DBCA Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I've been thinking about a certain aspect of ethics which is of paramount importance but seems often to be neglected. I have listened to Gary Hull's introductory lectures on Objectivism (offered by ARI, I quite recommend them) in which he says of the basic choice confronting all living things, life or death, "you want to remain alive" (this might be a paraphrase). Now I wonder, in what sense is "want" meant here? Certainly I want to remain alive so that I can be happy. So is happiness an end in itself? Probably, but that isn't the part that's bothering me. What can be said to the person who lives irrationally, and after having it been explained to him that choosing to live irrationally is in fact choosing to die (as said Gary Hull, essentially), says "ok, fine, I am choosing to die then. I accept it and will go on living this 'life of death'." That is his choice to make of course, and as far as a rational society is concerned it makes no difference if this choice is arbitrary or not, because it doesn't affect the reason involved with enforcing capitalist laws (let us say this irrational person is a cannibal or something else that violates other people's rights). But this too is not the issue. The question is: can there be said to be anything intrinsically wrong with a living being renouncing his life and choosing to die through unreason? Perhaps my problem lies in my use of the word "intrinsically". After all, there is no intrinsic morality, only objective ones based on the results of actions (in full context of course). But even then, it seems that the man who would choose to die (by the way, I know full well that there are times in which suicide is rationally justified, I do not mean that) is not making a philosophic choice since philosophy is a guide to living, and therefore, begins after one has already chosen that he wants to live. This is tentative, but, I believe, thought provoking and as far as I can tell, correct. When I first came up with this, I thought that it perhaps changes the truth Objectivism, which I am a student of. It does not. It only changes my attitude towards irrational people really, I don't care so much about them (not that I really did to any great extent before), in fact it seems that I really shouldn't think of them as needing help, it is their choice after all, and though it would not be mine under any circumstance (to renounce life without reason, that it), that is not relevant, since it isn't my choice for them. ps - the page number in the title is for OPAR, it contains a short discussion on this subject which, though I have the utmost respect for Dr. Peikoff, I believe is inadequate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Welcome to the forum. I notice you list St. John's College as your school. I myself am a rising junior at St. John's, and I run the Objectivist Club there. I don't recognize your name...are you an incoming freshman? If one chooses death, no action is necessary. People who pursue a "living death" haven't chosen death; they are inconsistent. They really do want life, or else they wouldn't bother taking any action at all. The best discussion of this and related questions is in Tara Smith's Viable Values Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 This might help: "Comments on Tara Smith's Viable Values". Especially see the Appendix, "Categoricity versus the Choice to Live". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 The question is: can there be said to be anything intrinsically wrong with a living being renouncing his life and choosing to die through unreason? Perhaps a concretization of this question would help. Would smoking be an example of this? Would a person with the disease PKU who intentionally and knowingly eats a diet high in phenylalanine, when he could do otherwise, knowing that this is bad for PKU, be an example of this? Would a person who refuses to wear a helmet when he rides a motorcycle and then gets a concussion and is paralyzed in the hospital for a few months be an example of this? Maybe the first time he didn't know better. What if he does it the second time? I have extreme difficulty understanding philosophy if it is not concretized. Am I the only person in this group who has this difficulty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 I have extreme difficulty understanding philosophy if it is not concretized. Am I the only person in this group who has this difficulty? I don't know, but one of the nice things about grasping principles is that you do not have to start from scratch when judging each concrete instance of the principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.