Question:
Is it possible for someone to values another life more than their own. By way of a specific example, their child. And, if they value the life of their child more than their own, wouldn’t that make their highest value another life?
Some Examples:
Question:
Is it possible for someone to values another life more than their own. By way of a specific example, their child. And, if they value the life of their child more than their own, wouldn’t that make their highest value another life?
Some Examples:
Sure it’s possible. However, as you can see, you may not live very long. If you want to live, YOUR life should be your highest value. If you don’t care about living, you could make popsicles your highest value if you like.
Question:
Is it possible for someone to values another life more than their own. By way of a specific example, their child.
My life is my standard of value, but I value the lives of my children more than my own. For instance, if there is a bump in the night, I dont send my 10 year old daughter down to investigate while I make my escape through the bedroom window to safety. I dont think that is anyones idea of heroic or moral behavior. I get my children to safety even if that puts my own life at risk.
Is it possible for someone to values another life more than their own.
Irrational people can do and says lots of things. What do you mean by “value”?
My life is my standard of value, but I value the lives of my children more than my own. For instance, if there is a bump in the night, I dont send my 10 year old daughter down to investigate while I make my escape through the bedroom window to safety. I don’t think that is anyone’s idea of heroic or moral behavior. I get my children to safety even if that puts my own life at risk.
So then by your definition you value the life of your children more than yours. You would rather expose yourself to danger then them. But your example is kind of limited. If a truck was coming down the road high speed and you needed to jump in front of that truck and die to save them, and you had three minutes to decide, would you jump and die? If you did this (by rational thought)I believe (at least at that moment) the value of your life is actually secondary to the value of their lives. Isn’t it? Would your life therefore ultimately be your highest value? Seems like an Objectivist paradox to me.
Also, you note that protecting (or saving) your children is nor moral behavior. If this is not moral behavior what is it and why?
Thanks.
Sure it’s possible. However, as you can see, you may not live very long. If you want to live, YOUR life should be your highest value. If you don’t care about living, you could make popsicles your highest value if you like.
Are you suggesting that values need to be related to self interest and only self interest?
Irrational people can do and says lots of things. What do you mean by “value”?
I’m hear to learn. What does it mean in thsi sentence:
The recognition that one’s life is one’s highest value.
In certain circumstances, like the one fletch commented on I would put myself into danger to save my Children or my wife, but that act is in and of itself not an indicator that I value their lives more than my own but that I believe my life would be less worth living without them.
It’s not a sacrifice for me to think of dying to save them, I would not be living my life as I want to live it if I did not try.
Are you suggesting that values need to be related to self interest and only self interest?
I’m suggesting that IF your intent is to live. Objectivism is a philosophy that presumes the choice to live life qua man. It does not say you MUST choose to live but rather what you must do IF you choose to live.
So then by your definition you value the life of your children more than yours. You would rather expose yourself to danger then them. But your example is kind of limited. If a truck was coming down the road high speed and you needed to jump in front of that truck and die to save them, and you had three minutes to decide, would you jump and die? If you did this (by rational thought)I believe (at least at that moment) the value of your life is actually secondary to the value of their lives. Isn’t it? Would your life therefore ultimately be your highest value? Seems like an Objectivist paradox to me.
This is not a paradox. If my significant other were in harm’s way, I would do everything I could to help him because he is of great value to me. If this means that I would lose my life in the process, that would be alright because my life is not worth living without him.
A parent (usually) feels a similar sentiment for his child. Life is not worth living without certain individuals.
The recognition that one’s life is one’s highest value.
That doesn’t tell me what “value” is. I’m not asking a tricky question, I just want a straight answer: what do you think “value” means?
In certain circumstances, like the one fletch commented on I would put myself into danger to save my Children or my wife, but that act is in and of itself not an indicator that I value their lives more than my own but that I believe my life would be less worth living without them.
It’s not a sacrifice for me to think of dying to save them, I would not be living my life as I want to live it if I did not try.
So you are saying that the relinquishment of you life is for selfish reasons? You would miss them, etc. Than how can you explain a pregnant mother running in to a burning building to save a stranger (which actually happened)?
That doesn’t tell me what “value” is. I’m not asking a tricky question, I just want a straight answer: what do you think “value” means?
I’m not being “tricky”. A core belief (I believe) of Objectivism is that “one’s life is one’s highest value”. You asked me my definition of “value” If you are an objectivist (or any one else here is) I am asking you what “value” means in this sentence. Because if we’re discussing Objectivism than it’s only relevant definition is the one contained from within.
I’m suggesting that IF your intent is to live. Objectivism is a philosophy that presumes the choice to live life qua man. It does not say you MUST choose to live but rather what you must do IF you choose to live.
I was under the impression that in Objectivism the value of your life was more important than any other life. If my foundation is wrong than so be it. However, if there are instances where this is not true, does that automatically eliminate you as an objectivist?
If you are an objectivist (by definition) can you chose to live and still find circumstances where your survival is not paramount? Or can there ever be instances where survival is not be paramount? If not, that would meant that a pregnant woman running in to a burning building to save a stranger was irrational and/or insane. Is that true?
I’m hear to learn. What does it mean in thsi sentence:
The recognition that one’s life is one’s highest value.
A value is a something one needs, of a given importance, in order to achieve a purpose.
One obviously has to have choices that lead to a purpose (has to have an attainable purpose ), and has to be capable of choosing , in order for one to hold a value. (otherwise we cannot talk about that entity holding a value)
For instance, if one is a living entity, capable of making choices (i.e. a human being), he faces a constant choice, between life and death. If his purpose is something other than death, and he continues to have choices available which will make it possible to achieve that purpose , then his highest value must be his own life. (because choosing life has to be part of every choice he makes)
To sum up: the concept of value presupposes the existence of a living entity who can make choices , and the existence of a goal which is attainable by that entity. (the concept of value presupposes the existence of the things I colored in blue, red, and green)
However, if there is no way for one to achieve his purpose (for instance if someone’s purpose is to lead a happy life, and he decides that he cannot do that, no matter what, once his children die), we cannot talk about values, because this entity no longer has an attainable purpose.
And this is made clear in Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” for instance. The assertion that Objectivism requires a man to choose life, no matter what, is not a logical conclusion of “man’s highest value is life”. One can only come to this conclusion by not understanding the concept “value”. (that is why David is insisting on that word being defined before any other discussion can occur.)
So you are saying that the relinquishment of you life is for selfish reasons? You would miss them, etc.
Yes.
Than how can you explain a pregnant mother running in to a burning building to save a stranger (which actually happened)?
The fact that it was done means absolutely nothing. If you could show me how the action was dependent on Objectivism then it might but I doubt that the woman even knew Objectivism existed much less had a working knowledge of this principal.
You also seem to be confusing, or trying to confuse Objectivist principal with something like the Law of Gravity.
If you are an objectivist (by definition) can you chose to live and still find circumstances where your survival is not paramount?
Survival is generally a term used to suggest “staying physically alive”. Life, or more specifically man’s life, is not simply about duration or the maximum number of hours I can stay on this side of the dirt at all costs and without context to what that life consists of. IF one chooses life, one can risk that life to pursue values important to that life, but that does not mean that life itself is not the paramount concern. Living comes inherently with risk, in some cases moreso than others.
I would risk my life to save my son’s life because of the value his existence represents to MY LIFE. That does not translate to me valuing his life more than mine.
I’m not being “tricky”. A core belief (I believe) of Objectivism is that “one’s life is one’s highest value”. You asked me my definition of “value” If you are an objectivist (or any one else here is) I am asking you what “value” means in this sentence. Because if we’re discussing Objectivism than it’s only relevant definition is the one contained from within.
In other words, you do not know what “value” means. Alright, “value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. We will presume that definition in further discussion.
[addendum]From that fact, you derive the conclusion that one’s life is one’s highest value.
Question:
Is it possible for someone to values another life more than their own.
No.
Read the post here.
No.
Read the post here.
a gun pointed at your spouse is like saying: I can’t live without this person, so I am willing to die. Despite the fact that the individual may die, his action is still evaluated in the context of furthering his life.
I understand this to mean that if the person who steps in front of the bullet does not know the person he or she is saving than by definition this is an irrational act - because it’s contrary to what should be the Ultimate Purpose. Is that what you are saying? I’m still not clear.