Life as the standard of value.

Questions about Objectivism
1

This following is a response to a chat request in which a user asked me some questions about life as the standard of value:

“why there must BE a standard of good (value?)”

The concept of value implies a valuer and a standard of value. Of value to whom? For what?

Some absolutists argue that the concept of value is merely a property of an existent independent from any agent. How can you define value without reference to a valuer or standard of value? How would you measure “value” as other metaphyiscally given existents can be objectively measured without reference? A thing can not be intrisically valuable without context.

“so now why is this the standard of good? how is it NOT arbitrary to set THIS and not something else as the standard?”

The most fundamental decision man faces is life or death. This choice can not be avoided. Every action will impact man’s life. If you wish to live, you must choose those actions which promote this fundamental choice consistently, absolutely, on principle.

If you need further clarification on why you can’t just make choices that futher your life SOMETIMES, check out the free “why act on principle” lecture by Dr. Leonard Peikoff on the registered users page at the ayn rand institute. http://www.aynrand.org/

“so why is it that in Oism one should live for one happiness, and not for one’s life?”

Where are you getting this?

Happiness as an end to itself is inverting cause and effect. According to objectivism, happiness should be the result of successfully achieving one’s rational (life-furthering) values.

Useful References: Ayn Rand Lexicon - “happiness” and “emotion”

“so the good is that which further’s a man’s goals?”

only if they are rational goals furthered in a rational way…

“All that which is proper to the life of the rational being is the good.” - Galt’s Speech

“well what if his goals are to cut himself to death?”

Life is THE premoral choice. Once life has been chosen these goals would obviously be considered irrational.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5739

If you have anything to add or correct, please comment. The requester is free to pm me with additional questions and remain anonymous or post here.

2

A standard of value is one’s definition of good and evil. Without a standard of value at all, one has no abstract, principled knowledge whatsoever of what are good ways of acting and what are bad ways. But of course, one without a standard of value at all quickly bootlegs someone’s else’s. With a standard of value derived from one’s own whim, or from the Bishop’s whim, or from one’s neighbor’s whim, one learns that acting to kill oneself is a good way of acting and that attempting to survive, let alone flourish in this world and enjoy it, are terrible things to do.