Ought from Is

[Onar Åm]

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.

But that doesn't explain why the individuals that live longer tend to have fewer offspring. It also doesn't explain sex. If reproductive success is the ultimate value, then why on earth did sex evolve? Sex means to blend your genes with those of a completely different individual, thereby eliminating half of the genes for each of the parents. That makes no sense if conservation of genes is the ultimate value, but makes perfect sense as an evolutionary learning mechanism. Sexual reproduction has become one of the most important survival strategies in the biological world because it allows the genes to *change* faster from one generation to another, thereby increasing the rate of evolution. Virtually nothing exciting happened on Earth in the first 3 billion years. It was only when sex evolved some 1-1.2 billion years ago that the rate of evolution increased particularly in the cambrian explosion some 542 million years ago. Thus, a mechanism for *changing* genes more efficiently is what has caught on. This makes no sense if conservation of genes through reproduction is the ultimate goal. If on the other hand survival is the ultimate goal then it makes perfect sense. Sex allows faster evolution which allows the existence of individuals that are better at surviving.

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 flaw in this argument is the following: you assume that the existence of the individual just came about miraculously *somehow*. But that's actually not the case. The individual owes its existence to the reproduction of its parents. Therefore, since the individual is its parents offspring, it will have embodied in it the same pattern of reproductive behavior. Think of your existence as a contract. You were lent your precious existence from your parents, but with reproduction as downpayment on that loan. Of course, it's not a contract in the true sense of the word since that requires voluntary consent from all the involved parties. Nevertheless the actions to which you owe your individual existence -- namely your parents reproductive efforts -- is exactly the same set of actions you later in life will repeat.

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?

This is turning the problem on its head. The adversary to survival is not reproduction, but death. Death is bad for the individual. It is also a certainty, and in order to assure *some* existence, reproduction is a necessity. As such reproduction is good because it allows the individual to overcome death and extinction. It itself would not have existed as an individual were it not for reproduction.

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.

Individual survival and reproduction are certainly anti-correlated in the biological world, but reproduction and individual survival are not competing distinct ends. Survival and DEATH are competing "ends" (death is not an end, but the failure of achieving life). Reproduction is a means of partially overcoming death, and this is why survival and reproduction are anticorrelated. When individual survivability increases the need for reproduction to overcome death is reduced.

[Freddy]

But that doesn't explain why the individuals that live longer tend to have fewer offspring. It also doesn't explain sex. If reproductive success is the ultimate value, then why on earth did sex evolve

From the perspective of the speices evolution might be said to be about species surviuval, but this presupposes that individuals act with reproduction as an end in itself. If individuals act with their own survival as their ultimate end there will be no species for us to study, because the individuals wouldn't then reproduce.

The flaw in this argument is the following: you assume that the existence of the individual just came about miraculously *somehow*. But that's actually not the case. The individual owes its existence to the reproduction of its parents. Therefore, since the individual is its parents offspring, it will have embodied in it the same pattern of reproductive behavior. Think of your existence as a contract. You were lent your precious existence from your parents, but with reproduction as downpayment on that loan.

And if the parents did not value reproduction there would not have been any organisms for us to study, thus the organism we are here to observe are those having the traits consistnet with reproduction as an end that can trump existence. If we start out with two organisms at the beginning, one has reproductive success as ultimate a value, the other has longevity as ultimate value. Whose "hierchy of values" is passed on to the organisms we study today?

Your reasoning make sense if survival was the survival of the speices and if the species was a valuing entity, but values does only exist in a first person perspective and your argument dosn't make sense there. What does survival mean from an individual perspective? It means that an existing organism countinue to pursue it's own existence, it's not consitent with an indivual committing suicide in order to further the survival of it's decendents. No matter how you twist it, suicide isn't a survival value to the organism that commits suicide.

Now, you might respond that the alternative is either to exist with the trait of commiting suicide or to never have come into existence, therefore the sucide trait is a survival value. But this implicty assumes that something can be a disvalue (the alternative of not coming into existence) to a non-existing enity which is absurd and contradictory, therefore this isn't a value significant alternative becasue it's not an alternative for an existing organism. Also the case can be made for any trait. If the parents had a deadly genetic defect that was transmitted down to the children, is this defect a survival value to the children, becuase the alternative is to either come into existence with the defect or non-existence?

The solution is simple, if you admit that entities actually act as if reproduction was a true end pursued not for the further end of their individual survival but for the end of producing offspring, then there is no need for the the odd perspective you take.

This is turning the problem on its head. The adversary to survival is not reproduction, but death. Death is bad for the individual. It is also a certainty, and in order to assure *some* existence, reproduction is a necessity. As such reproduction is good because it allows the individual to overcome death and extinction. It itself would not have existed as an individual were it not for reproduction.

You conflate diffrent perspectives, the species perspective with the individual perspective. Reproduction isn't a survival value for the individual, it is a survival-"value" for the species or the genes, but that is not a valuing entity.

Individual survival and reproduction are certainly anti-correlated in the biological world, but reproduction and individual survival are not competing distinct ends. Survival and DEATH are competing "ends" (death is not an end, but the failure of achieving life). Reproduction is a means of partially overcoming death, and this is why survival and reproduction are anticorrelated. When individual survivability increases the need for reproduction to overcome death is reduced.

Again, we are talking values, and therefore individal perspectives. Concider the suicide animal who serves himself to his offspring, how is this a way for him to overcome death, it might be said to be a way for the species to overcome extinction because the action further the lives of the decendants, but that is not the perspective that concerns us.

You still assume what you want to prove. It is a fact that organisms act as if reproduction is an end pursued for it's own sake. According to the method Ayn Rand seems to use, this would imply that we are entiled to say that survival is not the ultimate value (because that would imply that reproduction was a means to individual survival, which it clearly isn't). So, what supports your case that survival is the ultimate value?

[Onar Åm]

but this presupposes that individuals act with reproduction as an end in itself.

which they don't.

If individuals act with their own survival as their ultimate end there will be no species for us to study, because the individuals wouldn't then reproduce.

This is an utterly, utterly false statement. The reason individuals exist in the first place is because their parents reproduced. Reproduction is thus the very reason they came into being as individuals. It is in our genes to repay that favour. Therefore our nature is tuned to enjoy reproduction and find child rearing a fulfilling way of self-realizing.

And if the parents did not value reproduction there would not have been any organisms for us to study, thus the organism we are here to observe are those having the traits consistnet with reproduction as an end that can trump existence.

Again an utterly perverse logic. You yourself have just stated that each individual can thank reproduction for its existence. Is it then not obvious that reproduction is good for the individual? It is reproduction that enabled individuals to evolve into something more than their parents. Evolution is a process of individual liberation from death and reproduction is the means to achieve this.

If we start out with two organisms at the beginning, one has reproductive success as ultimate a value, the other has longevity as ultimate value. Whose "hierchy of values" is passed on to the organisms we study today?

Completely false premises. The choice is not between survival and reproduction as ultimate ends, but between life and death. Death is inevitable and reproduction allows individuals to exist despite their mortality, and reproduction is what allows them to cheat death.

Your reasoning make sense if survival was the survival of the speices and if the species was a valuing entity, but values does only exist in a first person perspective and your argument dosn't make sense there.

What are you talking about? I value reproduction very much. I am very greatful that my parents decided to reproduce, otherwise I wouldn't be here. Therefore I obviously value reproduction *as an individual*, don't you? Aren't you glad you exist?

What does survival mean from an individual perspective?

For me it hopefully means living 120 wonderful years on earth living according to my nature. This means a certain set of virtues: integrity, honesty, productivity *and reproductivity*.

It means that an existing organism countinue to pursue it's own existence, it's not consitent with an indivual committing suicide in order to further the survival of it's decendents. No matter how you twist it, suicide isn't a survival value to the organism that commits suicide.

I was given my life as a precious gift thanks to reproduction, and that is very much in my self-interest because it allowed me to exist which is my ULTIMATE VALUE. Of course, as part of that package I was engraved with the very same nature that allowed me to exist, namely reproduction. Therefore as a downpayment on that existence I was given it is in my nature to reproduce, and yes, even give my life for my children. That's part of the deal. Let's hope it never comes to that. Fortunately nature has also given me a nature which allows me to enjoy reproduction and child rearing.

Now, you might respond that the alternative is either to exist with the trait of commiting suicide or to never have come into existence, therefore the sucide trait is a survival value.

Correct. Downpayment on existence.

But this implicty assumes that something can be a disvalue (the alternative of not coming into existence) to a non-existing enity which is absurd and contradictory, therefore this isn't a value significant alternative becasue it's not an alternative for an existing organism.

That's a seriously twisted logic. It's like saying that a trade is self-sacrifice because only what you give up counts. Your alternative is simple: existence or non-existence. Which do you choose? Which is of value to you? This should be obvious.

Also the case can be made for any trait.

No, only traits that contributes to the survival of the individual.

If the parents had a deadly genetic defect that was transmitted down to the children, is this defect a survival value to the children, becuase the alternative is to either come into existence with the defect or non-existence?

No, because there is no survival value in a deadly disease. There IS however tremendous survival value in reproduction.

The solution is simple, if you admit that entities actually act as if reproduction was a true end pursued not for the further end of their individual survival but for the end of producing offspring, then there is no need for the the odd perspective you take.

But I'm not taking an odd perspective here, YOU are! You are claiming that everything in the biological world (individuals) really don't have any value, but only some platonic concept of reproduction has value for its own sake. Value to whom? It's really a very twisted perspective.

You conflate diffrent perspectives, the species perspective

What on earth is this species perspective you are talking about? I don't see any species around, only individuals.

Again, we are talking values, and therefore individal perspectives. Concider the suicide animal who serves himself to his offspring, how is this a way for him to overcome death, it might be said to be a way for the species to overcome extinction because the action further the lives of the decendants, but that is not the perspective that concerns us.

Similar actions by his ancestors allowed *him* to exist, and now he is simply acting out the nature that allowed him to exist. Obviously those previous actions were very beneficial to him since it allowed him to exist. By giving up his life he is repaying the favour through a cross-generational trade: you get your existence, but in return you need to give up that existence (maybe) after, say, 30 years. It's a really, really good deal and all the participants in the various generations benefit greatly from it.

You still assume what you want to prove. It is a fact that organisms act as if reproduction is an end pursued for it's own sake.

What is this reproduction thing you are talking about? Can you point to it and show me a specimen of it? Can you talk to it and ask it if it values itself?

According to the method Ayn Rand seems to use, this would imply that we are entiled to say that survival is not the ultimate value (because that would imply that reproduction was a means to individual survival, which it clearly isn't). So, what supports your case that survival is the ultimate value?

Saying that reproduction "clearly isn't" a means to individual survival doesn't make it so. You need to make arguments. It's easy to demonstrate that your existence is conditioned on reproduction. Reproduction is an incredibly smart strategy that not only allowed you to come into existence, but also allowed you to come into existence in an extremely evolved, self-aware state.

[Seeker]

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.

Yet again, you have introduced - as Rand does not - a qualified notion of existence, namely physical existence only, excluding other aspects of man's existence. Why? Qualifying existence in this way is exactly the problem. To you, Terri Schiavo "existed" until the feeding tube was removed and all of her bodily functions ceased. To me, she stopped existing long before the feeding tube was removed - certainly no later than when her cerebral cortex finally disappeared, possibly much sooner. If we take into account all of what man requires to survive over his entire lifespan, we arrive a properly refined understanding of what his life, i.e. existence, entails. It is much, much more than the momentary biological survival that you have in mind.

[hunterrose]

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.

Are you saying that every time an animal can either act toward its own survival or act toward reproduction, it always acts for the latter?

And that reproduction is the only thing that explains why a tomcat fights?

[Freddy]

The reason individuals exist in the first place is because their parents reproduced.

That is, their parents valued reproduction at the expense of survival. And if existing organisms value reproduction they will have children. if they have longevity as their ultimate goal they won't repdroduce, becuase reprodction isn't a means to individual survival, it's can be the very end of survival for the individual.

You yourself have just stated that each individual can thank reproduction for its existence.

The alternative we are talking about is to come into existence or not. This alternative predates any organism therefore there is no existing organism that this is an alternative to. You mix it with the alternative of existence or non-existence for an existing organism. It's not a disvalue not to have been born, becuse there is no organisms this can be a disvalue to. Coming into existence is necessary for values, but the alternative itself is outside the values for the organism being born. You don't bring about your own conception, it's not something you can act to gain or keep, becuase it predates you.

The whole concept of survival presuppose an existing organism. Survival means to keep youself in existence, it's a forward oriented concept. Commiting suicide is not a means to this end for the organism that commits suicide. Suicide can be a means to furthering the lives of your decendants, but their life is not your life, and their survival isn't your survival. We are talking about individual perspectives.

Is it then not obvious that reproduction is good for the individual?

Is it bad for an organism not to have come into existence? Do you think the decendants Ayn Rand never had feel sorry for themselfs?

Completely false premises. The choice is not between survival and reproduction as ultimate ends, but between life and death. Death is inevitable and reproduction allows individuals to exist despite their mortality, and reproduction is what allows them to cheat death.

And how does the suicide animal overcome death by killing himself? Reproduction might cheat species extinction, but it dosn't help indivuals cheat death, it might in fact kill them.

Yet again, you have introduced - as Rand does not - a qualified notion of existence, namely physical existence only, excluding other aspects of man's existence. Why?

On your definition where you equate beeing moral with existsing, a person not being moral does not exist. Becuse the concept of life and survival are linked to this concept, we have that a non-moral person is non-existent, dead and dosn't survive. With your definition, how do you even express the fact that Hitler existed and was alive (in the normal senses of those words) 1939? And how do you go about starting a world war if you don't exist?

Are you saying that every time an animal can either act toward its own survival or act toward reproduction, it always acts for the latter?

Thats a rather difficult question, but it doesn't matter too much. You can either view survival and reproduction as two competing ends, or you can view reproduction as the ultimate end if you necessarily want one ultimate end. However, survival, that is longevity, is ruled out by the fact that the organisms value activities that trumps this end, and that's the main point.

And that reproduction is the only thing that explains why a tomcat fights?

A nurtured tom cat, to my knowledge, dosn't fight very much, so the answer seems to be mostly yes.

[hunterrose]

A rather difficult question, but it doesn't matter too much. You can either view survival and reproduction as two competing ends, or you can view reproduction as the ultimate end

It matters because (among other reasons) you keep saying that reproduction trumps survival for animal. Reproduction, by your standard, is also ruled out as an animal's ultimate end, as animals don't copulate in plain sight of a predator. I understand what you're saying about animals and survival, but it applies equally to animals and reproduction.

A nurtured tom cat, to my knowledge, dosn't fight very much, so the answer seems to be mostly yes.

Then (for you) wouldn't it make more sense to say that a tomcat's ultimate is fighting?

Actually, the best thing would be to say that animals ultimate value is whatever they're programmed to do (e.g. Rand's "animals act automatically" phrase). I don't think this contradicts her point, and while I'd agree with you that Rand seems to use the animal-survival thing as an example of her argument, she doesn't use it as the argument itself.

[Freddy]

It matters because (among other reasons) you keep saying that reproduction trumps survival for animal. Reproduction, by your standard, is also ruled out as an animal's ultimate end, as animals don't copulate in plain sight of a predator. I understand what you're saying about animals and survival, but it applies equally to animals and reproduction.

As I said, you can view them as two distinct competing ends as well, which still would rule out survival as the ultimate value. However, survival can be explained as a means to reproductive success, in your example above the organiism might be more successfull in his longterm reproductive endevour if he keeps away from predators.

Then (for you) wouldn't it make more sense to say that a tomcat's ultimate is fighting?

No, because I use the same method as Rand, we can understand the fighting as a means to a further end (in the same way Rand saw eating as a means to a further end), which is reproductive success. We cannot however understand fighting as a means to survival.

Actually, the best thing would be to say that animals ultimate value is whatever they're programmed to do (e.g. Rand's "animals act automatically" phrase).

Then we kind of agree, I would say that the talk of values are pointless outside the realm of human consiuoness. Howwever, as you note, it does seem like Rand is trying to back up her account of survival as the ultimate value by pointing out that organisms attain the objects necessary for their own survival, which is true, but it is also true that they can forfeit their own survival for a more ultimate (or for that matter competing) end, which would invalidate her argument.

If you mean that all Rand said was that non-volitional organism are programmed to do whatever they do, then of course no one would disagree, but I cannot see what this identification does to support her argument. How does she conclude that survival is the ultimate end then?

[Onar Åm]

That is, their parents valued reproduction at the expense of survival.

The parents owe their existence to the reproduction of *their* parents in turn, so for them too reproduction is a survival value.

And if existing organisms value reproduction they will have children. if they have longevity as their ultimate goal they won't repdroduce, becuase reprodction isn't a means to individual survival, it's can be the very end of survival for the individual.

Look, I don't understand why this has to be so difficult to understand. You are faced with two alternatives: 1) no existence, or 2) some existence with the catch that you need to devote some of your resources to reproduction. Which of these are benefitial to you as an individual?

The alternative we are talking about is to come into existence or not. This alternative predates any organism therefore there is no existing organism that this is an alternative to.

Are you saying that just because something happened in the past it is of no value to me? The enlightenment happened before I was born, therefore it is of no value to me? The Big Bang occured before life emerged, therefore it is of no value to life on earth?

Coming into existence is necessary for values, but the alternative itself is outside the values for the organism being born.

That is the most seriously screwed up logic I've seen in years. I value a lot of things that occured before I was born, including the enlightenment, the Big Bang, the emergence of life on Earth and my conception.

The whole concept of survival presuppose an existing organism.

Actually, this goes to show that the ultimate value is not survival but biological existence, i.e. your life. ("life is the standard of value") If nothing else, that at least is a useful outcome of this discussion. Survival is a subset of biological existence meaning *continuation* of biolgocial existence, but does not include the actual moment of conception. Individual life is the ultimate value, and this includes the coming into being of the individual life and the continuation of that individual life, i.e. survival.

Is it bad for an organism not to have come into existence?

If the alternative is to come into existence? Well, duh!

Thats a rather difficult question, but it doesn't matter too much. You can either view survival and reproduction as two competing ends, or you can view reproduction as the ultimate end if you necessarily want one ultimate end. However, survival, that is longevity, is ruled out by the fact that the organisms value activities that trumps this end, and that's the main point.

Well, we've cleared up an important point in this discussion. For the individual the individual's life is the ultimate value, survival being a subset of this value. Reproduction is a means of acquiring one's ultimate value, namely one's life.

[Seeker]

On your definition where you equate beeing moral with existsing, a person not being moral does not exist. Becuse the concept of life and survival are linked to this concept, we have that a non-moral person is non-existent, dead and dosn't survive. With your definition, how do you even express the fact that Hitler existed and was alive (in the normal senses of those words) 1939? And how do you go about starting a world war if you don't exist?

You say that "we have that a non-moral person is non-existent, dead and doesn't survive", and indeed, that's true in the long term, as Atlas Shrugged vividly portrays. Survival for man is long-term. As Ayn Rand stated, "man's survival qua man ... 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" (VoS, p. 26). Hitler's choices were disastrous for him - he died! Being moral is necessary for man's existence, ultimately. I suppose you might respond that since Hitler existed incompletely and for a little while, that's good enough. But the point is, his choices were death-oriented. He chose unreason, unreality, and death sooner or later - he could not say when. As we have discussed, choosing reality and life is the precondition of morality. For man, that's a long term prospect. So if you choose life, ethics can show you how to live your life. If you choose death, as Hitler did, or just a little life (which is the same thing, ultimately), then you have no need of a moral code and no need to inquire into ethics. You could die today, tomorrow, or next week because of your choices, but in the long run you are still choosing death and non-existence, not the most life that was possible to you.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Seeker

[hunterrose]

In your example above the organism might be more successful in his longterm reproductive endevour if he keeps away from predators.

But this is the same error you are accusing others (regarding survival) of making - defining reproduction in nebulous terms. "Longterm reproductive endeavor" is quite different from reproduction, and both are contradicted as ultimate values.

If longterm reproductive endeavors were the ultimate value, it'd go against your observations of the mantis.

If reproduction were the ultimate value, it'd go against your observations of animals choosing safety over reproduction.

As you note, it does seem like Rand is trying to back up her account of survival as the ultimate value by pointing out that organisms attain the objects necessary for their own survival, which is true, but it is also true that they can forfeit their own survival for a more ultimate (or for that matter competing) end, which would invalidate her argument.

It would invalidate the example, not the argument.

E.g. if I say that men can go to the moon (based on physics) and present a sci-fi book as an example, it doesn't invalidate the scientific argument that men can go to the moon.

How does she conclude that survival is the ultimate end then?

:shrug:

It has something to do (i.e. I'm not the best person to ask) with the idea that self-preservation is the only value whose essence is accepting the realm of reality, and only a value whose essence is accepting the realm of reality can serve as an ultimate value. I (as a not-quite Objectivist) don't entirely agree with that argument, but I do know that her ethical standard wasn't derived from the idea that animals act for the sake of survival.

[Freddy]

Look, I don't understand why this has to be so difficult to understand. You are faced with two alternatives: 1) no existence, or 2) some existence with the catch that you need to devote some of your resources to reproduction. Which of these are benefitial to you as an individual?

First observe that the alternative you pose (no existence or some existence with a catch) is true of all traits, including inherited genetical defects leading to death. You wouldn't normally say that those traits have survival value, but according to your argument they have, becuase the alternative is not to come into existence at all.

Secondly, values presupposes an organism. Assume the organism come into existence at t0 (and dies at t1000), an alternative posed to the organism at t253 is then an alternative to the organism, and this alternative can therefore carry value significance. However, the alternative of coming into existence or not predates t0. This alternative is at t(-1) and is therfore not an alternative to the organism. You don't act to gain or keep things before you come into existence. Thus this alternative is outside the realm of values.

But this is the same error you are accusing others (regarding survival) of making - defining reproduction in nebulous terms. "Longterm reproductive endeavor" is quite different from reproduction, and both are contradicted as ultimate values.

My proposal was reproductive success. This covers prudence as well as altruism. But the main point is not to defend reproductive success as the only ultimate value (you can still view survival and reproduction as two competing ends), but to show that survival as an ultimate end doesn't square with observations.

It would invalidate the example, not the argument.

That depends on what you think Rands argument is. I thought she was trying to back up an arguent like: As observed in nature, the ultimate goal in the non-volitional realm is survival, therefore this is the natural goal for humans as well.

It has something to do (i.e. I'm not the best person to ask) with the idea that self-preservation is the only value whose essence is accepting the realm of reality, and only a value whose essence is accepting the realm of reality can serve as an ultimate value.

I don't understand the argument here. Is the argument that since you have to be alive in order to experience reality, you therefore ought to live as long as possible? Or does the argument say that since self preservation is[/is] the objective ultimate value accepting this is to accept something true, and therefore to accept reality.

You say that "we have that a non-moral person is non-existent, dead and doesn't survive", and indeed, that's true in the long term, as Atlas Shrugged vividly portrays.

Well, I believe we covered this in our last debate. I think you are sliding between different positions. Here you seem to say that Hitler did exist, but his immorality consisted of his self imposed bad odds for continued existence. So far your are consitent with one postion, that is, existence and non existnce have their normal welldefined meanings and morality is a guide to battle non-existence, or death. This therefore implies that man ought to live as long as possible

And this is where I introduce the life expectancy maximizer to show the absurdity of this view. You then seem to change the definition of existence to "live as you ought to live". And if we apply this to Hitler, who no one in their right mind would say lived as he ought, then the conclusion is that he did not exist which is also absurd. The big problem is that it's very difficult to understand what life, death, existence and survival means in Rands argument, there seems to be a lot of rubber in those concepts.

Hitler's choices were disastrous for him - he died!

I happen to belive man is mortal so I'm not surprised, however Mao and Pinochet got old. Actually most people get older than Ayn Rand. It's not difficult to get old, which is why most people live very long lives.

But the point is, his choices were death-oriented. He chose unreason, unreality, and death sooner or later - he could not say when. As we have discussed, choosing reality and life is the precondition of morality.

That's true by virtue of your definitions, morality as a code to guide you towards the ultimate end of survival, however if you choose to be a dictator as your ultimate end then you need a code of values to guide your actions towards this end, we can call this code Mao-rality. The question is then why anyone ought to choose morality instead of maorality. Which one is to choose reality? Both standards take into account reality and reason when determining means towards ends, but what facts of reality supports survival as the correct ultimate end? And what does survival even mean in Rands argument?

[Onar Åm]

First observe that the alternative you pose (no existence or some existence with a catch) is true of all traits, including inherited genetical defects leading to death. You wouldn't normally say that those traits have survival value, but according to your argument they have, becuase the alternative is not to come into existence at all.

You did not come into existence *because* of a genetic defect, but *despite* it. On the other hand, were it not for reproduction you would not exist. That is, genetic defects have no survival value, whereas reproduction is the most important biological innovation in the history of life, not only enabling your life but ALL life as we know it. Not being able to see the difference between a genetic defect and reproduction is like not being able to see the difference between a defect engine and the making of that engine.

Secondly, values presupposes an organism. Assume the organism come into existence at t0 (and dies at t1000), an alternative posed to the organism at t253 is then an alternative to the organism, and this alternative can therefore carry value significance. However, the alternative of coming into existence or not predates t0. This alternative is at t(-1) and is therfore not an alternative to the organism. You don't act to gain or keep things before you come into existence. Thus this alternative is outside the realm of values.

Do you really believe this or are you merely rationalizing to make a point?

[Freddy]

You did not come into existence *because* of a genetic defect, but *despite* it. On the other hand, were it not for reproduction you would not exist.

It dosn't matter. You don't come into existence thanks to your abilty to reproduce. The alternative you posed was clear. It is better to come into existence with the trait X than not to come into existence at all, therefore trait X is a survival value. An inherited genetic defect is just as necessary as an inherited trait of reproduction.

That is, genetic defects have no survival value, whereas reproduction is the most important biological innovation in the history of life, not only enabling your life but ALL life as we know it

That's true on a survial of the species level, but not on the indivual level where reproduction can kill you. The reproductive activities of organism X dosn't benefit organism X, it benefit X:s decendants and might very well kill X. Your reproduction doesn't enable your life.

Do you really believe this or are you merely rationalizing to make a point?

I've asked you before, do you really think Rands non-existing decendants feel sorry for themselfs? Is it a great disvalue to them not being born?

[Seeker]

And what does survival even mean in Rands argument?

One more time - as I said in my last post! - Ayn Rand stated, "man's survival qua man ... 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" (VoS, p. 26). So there you go. Is that clear enough?

You should be able to see that by man's existence I mean full existence that entails all of the "the terms, methods, conditions, and goals" that are required. Your definition is "momentary and merely physical" because it asserts that those are sufficient to say that a man "exists". The question is not what "exist" means, but rather what exists exactly? A physical body, or a physical body and a rational mind? If we say that we are referring to a man, i.e. a rational animal, then it must by definition be the latter. Did Hitler exist as an animal? Yes. Did he exist as a rational animal? No. He was not surviving qua man. Ultimately, he died as a consequence.

That's true by virtue of your definitions, morality as a code to guide you towards the ultimate end of survival, however if you choose to be a dictator as your ultimate end then you need a code of values to guide your actions towards this end, we can call this code Mao-rality. The question is then why anyone ought to choose morality instead of maorality. Which one is to choose reality?

Mao-rality doesn't work because it ignores causality: the cause of man's long-term survival is the use of his rational mind. If a practioner of Mao-rality survives, then it is in spite of Mao-rality, not because of it. Hence choosing Mao-rality is not choosing reality.

And this is where I introduce the life expectancy maximizer to show the absurdity of this view.

Thank goodness, where would this argument be without the fabulous and utterly useless life expectancy maximizer? The life expectancy maximizer is an absurdity. Why, then, do you think that it proves, rather than refutes, your point? As I recall, your argument essentially asserts that life on the maximizer simply won't do. The correct claim against it however is that the maximizer is an absurdity precisely because it fails to provide for man's needs qua man, which is to say, it doesn't really extend his life at all. As I predicted it would, the debate turns out to be what man's survival needs are. Those needs include using his mind, with all of its complex psychological requirements that the maximizer cannot fulfill. This is where you attempt to discount that fact by qualifying your notion of survival as merely physical, which Rand expressly refuted. If your sole rejoinder to that is an absurdity, then I think I have won the debate.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Seeker

[Onar Åm]

The alternative you posed was clear. It is better to come into existence with the trait X than not to come into existence at all, therefore trait X is a survival value. An inherited genetic defect is just as necessary as an inherited trait of reproduction.

Well, then. Either I posed my alternatives very unclearly or you are engaging in rationalism. I didn't say that it was better to come into existence with trait X than to come into existence at all, I said that it is better to come into existence with trait X than not at all if X is the CAUSE of your existence. A genetic defect is not the cause of your existence, the trait of reproduction IS.

That's true on a survial of the species level, but not on the indivual level where reproduction can kill you. The reproductive activities of organism X dosn't benefit organism X, it benefit X:s decendants and might very well kill X. Your reproduction doesn't enable your life.

I've asked you before, do you really think Rands non-existing decendants feel sorry for themselfs? Is it a great disvalue to them not being born?

Look, please stop with this rationalization and look at the facts. Let me rephrase your rationalistic position in terms of the facts:

1) since the reproduction that causes our existence occurs a split second before we come into existence you argue that we are slaves to our genes and reproduction is the ultimate goal.

2) had reproduction occured just a split second later, right after we came into existence then reproduction is no longer the ultimate goal and we are not slaves to our genes.

In other words, what separates your position from mine is literally the blink of an eye. Your rationalization is that this split second is of such immense and insurpassable metaphysical importance as to render us drones in a vicious game of altruism. Based on this blink of the eye we should throw out individualism and accept that we are sacrificial animals. Do you honestly not see the absurdity of this position? And all of this hinges on the insistence on arbitrary accepting the definition of value of the anti-altruistic philosopher Ayn Rand as "that which we act to gain or keep."

Think a little bit about the consequence of what you are proposing, namely that ONLY the things that you can "act to gain or keep" in the present is of value to you. If that were the case Aristotle, the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment can have no value to any living being since they occured before anyone was born. Furthermore, I cannot "act to gain or keep" a past experience. So the education I got as a child is of no value to me because it is now no longer in the present. I can't "act to gain or keep it." Clearly this is absurd. All of these things are valuable to me, so let's consider WHY the industrial revolution is of great value to me. It no longer exists, but traces of it still exist in the present: cars, skyskrapers, airplanes etc. And these concretes most certainly are values that I can "act to gain or keep." In other words, the industrial revolution is of value to me because it *caused* things in the present that are of value to me. By the same token, the trait of reproduction is of value to me because it caused ME to exist.

[hunterrose]

My proposal was reproductive success. This covers prudence as well as altruism.

Questions: what evidence would qualify as proof that "reproductive success" is not an animal's ultimate value, and does this evidence exist?

The main point is not to defend reproductive success as the only ultimate value, but to show that survival as an ultimate end doesn't square with observations.

Granted. You are making an argument that survival (success?) is not the ultimate value/end of animals. While Rand (correctly or not) apparently disagreed, her argument was not that the ultimate value/end of nonhuman animals is survival, therefore the ultimate end of humans ought to be survival - and I'm sure we agree that would be a bad argument on many different levels.

Is the argument that since you have to be alive in order to experience reality, you therefore ought to live as long as possible?

No, and that doesn't say why one ought to (or under what conditions one ought to) "experience" reality.

Or does the argument say that since self preservation is the objective ultimate value accepting this is to accept something true, and therefore to accept reality.

As I understand things, part of the argument is that

1. one's existence is the objective ultimate value
   
2. nothing else even qualifies as an ultimate value
   
3. every human's (and presumably every other organism's) ultimate value is it's own existence regardless of whether they actually volitionally/deterministically act for the sake of that ultimate value.
   

The above points seem very difficult to prove (especially #2), and if they have been definitively proven, I either have not seen the proof or simply did not understand it.

The far ... simpler way I often see Rand's argument interpreted is that if your existence is your own highest/ultimate value, then it requires you to act in certain ways (in order to exist.) Existence certainly has requirements, but this wouldn't say why one ought to have one's own existence as her highest/ultimate value.

My main disagreement with the survival vs. reproduction argument is not so much that you are/are not correct, but that it is irrelevant. Arguing animal survival vs. animal reproduction is ultimately a dead end street, as there seems to be no basis for deriving an ought (for humans) from whatever nonhumans act for - if you are right (that survival isn't animals' ultimate) then it doesn't determine an ought (it merely disproves a misinterpretation of Rand's argument). And if you are wrong about survival and animals, it doesn't prove anything regarding an ought for humans. Either way, it's not important to the is-ought question as a whole.

[Seeker]

A member of this forum, Ian, posted a while back and I find it worthy of quoting here. Hope this helps.

...

The starting point is this: Ayn Rand's epistemology says that you can't just think up abstract ideas and have them be valid, just because you have imagined them. For example you can't just come up with this idea of "value" and have it be valid, you have to show where in reality you got it from.

Ayn Rand maintains that the only way to see value when looking at nature is when you see:

1. an entity that can act

2. acting after something

3. in the face of an alternative

What this means is that there has to be two possible outcomes: the entity gets the thing gives outcome 1, or it doesn't get it gives outcome 2. (e.g. a sea bird dives from the sky to spear a fish with it's beak. Outcome 1: it gets it and feeds, outcome 2: it misses and goes hungry) If getting it or not both result in the same outcome, then there is no way to judge whether the thing was good or bad - it simply made no difference.

So given that we have to get our ideas from reality, it is only alternatives (two possible outcomes) that make values possible. Now there are many alternatives that any given entity that can act faces. Why should I go to school? Because knowledge is important. Why is knowledge important? Because it lets you deal with the world. Why is dealing with the world important? Because it helps you prosper. Why is prospering important? and so on... For any act you can take, there is an endless chain of "why bother?" questions. There are no grounds for choosing one of the options over the other - unless - you ultimately face the fundamental alternative.

There is only one alternative that can terminate this chain: the fundamental alternative. When outcome 1 is life and outcome 2 is death. Why is this so important? Because from the entity's perspective the it is the alternative of "existence or non-existence." But there is no non-existence. It's not another type of reality - some kind of black void with rules of it's own, it is nothing, it isn't. There is nothing to compare and contrast. There is only what is - and the fact you just simply have to accept it.

This is rationality: accepting the fact of reality. There are two aspects to this commitment. One aspect is in epistemology where you accept data from reality as the ultimate proof of any argument. Another aspect of this acceptance is in ethics, where you accept reality as such as the end of your ethical chain.

So the fact that entities act for their own survival, or for reproduction is not too important. The important thing is that their actions allow us to form the concept "value" from reality, and to notice that it is alternatives that make it possible.

[Marc K.]

but not on the indivual level where reproduction can kill you.

I've heard you say this before and for the life of me I don't understand what it means.

For a lion chasing prey, eating can kill you. So what? Does that mean he shouldn't eat? Or that eating doesn't contribute to the life of the lion?

What you are asking is the impossible. You want a salmon not to be a salmon. You want it to act like a catfish.

Every thing that exists, exists as something specific.

Considering the hierarchy of the two concepts: life and reproduction has been very helpful to me when trying to understand this issue.

[Freddy]

One more time - as I said in my last post! - Ayn Rand stated, "man's survival qua man ... 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" (VoS, p. 26). So there you go. Is that clear enough?

It's all but clear. First, what's rational is determined by the moral criteria we are about to derive. Different criterias will yield different conclusions of what we should focus our mind on. If you say that the ultimate goal is to live a rational life and that rationality is just to use the brain, then the mad scientist working on a device to obliterate the earth is as ratinoal as Bill Gates. However if you say that maximal longevity is your goal and that rationality is a means towards this end then you have made a substantial claim. The point is, rationality is a very useful universal tool for whatever end man might have but we still need a goal to use this tool on, if the goal is to be rational then that's just circular.

The supporter of any alleged objective morality will claim that their recommended lifestyle is to live as man ought to live, that is, what you call "full existence", and the above says nothing more than that. The whole point of the meta ethical argument must be to derive a criteria in relation to which you can derive the content of an objective morality. Longevity (literal survival) is a criteria because we know what longevity means. Survival qua man is not a criteria, becuase we don't know what it means for the reasons stated. In my view the Objectivst morality starts from the position of either being absurd and intelligible (literal survival) or being absurd and vacous (survival qua man, with the added implication that Hitler did not exist). I think Objectivists use both approaches, the latter approach is used to fend of absurdities created by the first and vice versa. I take this to be an indication that something is wrong with the whole approach.

Mao-rality doesn't work because it ignores causality: the cause of man's long-term survival is the use of his rational mind. If a practioner of Mao-rality survives, then it is in spite of Mao-rality, not because of it. Hence choosing Mao-rality is not choosing reality.

But a practioner of Mao-rality dosn't have as his ultimate end to live as long as possible, you might just as well turn it around and say that (Objectivist) morality ignores causality because it won't make you a dictator. You also beg the question by assuming that choosing longevity as your ultimate goal is to choose reality, that was what you was exepcted to give a reason for. And you cannot give rationality as a reason beacuse, as stated above, what is ultimately concidered rational is dependent on the ultimate end.

Why, then, do you think that it [the life expectancy maximizer] proves, rather than refutes, your point?

I use it to highlight the ubiquitous slide in the argument. When you say that to exist means "live as man ought to live" which would exclude Hitler, I point to the fact that it is hard to start a world war unless you exist and have human attributes (a squirrel could not have started WWII for example). When you admit that Hitler did in fact exist but had bad odds for his continued literal existence then I point to the fact that the alternative of existene or non existence in this literal interpretation must imply longevity as the ultimate end, and this is where the life exectancy maximizer comes in handy to show the absurdity of this view.

The correct claim against it however is that the maximizer is an absurdity precisely because it fails to provide for man's needs qua man, which is to say, it doesn't really extend his life at all.

And this is of course what all humans will claim, which goes to show that existence simply isn't the ultimate end, unless you redefine existence. So, the criteria for morality is then the criteria for how to redefine existence, but you have not stated such a criteria, thus nothing will follow from your argument that existence is the ultimate end. I've said it before, existence is a concept that you continously retrofit to encompass the ethical conclusions you sympathize with, but it does nothing to show that those conclusions are valid, and it does nothing whatsoever to reveal the method you actually used to conclude that something was so good that it earned a place in the extension of your concept "existence". Thus, existence isn't a useful criteria for morality, the actual base for ethics is somewhere else.

I take this to be the central claim of the quote and I think it's false from beginning to end which is evident from the fact that we are perfectly able to evaluate a choice between 150 years in a life expectancy maximizer and 75 years of empire building. Also observe that "there is no non-existence" is only true if existence is taken literally (in which case the life-expectancy maximizer implies "most" existence in the alternative above) and false if existence is taken to mean "live as man ought to live".

[Freddy]

Questions: what evidence would qualify as proof that "reproductive success" is not an animal's ultimate value, and does this evidence exist?

Compare the neutered tom cat with his non neutered brother. The vast differences in their behaviuor can be explained by different value hierarchies with different values on top, survival compared to reproductive success (or both as competing ends). The neutered cat acts in the way Rand is describing below in the Galt qoute, his brother does not becuse he might "knowingly" pursue his own destruction in fights for females.

You are making an argument that survival (success?) is not the ultimate value/end of animals. While Rand (correctly or not) apparently disagreed, her argument was not that the ultimate value/end of nonhuman animals is survival, therefore the ultimate end of humans ought to be survival - and I'm sure we agree that would be a bad argument on many different levels.

It would certainly be a bad argument, but it still seems that if she was trying to make it:

A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

What is the point Rand is illustrating here? Could she just as well have made that point by reference to an animal that commited suicide in the pursuit of reproductive success? Is she saying only that plants and animals do not have volition? Then why even bother to list things the organisms pursues to extend its existence?

The far ... simpler way I often see Rand's argument interpreted is that if your existence is your own highest/ultimate value, then it requires you to act in certain ways (in order to exist.) Existence certainly has requirements, but this wouldn't say why one ought to have one's own existence as her highest/ultimate value.

Exactly, and this view also seem to rest on the misunderstading that not choosing to maximize a quantity is the choice to minimize that same quantity. For the sake of the argument, assume that we agree that the objectivist choice to live is the choice to live as long as possible. This is a concrete goal that carries certain requirements. Now, If a person chooses to be a dictator as his basic choice, then this is a concrete goal that carries different requirements, and therefore implies a different morality. It is true that in order to become a dictator you have to exist, but it by no means imply that you have to choose the actions that best ensures your longevity. Now, the dictator has not made the choice to live (ie. the choice to maximize his longevity), however, his basic choice to become a dictator isn't therfore equal to an immediate suicide, very far from it, thus he has a need for a morality just as much as the longevity maximizer, only a different one. How is subjectivism avoided here?

My main disagreement with the survival vs. reproduction argument is not so much that you are/are not correct, but that it is irrelevant. Arguing animal survival vs. animal reproduction is ultimately a dead end street, as there seems to be no basis for deriving an ought (for humans) from whatever nonhumans act for - if you are right (that survival isn't animals' ultimate) then it doesn't determine an ought (it merely disproves a misinterpretation of Rand's argument). And if you are wrong about survival and animals, it doesn't prove anything regarding an ought for humans. Either way, it's not important to the is-ought question as a whole.

I totally agree.

[Freddy]

For a lion chasing prey, eating can kill you. So what? Does that mean he shouldn't eat? Or that eating doesn't contribute to the life of the lion?

This dosn't capture the alternative we are discussing. I posited an animal above that commited suicude in order to feed itself to it's kids. The alternative is thus to further the lifes of the offspring (suicide) or furthering the survival of the organism itself and letting the offspring die (no suicide). If survival was the ultimate value, well then it is hard to explain a suicide. It's not hard to explain why the animal eats though, this is generally conductive towards both survival and reproductive success.

What you are asking is the impossible. You want a salmon not to be a salmon. You want it to act like a catfish.

Every thing that exists, exists as something specific.

Yes, an organism does whatever it does, and it has a nature that determines what it does. But this doesn't mean that survival is the ultimate goal of the organism. Imagine you are programming a robot, on your view no matter how you programmed the robot it would have it's own "survival" as the ultimate value bacuse the control program is a part of what makes the robot exist as something specific. Now, that's not very informative.

My view here is that the value hierarchy conveyed in the control program by the programmer can be revealed by an observer by careful observation of the robots actions. We might conclude that the robot has human life saving as it's ultimate value if it rescues people at the risk of its owns "existence", or we might conclude that the robot has longevity as it's ultimate value if it spends all its time looking for chargers (ie. food). But to say that whatever the robot does serves as proof of the thesis that it has its survival as its ultimate value is to say nothing at all.

[Freddy]

Well, then. Either I posed my alternatives very unclearly or you are engaging in rationalism. I didn't say that it was better to come into existence with trait X than to come into existence at all, I said that it is better to come into existence with trait X than not at all if X is the CAUSE of your existence. A genetic defect is not the cause of your existence, the trait of reproduction IS.

The cuase of an organisms existence isn't its reproductive behaviour, it is its parents reproductive behaviour among other things. Now, If the genetic defect above is due to a mutation in the mother that made her attract the father, then this genetic defect is also a cause of the offspring, but it certainly isn't a survival value if it makes the offspring inapt to carry out the actions needed for it's continued existence. Or if the genetic defect was due a direct mutation, this can be said to be a survival value becuse mutations are known to overall contribute to fitness, which might very well be the reason the parents still exist and is therefore a cause of the offspring. We can play this game forever, my view is simple, survival means continued existence for an existing organism, and thus suicide isn't conductive towards this end even if it further the life of the offspring.

1) since the reproduction that causes our existence occurs a split second before we come into existence you argue that we are slaves to our genes and reproduction is the ultimate goal.

2) had reproduction occured just a split second later, right after we came into existence then reproduction is no longer the ultimate goal and we are not slaves to our genes.

The second alternative is a contradiction, an effect usually comes after the cuase. But let's say the behaviour we are talking about isn't the cause of organisms coming into existence, they instead come into existence by an "external force", then my argument wouldn't change much, I would then just conclude that the organisms ultimate value was to simulate reproduction, the main point is still that survival isn't the ultimate value because when faced with the alternative of investing energy in simulating reproduction or investing energy in continued survival the organism act for the former, and therfore we are forced by the method Ayn Rand seem to use to conclude that simulating reproduction is an end that trumps survival.

I would also still say that whatever end we attribute the silverfish to ultimately act for it has no bearing on what any man ought to do. I belive the whole approach here is failed.

And all of this hinges on the insistence on arbitrary accepting the definition of value of the anti-altruistic philosopher Ayn Rand as "that which we act to gain or keep".[...]By the same token, the trait of reproduction is of value to me because it caused ME to exist.

I do agree that the definition is poor (it seems to me that values are prior to action), but you do not offer an alternative definition. Why do you have to value your reproductive ability beacuse your parents reproductive abilty brought you into existence? I see no logical connection. It seems more logical that you promote your parents continued reproduction rather than your own then. Also, do you suggest that man ought to reproduce, that Ayn Rand was immoral not to? I believe this more than anything discredits the approach to look for biological imperatives as the basis for ethics.

[Marc K.]

This dosn't capture the alternative we are discussing. I posited an animal above that commited suicude in order to feed itself to it's kids.

It does capture the alternative. I posited an animal that committed suicide in order to feed itself. In other words: an animal that committed suicide in order to live. It is the same alternative that you pose but it is even more obviously contradictory -- which illustrates the point.

However ... the point on which I would like to concentrate, since you seem to enjoy logic, is the one you missed last time:

Considering the hierarchy of the two concepts: life and reproduction has been very helpful to me when trying to understand this issue.

You must acknowledge that there is an epistemological hierarchy to the concepts life and reproduction. Life can be defined without referring to reproduction at all. Reproduction cannot be defined apart from the concept life.

To some philosophies this fact would have no significance outside of a definitional curiosity. But for one with a fully integrated, rational philosophy this fact must point to something in reality.