In her essay The Objective Ethics, Ayn Rand states:
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” (this quote is from the 67th paragraph, approximately, of the essay)
Assuming that we accept the premise that life is an end in itself based on the arguments that Ms. Rand laid out earlier in the essay, we can then agree with the first 28 words of the quote because every living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, therefore every living human being is an end in himself.
My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?
If it is the case that because an individual is an end in himself, and an individual is an end in himself because he is alive and life, as Ms. Rand argued, is an end in itself, then, continuing your question, how can life be a means to some other end?
Or let me put it another way: A cow is alive and since life is an end in itself, the cow is an end in itself. Ms. Rand’s quote could then be rewritten as, “…just as life is an end in itself, so every living cow is an end in itself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” Then to rephrase your question: How can the cow be a means to some other end? The answer is that a cow can be the means to an end. As evidence, one can witness cows being consumed as food by humans and by other animals around the world. Therefore, a cow can become the means to an end; the end being the life of another. So life, which as Ms. Rand stated is an end in itself, can and does become the means to the ends or welfare of others.
The fact that life can be the means to the ends of others is what caused my questions in the original post. My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?
The cow can be a means to some other end because cows don’t have rights. What would it mean for a man to be the means to the ends, or welfare of others?
I used the example of a cow in the previous post for simplicity when it could have been any form of life. That is part of the question.
If a living human being is not the means to the ends of others because a living human being is an end to himself and a living human being is an end to himself because a living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, does this logic work for all living things i.e. A living thing is not the means to the ends of others because a living thing is an end to itself and a living thing is an end to itself because a living thing is alive and life is an end in itself? If not, why not?
When she says life is an end in itself, she means that life (all life) is a “value that is gained and kept by a constant process of action”. But notice that she says “just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself”, not “BECAUSE life is an end in itself, every living human being is an end in himself”. A distinction needs to be made between “life” in a general sense, and “mans life”. A mans life is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others because he has rights, specifically the right to his own life and property.
The statement at least implicitly is framed within a societal context.
Man can be the means to the ends of other living things. A tiger in the jungle will not not eat you because you are not the means to the ends of another man. Predators eat prey ,it is a part of their nature, those actions sustain their lives.
I took the “just as” to mean: a living human being is an end in himself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay that demonstrate that life is an end in itself. The sentence could have been rewritten to state, “…just as life is an end in itself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay, a living human being is an end in himself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay…” It appears to me that Ms. Rand is pointing out that since man is a form of life and she already established the reasons that life is an end in itself, it logically follows that man is an end in himself.
Can you please provide more information on the distinction between life in a general sense and man’s life? Is it simply that man has rights? If so, from where do man’s right come?
When she says life is an end in itself, she means that life (all life) is a “value that is gained and kept by a constant process of action”. But notice that she says “just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself”, not “BECAUSE life is an end in itself, every living human being is an end in himself”.
“So” in this context means “because”. Life is an end in itself. Man has life. Therefore, man is an end in himself. The whole “end in itself” is a big part of what life is, and anything that isn’t an end in itself, like a rock, doesn’t have life. People *can* be means to an end too, at least in a short time period, but it wouldn’t end well. Note the “must” for the quote in question, that is a claim about what one ought to do, not that it is impossible to make someone else a means to an end. It isn’t “must” as in it’s the only possibility. Also, it looks pretty clear to me Rand is introducing a conclusion first, but proceeds to explain what she means in the rest of the essay.
Tj, have you finished reading the essay, or are you going line by line? I think the point of writing out a conclusion first, then explaining, is a good way to get people to come up with questions, then answer those questions later in the essay.
“So” in this context means “because”. Life is an end in itself. Man has life. Therefore, man is an end in himself.
It could, but I think that by wording it this way and introducing the idea at this point in the essay shes purposely reinforcing the idea that “mans life” is fundamentally different than just “life” where ethics is concerned. Man doesn’t need ethics because he is alive (that’s only part of it), he needs ethics because he has choice. The idea that man cannot survive (qua man) as a sacrificial animal also has its roots in this fundamental difference (life vs. mans life). I’ll reread the essay and come back…
Nah, the distinction I was referring to is made clear throughout the essay. I was in fact hung up on the wording of that particular sentence for some reason. Tj, I would agree with your last response to me, that’s how I’ reading it now.
With regard to mans rights, if they “come from” anywhere, its from the recognition of the fact that man needs to be free from physical coercion in order to live the life that is in accordance with his nature qua man. Someone else I’m sure can explain this better…
I have finished reading the essay and have read it many times. Can you point me to the paragraph(s) in the essay where Ms. Rand explains and her conclusion that man is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others?
You stated, “A mans life is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others because he has rights, specifically the right to his own life and property.”
However, it appears to me that the concept of rights within Objectivism has as its starting point the concept embodied in the sentence, “…every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or welfare of others - and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” This sentence, to me, means that you have rights because you are not the means to the ends of others.
Without the concept of man as an end to himself and not the means to the ends of others, rights are meaningless. If it is true that you are the means to my ends, then you can not have rights. It is only if you are not the means to my (or anyone else’s) ends that you have rights.
Since it appears that rights arise out of the concept embodied in words 29 through 39 of the quote in the original post, is a reason I asked the questions of where this concept comes from and why is it correct.
“I quote from Galt’s speech: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.””
And then the part about virtues after that.
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”
“The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.”
Basically, you’re asking about the whole subject of the essay. There are examples all over. It would be more fruitful if you bring up points that you think don’t make sense, don’t follow, or are contradictions. The quote you brought up isn’t talking about rights, it isn’t saying you have rights because you shouldn’t be means to ends. The quote doesn’t even use the word rights. It says “social principle”, not “political principle”. Life is an end in itself, simple as that. Nowhere does it say or imply “therefore, man has rights”. Rights come into the essay later.
Your first quote, from paragraph 48 I believe, talks about choice and how man must make choices, it does not address nor answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others comes.
Your second quote, from paragraph 84 I believe, states that human good does not require human sacrifices. This does not answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others comes, rather it states that it is not good to sacrifice others or be sacrificed to others. In order to determine whether something is good or not it must be compared to a standard. The standard was established in paragraph 67 with the line, “…not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” Once this is accepted as true, then the your quote from paragraph 84 is correct because to sacrifice others or to be sacrificed to others would not be good becuase you are not the means to the ends of others.
Your third quote, from paragraph 76 I believe, is just a restatement that life is an end in itself. Ms. Rand adds in the concept of the pursuit of happiness in this paragraph but no where does it answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others come.
You stated, “It would be more fruitful if you bring up points that you think don’t make sense, don’t follow, or are contradictions.” In the original post I have asked the questions for which I would like clarification. I ask because I can not find the answers anywhere in the essay.
the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others come.
Isn’t it a corollary of the fact that men exist as individuals. If it is possible for a man to exist in isolation(metaphysically) how could any principle of dependence be derived from the nature of being that can exist as a single entity.
I am not sure what you mean by dependence. The quote in the original post does not speak to dependence, rather that a living human being is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.
Isn’t that just stating a principle of dependence in the negative form? I take it as saying that there is no derivable principle of dependence between man qua man, so therefore…
so therefore a living human is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.