Question on Value and Ultimate Value

Questions about Objectivism
1

Reading up on Objectivism Ethics, at the moment it seems to me Rand arbitrarily designates Life as the Ultimate Value/End Goal.

If I understand correctly, her reasoning seems to be that since every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in whether or not he lives or dies, those objectives/goals/states that are pro-life are then Values he should pursue.

But by the same reasoning, I can argue that every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in how many lambs he can sacrifice to his favorite deity within the next month; those objectives that increase the amount he can sacrifice are then Values he should pursue.

It makes sense that once an Ultimate Value is selected, all other lesser Values can be objectively defined based on the standard of whether they will contribute to achieving the Ultimate Value.

But how do you objectively choose what goal should be the Ultimate Value?

That choice at the moment looks completely subjective from where I am standing.

Pleasure and Value
2

Reading up on Objectivism Ethics, at the moment it seems to me Rand arbitrarily designates Life as the Ultimate Value/End Goal.

If I understand correctly, her reasoning seems to be that since every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in whether or not he lives or dies, those objectives/goals/states that are pro-life are then Values he should pursue.

But by the same reasoning, I can argue that every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in how many lambs he can sacrifice to his favorite deity within the next month; those objectives that increase the amount he can sacrifice are then Values he should pursue.

It makes sense that once an Ultimate Value is selected, all other lesser Values can be objectively defined based on the standard of whether they will contribute to achieving the Ultimate Value.

But how do you objectively choose what goal should be the Ultimate Value?

That choice at the moment looks completely subjective from where I am standing.

We are life forms. A life form is defined by a biological process aimed at sustaining it.

We’re not choosing life as our ultimate value, we’re just choosing to recognize that it is. Like all life forms, maintaining our own life is our main function. It (and the values stemming from it) are the only values that aren’t arbitrary.

3

Life itself makes all of the other values possible in that no values are possible to a thing if it is dead.

4

VWA said:

Reading up on Objectivism Ethics, at the moment it seems to me Rand arbitrarily designates Life as the Ultimate Value/End Goal.

I don’t know what you think “arbitrarily” means but Ms.Rand certainly didn’t make an arbitrary assertion on life as the standard. She made specific arguments about life being necessary for values to exist and how not choosing to sustain life through productive effortful action towards that end leads to death. 

5

 

If I understand correctly, her reasoning seems to be that since every choice a person makes ultimately makes a difference in whether or not he lives or dies, those objectives/goals/states that are pro-life are then Values he should pursue.

But how do you objectively choose what goal should be the Ultimate Value?

That choice at the moment looks completely subjective from where I am standing.

You are correct in that if that were the argument, that would be wrong. She doesn’t say that there is some objective way to choose the ultimate value either. If you had to sort of sit there and “choose” the ultimate value, then yes, it would be subjective and fall into the infinite regress problem.

Her argument is more saying that you already have chosen the ultimate value, as long as you choose to remain alive and awake. It’s more of a statement about the nature of man. The decision to act at all is the sort of “meta-choice” that life is preferable to nonexistence, because man’s nature requires not just particular actions but action itself. 

Rand was very brief, and other Objectivists like to use jargon and repeat phrases from Rand, so it can be difficult to grasp what exactly is her argument. I can recommend “Viable Values,” “Atn Rand’s Normative Ethics” by Smith, and “A Groundwork for Rights” by Rasmussen, you’ll probably get a better phrasing of Rand’s meta ethics from there. 

6

We are life forms. A life form is defined by a biological process aimed at sustaining it.

We’re not choosing life as our ultimate value, we’re just choosing to recognize that it is. Like all life forms, maintaining our own life is our main function. It (and the values stemming from it) are the only values that aren’t arbitrary.

If all our actions stem directly from pre-programmed instincts from birth like all other animals in nature, in that case then yes, sustaining and pro-creating life is then selected by default to be the Ultimate Value, based on objective biologic and psychological make-ups.

The reality is however we have this ability called volition to freely choose above our base biology through sheer power of will, in which case life is only an Ultimate Value if we choose it to be.

Life itself makes all of the other values possible in that no values are possible to a thing if it is dead.

Her argument is more saying that you already have chosen the ultimate value, as long as you choose to remain alive and awake.

This is where it gets interesting. While it’s true that an individual needs to stay alive (choose life) to pursue any other goals he chooses, the quality and length of how he choose to stay alive is completely subjective, and this choice makes a world of difference when acting as the standard for defining all other lesser Values.

Consider these two extreme polar examples:

—A productive citizen chooses to stay alive to raise a family (instead of committing suicide by immediate starving)

—A religious fanatic chooses to stay alive (instead of committing suicide by immediate starving) to better serve his God (say by suicide-bombing infidels later on)

In both cases, yes, life, choosing to stay alive, is a pre-requisite. However, all other lesser Values would vastly differ.

This is interesting because as far as I know, reading Objectivist texts, every other Ethical and Political arguments is ultimately extensions on the Ultimate Value been “Life”.

But if there is no objective reason as to why an individual should choose the Objectivist version of life as the Ultimate Value, then the choice of what goal should be the Ultimate Value is wholly subjective, and every other lesser Values Ethically and Politically is up for grabs.

 

7

I think this old thread raises a similar question.

8

 

This is interesting because as far as I know, reading Objectivist texts, every other Ethical and Political arguments is ultimately extensions on the Ultimate Value been “Life”.

But if there is no objective reason as to why an individual should choose the Objectivist version of life as the Ultimate Value, then the choice of what goal should be the Ultimate Value is wholly subjective, and every other lesser Values Ethically and Politically is up for grabs.

 

So yeah, that’s right as far as it goes. But Rand never says that there is some “objective reason” to choose life, you can’t go outside of life to provide a reason to live. She’s saying you already have chosen it in the very act of choosing anything at all. 

There is actually an extensive discussion of “the choice to live” in Smith’s “Viable Values.” Smith refers to it as “prerational,” I’m not sure that’s the best term for it, Rand calls it a “basic act of choice,” but both see it in kind of an axiomatic way, kind of like the principle of non-contradiction is to thought.

Irfan Khawaja draws the comparison this way, the PNC is a fact about the nature of reality, but it is not a categorical injunction to engage in thought. If one wishes to engage in thought, one must abide by it, but it doesn’t force anyone to assert anything. One can, in the words of Aristotle, simple be a vegetable. There is no argument for the PNC that  proceeds from principles that are epistemically prior to it. Same with the choice to live. Life has certain requirements, only certain kids of actions will sustain it, and any choice includes the choice to live already. But you can’t go outside of life to give someone a reason to choose it. So in that sense, it is “escapable” just like the PNC is “escapable,” but it’s not really arbitrary, because arbitrary only has meaning after you have already accepted it.

9

The choice of “choosing life” is not some binary clear-cut choice. There is an infinite number of types of life an individual can choose to lead.

Objectivism has a vision of a type of life that an individual “should” lead, and all other Objectivist Ethical and Political considerations which follow contribute towards that life style.

Religion like Christianity also has a vision of a type of life that an individual “should” lead, with all of its own Ethical and Political extensions.

Socialism, Confucianism, Islamism..etc. The list goes on and on.

There seems to be an assumption made in a lot of previous posts that if an individual is to choose to stay alive, then that somehow automatically constitute a choice to pick the Objectivism version of life as his/her Ultimate Value.

10

Life has certain requirements, only certain kids of actions will sustain it, and any choice includes the choice to live already. But you can’t go outside of life to give someone a reason to choose it. So in that sense, it is “escapable” just like the PNC is “escapable,” but it’s not really arbitrary, because arbitrary only has meaning after you have already accepted it.

Life certainly have requirements. But those requirements differ vastly depending on what kind of life one chooses to lead.

An individual who looks to stay alive until 100 to see his great-grand kids grow up will have a greatly different set of requirements to sustain his life compared to an individual who looks to stay alive until next month for his opening on suicide bombing a large gathering.

So the question comes back again, why should an individual choose the Objectivism version of life?

 

11

So the question comes back again, why should an individual choose the Objectivism version of life?

How would you describe the “Objectivist version” in a sentence?

12

The choice of “choosing life” is not some binary clear-cut choice. There is an infinite number of types of life an individual can choose to lead.

Choosing life is a clear-cut binary choice, if properly contrasted against its fundamental alternative. To choose life instead of death leaves open how an individual can choose to lead it. The seeming infinite number of types of life an individual can choose to lead is actually finite, that is; limited to the alternatives an individual can actually come up with.

Objectivism has a vision of a type of life that an individual “should” lead, and all other Objectivist Ethical and Political considerations which follow contribute towards that life style.

Objectivism puts forth the notion of rational egoism. By recognizing that value presupposes a beneficiary and purpose, or as stated more explicitly: of value to whom, and for what?

Religion like Christianity also has a vision of a type of life that an individual “should” lead, with all of its own Ethical and Political extensions.

Socialism, Confucianism, Islamism..etc. The list goes on and on.

Christianity, Socialism, Confucianism, Islamism, etc provide examples consonant with variations that are altruistic in nature. To put it in the form of a binary choice, the beneficiary of one’s actions can either be the self (rational egoism) or non-self (altruistic); the non-self being God, society or any other beneficiary other than one’s self one can come up with. In this sense, even Objectivism could become an altruistic aim, albeit, it would not be Objectivism one is embracing at such an adjunct.

13

How would you describe the “Objectivist version” in a sentence?

The kind of life that one would lead if he were to follow Objectivist Ethics to the T.

Choosing life is a clear-cut binary choice, if properly contrasted against its fundamental alternative. To choose life instead of death leaves open how an individual can choose to lead it. The seeming infinite number of types of life an individual can choose to lead is actually finite, that is; limited to the alternatives an individual can actually come up with.

While choosing to stay alive as opposed to give-up and die is a clear-cut binary choice, how one choose to lead such a life is not (infinite been a manner of speech, there are a LOT). So then the question comes down to, why choose the Objectivism version/blueprint of life as opposed to all the other near infinite variations one can come up with?

 

Objectivism puts forth the notion of rational egoism. By recognizing that value presupposes a beneficiary and purpose, or as stated more explicitly: of value to whom, and for what?

It’s true, value does presuppose a beneficiary and/or purpose. But why is the beneficiary limited to people (self vs others, egoism vs altruism)? The beneficiary could be any number of near infinite ideals a person care to choose as his Ultimate Value. It could be the self as advocated by Objectivism. It could be God. It could be the invention of a warp-drive. It could be a school-massacre. The list goes on and on..

 

 

14

While choosing to stay alive as opposed to give-up and die is a clear-cut binary choice, how one choose to lead such a life is not (infinite been a manner of speech, there are a LOT). So then the question comes down to, why choose the Objectivism version/blueprint of life as opposed to all the other near infinite variations one can come up with?

Because they are the principles that best allow one to pursue life. Not to say choosing life automatically means Objectivism is therefore infallibly true, since figuring out the right principles that best promote life takes reason. The principles derive from choosing to live. It is true, as 2046 is saying, that choosing to live is “pre-rational”, that is, there is no -reason- to choose to live. Why is life the starting choice though? Because all people when they act are ultimately acting for their life as a whole, or against it. There is no third option. To be sure though, there are personal variations as to the application of principles to one’s life.

Yes, a person could go by other standards, but part of the Objectivist stance is that standards besides life are destructive. Nothing else would matter anyway, it really wouldn’t matter to the goal of ethics for leading the good life, and at best choices based on other standards are always inferior in the long run.

15

Because they are the principles that best allow one to pursue life.

Objectivism version of life you mean.

It is true, as 2046 is saying, that choosing to live is “pre-rational”, that is, there is no -reason- to choose to live. Why is life the starting choice though? Because all people when they act are ultimately acting for their life as a whole, or against it. There is no third option.

Choosing to live does not have to be “pre-rational”. A scientist can choose to live through the suffering of a terrible disease so he can learn more about the mysteries of the universe. A religious fanatic can choose to live through poverty so he can suicide bomb a special gathering.

Yes, every action a person takes will be impact his life (by whatever measures you use, probability of survival, happiness level..etc.) or against it. But every action a person takes will also impact any other state of reality (how many lambs he can sacrifice to his god within the next month)

So why is life (by whatever objective measures you use to quantify it), as a standard, somehow deemed objectively superior to the near infinite other state of reality that can also be choose as a standard to judge every actions on?

 

Yes, a person could go by other standards, but part of the Objectivist stance is that standards besides life are destructive. 

Standards besides Objectivist-life can be destructive towards Objectivism-life, sure.

But again why is Objctivism-life objectively better than any other ideals?

(The reason I attached “Objectivism” is because the life of say a suicide-bomber before he detonates would hardly be the kind of life Objectivist Ethics is trying to achieve)

I’ve asked this question a lot; it’s rhetorical. My argument is simply that is isn’t. Objectivism-Life, defined by whatever measures you care to designated to it, isn’t objectively better or worse than any other ideal driven lives.

16

Am I the only person who sees that there is an equivocation going on here between “life” as such, vs life as a kind of lifestyle, as in values one pursues while alive? 

 

 

While choosing to stay alive as opposed to give-up and die is a clear-cut binary choice, how one choose to lead such a life is not (infinite been a manner of speech, there are a LOT). So then the question comes down to, why choose the Objectivism version/blueprint of life as opposed to all the other near infinite variations one can come up with?

No matter what moral values one has to choose from, any particular choice is either life promoting or not. That is, any particular moral choice is binary in regards to life…

17

Objectivism version of life you mean.

No, it’s not any special definition. Human life. Trees live, ants live, dogs live, but not all of these require the same things in order to live. It becomes a question about teleology and the nature of an organism: what’s the purpose or end goal of an organism? Objectivism says life is the purpose, so to best reach that goal requires figuring out. That’s broadly speaking how Objectivism defines ethics, as well as any Aristotelian-based analysis of ethics. It’s not as though we define an “Objectivist life” and define ethics as reaching that end only.

By “pre-rational”, that just means prior to any standard of rationality, since what is rational presupposes choosing to live. There’s no reason to choose life per se.  You can choose to keep on living for rational reasons, but there is no -reason- to choose life. 2046 described it earlier. Life is a proper standard since its in the nature of people, though, that’s the measure. The better question to ask is how a suicide bomber is in any way is fulfilling his nature and living? Or to turn it another way, what is it that a suicide bomber is pursuing? Sure, you could say “the suicide bomber way of life”, but does that lead to a life according to his nature? Other standards are possible besides life specifically, but what we care about is if the end is compatible with life as a goal.

By life, I don’t mean dying slowly as a tree without water is dying. It’s more like a tree flourishing. As an analogy with people, if there were “tree ethics”, it would consist of what allows a tree to flourish.

18

Okay, so Objectivism definition of life, is the kind of life that is compatible with Obj’s observation of the nature of man (production, free-trade..etc.)

At least that’s cleared up. The way I have been using the word was simply “not medically dead”.

So Obj’s Ultimate Value “Life” is actually life proper with Obj’s observation of the nature of man. PROPER is actually the standard here. The binary condition isn’t medically dead or alive, but whether or not a choice is in accord with Obj’s observation of man’s nature, or against it.

But the question comes back around again:

Why is it so important to lead a life compatible with Obj’s observation of man’s nature?

19

Why is it so important to lead a life compatible with Obj’s observation of man’s nature?

Objectivism’s observations of the requirements of man’s nature are a specific.

One could ask the question more abstractly: why live according to the requirements/design of one’s nature?

Would that still be a question to you, or would you think the answer would be “duh”, if framed so abstractly?

20

It’s not a “duh”.

Requirements are conditionals needed to achieve some sort of measurable end result. So exactly what result is achieved when individuals live according to Obj’s observation of nature of man? And why is that result objectively superior to any other result achieved by individuals living according to some other ideals?