Objectivists often claim that it is not mere survival that morality is for, but for living as “man qua man.” I don’t understand why this is necessary.
If life is the only ultimate value, why does it matter whether I am living as an independent man with purpose, self-esteem, etc. when I could be hooked up to a machine that breathes and nourishes me?
If it is for reasons beyond “mere survival,” then why?
The only way to live by non-independant means is via the voluntary help of others, i.e., charity, or through the theft of other people’s property, either by stealing it yourself or by having others do the theft for you, i.e., taxes. Since you have no right to do the latter and the former should only be done for those that are unable to support themselves, not those that are unwilling, one therefore morally must choose to live independant or else one is an immoral person who values death rather than life. Since life is of more value than death and since it is more rational to be moral than immoral, one should therefore choose to be independant.
The only way to live by non-independant means is via the voluntary help of others, i.e., charity, or through the theft of other people’s property, either by stealing it yourself or by having others do the theft for you, i.e., taxes. Since you have no right to do the latter and the former should only be done for those that are unable to support themselves, not those that are unwilling, one therefore morally must choose to live independant or else one is an immoral person who values death rather than life. Since life is of more value than death and since it is more rational to be moral than immoral, one should therefore choose to be independant.
Concepts such as “rights” or “theft” or “immoral” used in this context presuppose the correctness of living life as “man qua man.” Therefore, if I’m understanding everything correctly, I don’t think you answered the question in the way that I’m asking it to be answered. Start with the basics: why am I working towards anything more than “mere survival”?
Concepts such as “rights” or “theft” or “immoral” used in this context presuppose the correctness of living life as “man qua man.” Therefore, if I’m understanding everything correctly, I don’t think you answered the question in the way that I’m asking it to be answered. Start with the basics: why am I working towards anything more than “mere survival”?
I was merely giving a brief summary of why we should choose to live as individuals. That does not mean I misintrepreted you. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I felt that saying that would be a better thing for me to do than answer the question? Because it was exactly that.
If life is the only ultimate value , why does it matter whether I am living as an independent man with purpose, self-esteem, etc. when I could be hooked up to a machine that breathes and nourishes me?
In the emphasized phrase, you are using the term “life” in the sense of “being alive” rather than in the broader sense of living life. So, as phrased, you’re right. The question is: why would being alive be the only ultimate value? (Also, what do you mean by “ultimate” here?)
To pre-empt one possible reply :lol: , don’t answer this by asking: “Doesn’t Objectivism say that staying alive is an ultimate value?” If it does, then the question remains: how does it reach this conclusion – i.e., why?
All I know is that Rand said life, whether in plants, animals, or man, is biologically the highest possible value (it also makes other values possible). I don’t understand her jump from this (which seems to be just physical life) to live life “man qua man.”
All I know is that Rand said life, whether in plants, animals, or man, is biologically the highest possible value (it also makes other values possible). I don’t understand her jump from this (which seems to be just physical life) to live life “man qua man.”
Man qua man is not mere physical survival. It is being alive in more than just a physical sense. That is what Ayn Rand was referring to, not just physical life.
I could be being incredibly unclear here, but this is what I want to know: why should I move from working towards “physical life” to “man qua man.”
I understand that “man qua man” is more than just physical life, that is why I want an answer of why I should work towards it as opposed to just physical life.
I could be being incredibly unclear here, but this is what I want to know: why should I move from working towards “physical life” to “man qua man.”
I understand that “man qua man” is more than just physical life, that is why I want an answer of why I should work towards it as opposed to just physical life.
Think about this: could you really enjoy a mere physical survival? I would say the answer is no. Look back at history. Look at the mere physical survival of the people of the middle and dark ages. They did not enjoy themselves. They suffered. Enjoyment is better than suffering or indifference even. That can only be achieved via man qua man. That is why you should strive for man qua man.
mb121,
What would your life be like to you if mere physical survival was your ultimate goal - extending your physical existence for the most possible number of seconds?
What motive would there be to survive if your survival did not extend beyond mere physical survival? What point would there be to survivng?
What motive would there be to survive if your survival did not extend beyond mere physical survival? What point would there be to survivng?
I always thought that I would want to be hooked up to a life support machine than be dead. On life support, there still that minute chance that you could be alive again, but death, theres no way that can be taken back.
One thing I got out of reading Tara Smith’s book “Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics” is a small sentence that stuck with me regarding this issue, and it may sound like mere semantics but I think its illuminating. I am not going to go look for the sentence so I will summarize(with elaboration).
Living, for any organism, means taking those actions conducive to its life, whether that means building a dam for a beaver, a nest for a bird, or a nuclear reactor for man. An organism furthers its life by taking life affirming actions, that is, taking those actions set down by its nature in order to sustain itself. For man, since his nature does not allow him to be a scavenger, the actions that further his life are those of using his mind to create the values needed to sustain his life. Now, a particular man CAN feed himself and sustain his life functions temporarily by stealing and leeching off the production of others, but in as much as he takes these actions–since these actions qua actions are not life sustaining actions, not even for himself as he is not using HIS mind to sustain himself, but the minds of others–he is in the process of dying, not of living, as those actions are life damaging actions. Just as a lion can sustain itself temporarily by eating carrion and not hunting for itself, it is not living, but slowly dying, as “dying” is not always instantaneous. The appropriate “oxymoron” is “living death.”
Note: the above was a lot of elaboration.
Ah, so then if the only answer is “what point would there be if your only goal was physical existance?” then are we not being subjectivists in the sense of “well, find your purpose, whatever suits you, and then achieve it so you can feel your pleasure”?
I always thought that I would want to be hooked up to a life support machine than be dead. On life support, there still that minute chance that you could be alive again, but death, theres no way that can be taken back.
You misunderstand my point. I meant when one is healthy, not kept alive by a machine. When one is healthy one can pursue values. Life support machines are a totally different matter. If I was healthy I would want to be more than physically alive. I would want to pursue values.
Ah, so then if the only answer is “what point would there be if your only goal was physical existance?” then are we not being subjectivists in the sense of “well, find your purpose, whatever suits you, and then achieve it so you can feel your pleasure”?
Only, if we choose an irational pleasure. Choosing rational pleasures is based on being objective. We can chose which rational pleasures we participate in and which we value, but that is not being an subjectivist, as we still used a rational process to reach our decisions.
One thing I got out of reading Tara Smith’s book “Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics” is a small sentence that stuck with me regarding this issue, and it may sound like mere semantics but I think its illuminating. I am not going to go look for the sentence so I will summarize(with elaboration).
Living, for any organism, means taking those actions conducive to its life, whether that means building a dam for a beaver, a nest for a bird, or a nuclear reactor for man. An organism furthers its life by taking life affirming actions, that is, taking those actions set down by its nature in order to sustain itself. For man, since his nature does not allow him to be a scavenger, the actions that further his life are those of using his mind to create the values needed to sustain his life. Now, a particular man CAN feed himself and sustain his life functions temporarily by stealing and leeching off the production of others, but in as much as he takes these actions–since these actions qua actions are not life sustaining actions, not even for himself as he is not using HIS mind to sustain himself, but the minds of others–he is in the process of dying, not of living, as those actions are life damaging actions. Just as a lion can sustain itself temporarily by eating carrion and not hunting for itself, it is not living, but slowly dying, as “dying” is not always instantaneous. The appropriate “oxymoron” is “living death.”
Note: the above was a lot of elaboration.
And I still have never gotten this: if you are in the process of “dying” while you mooch and loot, how does this explain the mob leaders and dictators who have lived seemingly full and healthy lives? Isn’t there always going to be the “supreme” moocher that leeches off of the good (yes, they rely on the good) and in this sense they aren’t dying at all…just living off of the good? Looting and Mooching of course can’t work for everyone (since it relies on the producers), but isn’t it ridiculous to say they are “dying”?
And I still have never gotten this: if you are in the process of “dying” while you mooch and loot, how does this explain the mob leaders and dictators who have lived seemingly full and healthy lives? Isn’t there always going to be the “supreme” moocher that leeches off of the good (yes, they rely on the good) and in this sense they aren’t dying at all…just living off of the good? Looting and Mooching of course can’t work for everyone (since it relies on the producers), but isn’t it ridiculous to say they are “dying”?
No, because at the least they are mentally dying, even if not physical. They may, to put it in your words, “seem to be living full and healthy lives,” but mentally they are far far from “fit and healthy,” even if they are physically fit and healthy. And this gets to an important part of why merely physically surviving is not enough. We do not merely have bodies. We have minds as well. They need maintaining as well. To maintain our mind we need to strive for happiness. Happiness is the state of a healthy mind. Since the mind and body are integrated rather than seperate we need to work to maintain both and if we fail with one the other will suffer as well.
And I still have never gotten this: if you are in the process of “dying” while you mooch and loot, how does this explain the mob leaders and dictators who have lived seemingly full and healthy lives?
I have no objection to your initial inquiry, but there have already been enough recent threads and questions about “prudent predators”. Please stick with your initial inquiry or review the other relevant threads on prudent predators, but please do not start another line of discussion about that topic.
Thanks.
Ah, so then if the only answer is “what point would there be if your only goal was physical existance?” then are we not being subjectivists in the sense of “well, find your purpose, whatever suits you, and then achieve it so you can feel your pleasure”?
This presumes that “your purpose” and how you achieve it are not based in facts of reality derived from a rational process. Different people have different interests in life, that is a fact. That they may be individual or personal interests does not necessarily make them subjective.
I choose law enforcement as my occupational purpose in life. I did not do this whimsical or for no reason, but rather as because of the interest I had in the type of work and how it reflects certain values I have.
I do not want to move into a full fledged prudent predator discussion, but this aspect is certainly relevant to my question: mental health.
Happiness is mental health - this is incredibly interesting. Do you have anything else to say on what exactly makes a mind healthy? What about super-smart criminals who have sophisticated looting mechanisms? Furthermore, what is the point of a healthy mind when you still live to be 85?