Why choose to live?

[Robert J. Kolker]

This is what is being meant, I think, by Peikoffs correct statement that all debate and all validation of the choice to live takes place within the realm of existence and rests on that commitment. And this is why it cannot be debated in the same sense as you could have a debate about whether to vote for Bush or for Kerry, or whether you should buy a computer from Apple or from IBM, or whether you should buy a car from Ford or from Mercedes-Benz.

Since suicide or fatal negligence is always possible, the choice to not commit suicide or to maintain one's body (up to and including inevitable breakdown and death) is precisely a matter of choice. It is no different than choosing between two flavors of ice-cream. Obviously it is a more serious question because if one choses suicide he does not get to change his mind later.

To be, or not to be -- THAT is the question.

And it is a question, therefore a choice whose answer is based on preference.

All LP has asserted is that life (including human life) exists. Nothing he says counter argues that to keep on living is purely a matter of choice.

Bob Kolker

Edited June 17, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[Capitalism Forever]

All LP has asserted is that life (including human life) exists. Nothing he says counter argues that to keep on living is purely a matter of choice.

Of course it is a choice. That is precisely what makes it the subject of moral evaluation.

You have no choice about the fact that life is your goal; that is inherent in your nature as a living organism. What you have a choice about is whether you pursue success or failure in achieving your goal. Saying "I don't want to live qua man" amounts to saying "I don't want to achieve my goal." That is a contradiction at the very root of what should have been your value hierarchy; it is the quintessence of irrationality.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Of course it is a choice. That is precisely what makes it the subject of moral evaluation.

You have no choice about the fact that life is your goal; that is inherent in your nature as a living organism. What you have a choice about is whether you pursue success or failure in achieving your goal. Saying "I don't want to live qua man" amounts to saying "I don't want to achieve my goal." That is a contradiction at the very root of what should have been your value hierarchy; it is the quintessence of irrationality.

Not so. There are those who seek to die. For example the Jihadi Martyrs (so-called). And there are those who commit suicide without being impelled by pain or suffering. They just don't feel like living any more. In such cases, death, not life, is the goal. So one does have a choice about whether to pursue life as a goal or not to pursue life as a goal. It is purely a matter of preference. Like choosing between flavors of ice cream. The main difference is that once one has chosen death, he does not get to change his/her mind.

Bob Kolker

[Capitalism Forever]

So one does have a choice about whether to pursue life as a goal or not to pursue life as a goal.

Of course one does. That's just what I said in my previous post. What you don't seem to get is that the goal of survival is inherent in your nature as a living being. You may choose to pursue that goal or not to pursue it.

It is purely a matter of preference. Like choosing between flavors of ice cream. The main difference is that once one has chosen death, he does not get to change his/her mind.

Until he's actually taken action kill himself, he does get to change his mind. And once you've eaten your ice cream, you don't get to change your mind either: you may vomit it out and buy a different flavor, but you don't get to alter the fact that you have eaten the first flavor.

There are many essential differences between choosing life and choosing flavors of ice cream, but the above is neither essential nor a difference.

[DavidOdden]

Not so. There are those who seek to die.

What in the world do you think a "goal" is? Show us how, in Objectivist philosophy, suicide is an ultimate "goal".

[knast]

Since suicide or fatal negligence is always possible, the choice to not commit suicide or to maintain one's body (up to and including inevitable breakdown and death) is precisely a matter of choice. It is no different than choosing between two flavors of ice-cream. Obviously it is a more serious question because if one choses suicide he does not get to change his mind later.

To be, or not to be -- THAT is the question.

And it is a question, therefore a choice whose answer is based on preference.

All LP has asserted is that life (including human life) exists. Nothing he says counter argues that to keep on living is purely a matter of choice.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Sure, this might be your own opinion on this issue. And that's all right. But I thought that we were trying to clarify the actual meaning of Ayn Rands philosophy Objectivism, as it is being presented in Peikoffs book, OPAR. By saying this you're only creating more confusion on this matter, I am afraid. I think I've done that. No, let me rephrase that: I know that I've done that.

Why are you wrong? In part because nothing I said, or Peikoff for that matter, contradicts the fact that to keep on living is a choice. Honestly, I don't know where you got that impression from.

In part also because even though we can choose to live or choose to die, death as such can't, unlike life, logically be a ultimate value or goal.

The reason is that existence for a living being is conditional, i.e., life is conditional. Death isn't. You'll die no matter what, eventually. But to stay alive you have to fight. That is what it mean to say that life is conditional; it is conditional upon your own actions. It is not enough to simply avoid things which might kill you; you'll actually have to act. You have to struggle. You have to act in order to gain or keep the values which makes life possible.

Further. As I explained in my post, death or non-existence is not another kind of "something" with it's own advantages and disadvantages, which you then can rationally compare and contrast with something else. Non-existencen is nothing. It isn't.

That's why you can't rationally compare life with death as you, on the other hand, could compare a car from Ford with a car from Mercedes-Benz. Or, to use your own example: you could rationally compare one taste of ice-cream before another. Although you may not be able to prove that chocolate is objectively better than, say, strawberry, you're still comparing things which actually exists, which for that very reason possesses some actual qualities one could compare in some sense.

You could therefore say something like: "I choose chocolate, because I like the taste better." But how could you rationally say something like: "I choose death, due to all its advantages compared with life"?

Edited June 17, 2007 by knast