we accept the "gain or keep"-defintiion of values, then living things have values becuase the can act and do act. But there is no metaphysical necessity to act with your survival as your ultimate goal, and observation reveals that organisms don't. They act as if they had reproductive success as their ultimate goal. When faced with the alternative of investing energy in thier own continued existence or investing energy in their offspring, they act for the latter.

What is it that enables life and nothing else to have values?

I'm not too fond of using the word values outside the realm of human consciousness, but if we go beyond the "gain or keep"-definition, I believe that from a human perspective it is our consciousness and emotive mechanism that is necessary for values. An immortal robot with a consciousness would value pain avoidance if it could feel pain, not because pain fullfills a function it can understand, but because pain hurts, and that's what creates the need and the value.

What are our needs directed at? That is a very tough question, Rand seems to say survival, and it looks like she is is trying to back this up with observations of non-volitional organism. But I don't think nature backs her account. I think personally it is pointless to look in nature for biological imperatives as an ethical foundation, but I think knowledege about evolution can offer som interesting insights into why we seem to prefer certain things.

In the end "you ought to hold your survival as ultimate value because life is necessary for value" simply isn't a valid inference.

Why does Roark want to build skyskrapers? Self-realization. Due to an entrenched 4 billion year long habit reproduction is a major avenue for self-realization.

Is now self-realization the ultimate value? That seems quite distinct from survival if you ask me.

[Onar Åm]

If we accept the "gain or keep"-defintiion of values, then living things have values becuase the can act and do act.

Why on earth would you accept a definition without accepting the basis for that definition? That's called a floating abstraction.

But there is no metaphysical necessity to act with your survival as your ultimate goal, and observation reveals that organisms don't. They act as if they had reproductive success as their ultimate goal.

This is simply untrue.

When faced with the alternative of investing energy in thier own continued existence or investing energy in their offspring, they act for the latter.

And when not faced with that alternative?

I'm not too fond of using the word values outside the realm of human consciousness, but if we go beyond the "gain or keep"-definition, I believe that from a human perspective it is our consciousness and emotive mechanism that is necessary for values.

That's true, but only goes to show that biological values have been encoded into our psyche.

An immortal robot with a consciousness would value pain avoidance if it could feel pain,

That's true, but why would an immortal robot need to have the ability to feel pain?

I think personally it is pointless to look in nature for biological imperatives as an ethical foundation, but I think knowledege about evolution can offer som interesting insights into why we seem to prefer certain things.

That's like saying that you think it is pointless to look in nature for principles as the foundation of physics, but you think knowledge about physical systems can offer interesting insights into why physical systems behave in certain ways.

Is now self-realization the ultimate value? That seems quite distinct from survival if you ask me.

self-realization presupposes physical survival, but is more than that. It is survival in accordance with your nature. Survival of man qua man, Ayn Rand would say.

[Freddy]

This is simply untrue.

I've shown you how I come to the conclusion that reproductive success is the ultimate value. When faced with the alternative of investing energy in thier own continued existence or investing energy in their offspring, they act for the latter. Also, survival as the ultimate value explains why the tom cat eats, but not why it fights. Reproductive success explains why it eats, and why it fights.

You also observe that the tom cat fights, but then you cocnlude that it is a necessary evil for the cat because it endangers its existence, but how do you conclude that with respect to observations? I say that since the tom cat "choose" to fight, it is value to him to fight becuse it enables him to reproduce. He values reproduction more than longevity becuse that is how he acts.

And when not faced with that alternative?

Then organisms sustain their existence in order to be able to fullill their ultimate purpose, reproduction.

That's like saying that you think it is pointless to look in nature for principles as the foundation of physics, but you think knowledge about physical systems can offer interesting insights into why physical systems behave in certain ways.

I don't follow you here. What I meant was that the inference "The desert rat act with reproductive success as ultimate value, therefore I ought to do so too" is invalid, even if the desert rat do act with reproductive success as its ultimate value. And if we infered that the desert rat had survival as its ultimate value I still don't see the implications for me.

self-realization presupposes physical survival, but is more than that. It is survival in accordance with your nature. Survival of man qua man, Ayn Rand would say.

I know it's more than that, but why use the term survival in the first place then? It seems then that survival is a concept to be retrofitted to encompass whatever ethical conclusion you come up with, but it dosn't work as a criteria to guide you to those conclusions. If you say that, to really survive as a human you have to be at your highest productive potential, what does that mean? If you had meant that being at your highest productive potential increases your longevity, then you had derived an ethical conclusion with survival as a criteria. But when survival no longer means survival in the welldefined sense of the word it no longer works as a criteria, instead you have to conclude that beeing at your highest productive potential is good along a line of reasoning that has nothing to do with survival (in the normal sense of the word), and then you retrofit your concept of survival to encompass this conclusion.

[Onar Åm]

I've shown you how I come to the conclusion that reproductive success is the ultimate value. When faced with the alternative of investing energy in thier own continued existence or investing energy in their offspring, they act for the latter. Also, survival as the ultimate value explains why the tom cat eats, but not why it fights. Reproductive success explains why it eats, and why it fights.

If reproductive success is the ultimate value then can you please explain to me why there is a consistent trend throughout the evolution of life towards longer and longer life spans? Today there are individual animals and plants that live for hundreds of years. If reproductive success was all that mattered, we would all be bacteria reproducing at an insane rate.

He values reproduction more than longevity becuse that is how he acts.

Then organisms sustain their existence in order to be able to fullill their ultimate purpose, reproduction.

The fact that reproduction is a necessary evil means that every act that an organism takes must be *consistent* with the survival of its offspring (or some other closely related individual). But within those bounds put by evolution on our existence an individual can still find the freedom to exist purely for its own sake. In fact, that is the reason why the life span of animals on Earth is increasing.

I know it's more than that, but why use the term survival in the first place then? It seems then that survival is a concept to be retrofitted to encompass whatever ethical conclusion you come up with, but it dosn't work as a criteria to guide you to those conclusions.

I define survival as TOTAL survival, i.e. individual survival+reproduction, each being equally important. You're saying that the individual doesn't really matter. Yet ALL of our ancestors' existence was lived out through individual lives. If you could store the genes of an organism in a safe place forever then according to you that's just as good as letting individuals live out their individual lives and reproduce. Isn't that obviously not the case?

If you say that, to really survive as a human you have to be at your highest productive potential, what does that mean? If you had meant that being at your highest productive potential increases your longevity, then you had derived an ethical conclusion with survival as a criteria. But when survival no longer means survival in the welldefined sense of the word it no longer works as a criteria, instead you have to conclude that beeing at your highest productive potential is good along a line of reasoning that has nothing to do with survival (in the normal sense of the word), and then you retrofit your concept of survival to encompass this conclusion.

I hear what you're saying, but you're wrong. By your logic an organism doesn't eat in order to survive but only to satisfy its hunger. An organism doesn't have sex in order to reproduce but to satisfy its sexual urges. An organism doesn't try to avoid harmful situation in order to avoid injury but to avoid pain. An organism doesn't run from its prey to avoid being eaten but because it is afraid. Don't you see the absurdity of that logic? By disconnecting an organism's nature from its survival you are essentially eliminating a conceptual understanding of its behavior. The reason we have our specific nature with all our quirks (pain/pleasure mechanism, fear, hunger, sexual desire etc.) is because in the past they aided our ancestors in their survival. Our nature was selected by natural selection, i.e. because it aids our survival. Therefore, acting according to our nature is beneficial to our survival.

[Seeker]

Is now self-realization the ultimate value? That seems quite distinct from survival if you ask me.

I think you need to re-examine your notions of these concepts. They're the same thing. What could self-realization possibly mean other than to exist in reality as oneself? As though one could exist as something else? As though "realization" means something other than the state of being real, i.e. existing, in reality?

If self-realization and survival are distinct, then what is the distinction? If there is a distinction, it would mean that an entity could exist yet not exist. That's a contradiction, unless you introduce - as Rand does not - some qualifier on existence, such as physical existence (as distinguished from other qualifiers). But then, it's you who have introduced the problem, not Rand. Can you see how it is that self-realization and survival are the same thing?

Edited December 16, 2006 by Seeker

[Freddy]

If reproductive success is the ultimate value then can you please explain to me why there is a consistent trend throughout the evolution of life towards longer and longer life spans? Today there are individual animals and plants that live for hundreds of years. If reproductive success was all that mattered, we would all be bacteria reproducing at an insane rate.

Resilience pay, you have to be a good survivor in order to be a good reproducer. For example, the competition among males for females (in the animal world) might gradually favour stronger males.

The fact that reproduction is a necessary evil means that every act that an organism takes must be *consistent* with the survival of its offspring (or some other closely related individual). But within those bounds put by evolution on our existence an individual can still find the freedom to exist purely for its own sake. In fact, that is the reason why the life span of animals on Earth is increasing.

My line of reasoning is:

1) Values is that which an organism act to gain or keep in the face of an alternative

2) The alternative acted on is the more valuable alternative, more good so to speak.

3) When faced with the alternative of investing energy in thier own continued existence or investing energy in their offspring, they act for the latter.

4) Therefore they value reproduction at the expense of longevity.

5) Therefore survival is not their ultimate end.

The inference comes from the observations of how organisms act, you on the other hand start off with the belief that survival is the ultimate end, and then you try to reconcile that with observations which force you to say that reproduction is a necessary evil. But how do you come to that conclusion? Why is survival the only good?

I define survival as TOTAL survival, i.e. individual survival+reproduction, each being equally important. You're saying that the individual doesn't really matter. Yet ALL of our ancestors' existence was lived out through individual lives.

If you mean that reproduction and survival are two competing distinct ends, both being good in them self, then I can concede that. Total survival is then the observed ultimate value in the non-volitional realm, therefore a human ought to survive and reproduce in order to attain total survival? I know this isn't your conclusion, but I can't see how you avoid it.

I hear what you're saying, but you're wrong.

You missunderstood me, that wasn't the point at all, but I believe there is some truth to your statement.

By your logic an organism doesn't eat in order to survive but only to satisfy its hunger. An organism doesn't have sex in order to reproduce but to satisfy its sexual urges.

It's partly true, you won't derive much value from always bypassing the satisfaction derived from the emotive component of your needs. If we assume that our abilty to taste is derived from the fact that we have to discriminate between nutritious and poisonous food, then we can conclude that this function is rather obsolete in our modern world. You don't have to taste what you eat if you know your food to be nutritious, you can eat a tasteless nutrition soup every single day and this might serve your bodily needs better than eating well tasting food. But that seems rather dull, most men do value pleasure as an end in itself, and therfore do value well tasting food just because of the satisfaction. I don't mean to say that shortterm plaesure is the only good, only that it is a good among many.

If self-realization and survival are distinct, then what is the distinction? If there is a distinction, it would mean that an entity could exist yet not exist. That's a contradiction[..]

A repressed man is not realizing himslef. Does he exist? On your account, no. On my account, yes, and that is the distinction between survival and self-realization. To exist as yourself is either a tautology which cannot fail to be true for any living man, or it means something like "to live as you ought to live", something that can fail to be true and therefore cannot be a contradiction, since contradictions cannot exist.