The Is-Ought Problem and life as the standard of value

Ethics
1

I came in to contact with this article and came to wonder if there’s a sufficient response to it? http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf (specifically the top of page 10)

It doesn’t seem possible to derive an ought from an is through the means of logic/reason.

For example:

One ought not to murder human beings.

Socrates is a human being.

Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

which follows from the initial ought.

While:

Human beings have a right to life.

Socrates is a human being.

Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

does not follow without an ought (namely that one ought to respect the rights of others).

How does one motivate life as the standard of value as being objective as opposed to subjective?

2

How does one motivate life as the standard of value as being objective as opposed to subjective?

Because the concept “value” can be objectively defined. That is, there are certain facts in reality which give rise to the concept “value”. Identifying these facts and how they relate to life in general and man’s life in particular will bring you to the realization that “the fact that something is determines what it ought to do” – Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand can be of great help in discovering for yourself what those facts and relations are. Read “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness for a full explanation to your question.

3

Because the concept “value” can be objectively defined. That is, there are certain facts in reality which give rise to the concept “value”. Identifying these facts and how they relate to life in general and man’s life in particular will bring you to the realization that “the fact that something is determines what it ought to do” – Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand can be of great help in discovering for yourself what those facts and relations are. Read “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness for a full explanation to your question.

I’ve read both OPAR and the Virtue of Selfishness, but I still don’t see how this makes ethics objective. Just as one can pursue life one can also pursue, say, pleasure. Why are the values required for life objective when the values required for pleasure are not? As this is a matter of choice, how does one motivate pursuing life as being more rational than pursuing pleasure?

For example, what is wrong with this line of reasoning?

"If you wish to survive, you ought to adopt value system X.

You wish to survive.

Therefore you ought to adopt value system X "

4

I’ve read both OPAR and the Virtue of Selfishness, but I still don’t see how this makes ethics objective. Just as one can pursue life one can also pursue, say, pleasure. Why are the values required for life objective when the values required for pleasure are not?

Do you mean one arbitrarily chooses either?

As this is a matter of choice, how does one motivate pursuing life as being more rational than pursuing pleasure?

Assuming you agree that one can not pursue pleasure while dead.

One can not pursue any kind of pleasure without already having chosen to pursue life.

Disregarding the pursuit of life when pursuing pleasure is a destructive inconsistency.

5

Just as one can pursue life one can also pursue, say, pleasure.

The problem with pure hedonism is that it is self-defeating. In order to experience physical pleasure, one must be alive. Thus pleasure presupposes life. Given a choice between pleasure leading to death and non-pleasure where you live, a hedonist must select death. So more specifically, hedonism is irrational, since it actually requires you to accept life as your goal – the stolen concept.

6

I came in to contact with this article and came to wonder if there’s a sufficient response to it? http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf (specifically the top of page 10)

It doesn’t seem possible to derive an ought from an is through the means of logic/reason.

For example:

One ought not to murder human beings.

Socrates is a human being.

Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

which follows from the initial ought.

While:

Human beings have a right to life.

Socrates is a human being.

Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

does not follow without an ought (namely that one ought to respect the rights of others).

How does one motivate life as the standard of value as being objective as opposed to subjective?

This form of thinking is pure rationalism - ideas connected to ideas, not connected to or based on observations in reality.

I’m not sure how to help you with this… except to recommend Leonard Peikoff’s audio course “Objectivism through induction” - where he shows the proper way to reach knowledge - as essentially looking at reality and grouping together into abstractions concepts and principles, then followed by integration with the rest of your knowledge.

Philosophy is not about deriving statements from one another, rather to summarize observations in reality. It is a process of induction, not of deduction.

7

For example, what is wrong with this line of reasoning?

"If you wish to survive, you ought to adopt value system X.

You wish to survive.

Therefore you ought to adopt value system X "

Nothing wrong with that. Aside from chewing over “survive” and what that means, this is the gist of Objectivist ethics.

8

Nothing wrong with that. Aside from chewing over “survive” and what that means, this is the gist of Objectivist ethics.

Ok, but what about someone who does not choose survival as his primary goal? Then the rest does not follow. I realize that the choice to die doesn’t pose a problem (it’s a default and no additional values are required) but that does not mean that someone can’t choose to live in order to pursue something else. In this case life would be an instrumental value in order to pursue that something else. I agree that pursuing pleasure over life will eventually lead to your death, but claiming this to be irrational rests on the basis that life was the ultimate value (not an instrumental value). If you die pursuing pleasure aren’t you acting in accordance to your ultimate value? If yes, then why is this irrational and not rational? If no, why not?

9

If you die pursuing pleasure aren’t you acting in accordance to your ultimate value?

Life is the ultimate value. Metaphysically speaking, once you are dead all other values are impossible. This is a fact of life.

But now switch contexts, because now you are asking a moral question: how ought one act once he has chosen to live?

I agree that pursuing pleasure over life will eventually lead to your death, but claiming this to be irrational rests on the basis that life was the ultimate value (not an instrumental value).

So this isn’t irrational because life is the ultimate value. It is irrational because after having decided to live you didn’t act in accordance with that decision.

How does man survive? By using his mind, his reason. So once you accept the fact that life is the ultimate value, then acting in accordance with that fact entails being rational. Since life is the ultimate value you ought to act accordingly.

10

Life is the ultimate value. Metaphysically speaking, once you are dead all other values are impossible. This is a fact of life.

But now switch contexts, because now you are asking a moral question: how ought one act once he has chosen to live?

So this isn’t irrational because life is the ultimate value. It is irrational because after having decided to live you didn’t act in accordance with that decision.

How does man survive? By using his mind, his reason. So once you accept the fact that life is the ultimate value, then acting in accordance with that fact entails being rational. Since life is the ultimate value you ought to act accordingly.

I agree that life is the value that makes all other values possible. Peikoff identifies this as a truism and then proceeds to draw the conclusion that life is the standard of value, and this is where I’m having issues bridging the gap. I agree that it would be irrational to pursue values contrary to your life if your life is your highest value, but what if your life is not your highest value? Why isn’t it permissable to change your decision? For example, if you value stealing some specific object more than your life all you need to do is live until the specific object has been stolen. How is he irrational/immoral?

11

I agree that life is the value that makes all other values possible. Peikoff identifies this as a truism and then proceeds to draw the conclusion that life is the standard of value, and this is where I’m having issues bridging the gap. I agree that it would be irrational to pursue values contrary to your life if your life is your highest value, but what if your life is not your highest value? Why isn’t it permissable to change your decision? For example, if you value stealing some specific object more than your life all you need to do is live until the specific object has been stolen. How is he irrational/immoral?

How would one have gotten to such a conclusion as to regard the theft of a certain object as a value?

Deduction starting from nothing?

If not then you have to already have started inducting, which can only happen trough life.

12

I agree that life is the value that makes all other values possible

…

I agree that it would be irrational to pursue values contrary to your life if your life is your highest value, but what if your life is not your highest value?

What does “value” mean? How can you pursue a value at all if you are not alive? In order to pursue a value, you must be alive, thus “pursue a value” logically depends on “be alive”. The irrationality is pretending that you even have values if life is not logically primary for you.

13

I agree that life is the value that makes all other values possible. Peikoff identifies this as a truism and then proceeds to draw the conclusion that life is the standard of value, and this is where I’m having issues bridging the gap. I agree that it would be irrational to pursue values contrary to your life if your life is your highest value, but what if your life is not your highest value? Why isn’t it permissable to change your decision? For example, if you value stealing some specific object more than your life all you need to do is live until the specific object has been stolen. How is he irrational/immoral?

Well, what in reality is ultimately at stake for living organisms? It’s their life. So life is the only possible ultimate value because it is what makes all other values possible. “Ultimate” means “that which all the rest is based on”. (That’s from the dictionary.) If you choose life, then life becomes the ultimate value and standard of value. If you do not choose life, then there is literally no other “ultimate value” to choose. It’s life or nothing. Or to be more specific: life or death. That’s it. The point can be put yet another way: since, in fact, there is nothing more ultimate at stake than life, then logically speaking, there be no other ultimate value than life. Now, of course, you can act as if something else than your life is your ultimate value. But then you are just engaged in an irrational fantasy, because there is really nothing else that logically could be an ultimate value, except life. If you do not believe me, then just try to find something, in reality, that would give rise to the concept “value,” except life.

14

I’ve read both OPAR and the Virtue of Selfishness, but I still don’t see how this makes ethics objective. Just as one can pursue life one can also pursue, say, pleasure. Why are the values required for life objective when the values required for pleasure are not? As this is a matter of choice, how does one motivate pursuing life as being more rational than pursuing pleasure?

It seems to me you are trying to say this: Since what makes something rational or irrational depend on the ultimate value you choose, then it seems impossible to say that some ultimate value is more rational another. After all, the ultimate value cannot, if it is truly the ultimate, cannot be justified by some other more ultimate value which makes it rational.

If this is what you are trying to say, then I answer by saying: “This is true, but so what? It does not follow from this that anyone is justified to pick whatever ultimate end he wants.” Why? Because what is the ultimate end is not anything one wants it to be. It can be identified as a fact, and it is life. Life is what’s ultimately what’s at stake for living organisms - not your pleasure, not your love, not your house, not your money, etc. And everything you desire and need depend on you living.

Further: Why is it desirable to be rational? Because it is good to be rational? Good? To whom and for what? The fact is that it is only good to be rational for living organisms (human beings to be exact) and only for the purpose of living. Outside this context, you are using the concept “value,” as a stolen concept.

How come? Well, you ignore or forget all the facts that makes something a value, when you just assume implicitly that rationality is something we should care about. But we should only care about it, if we have already chosen life as our ultimate value. Now, most people do not choose life explicitly. They do nevertheless choose it implicitly, as indicated by their (inconsistent) pro-life actions.

There is no reason to say that some ultimate end is more or less rational compared with some other so-called ultimate end. Because as I’ve already indicated, it is only for living organisms who pursue life, it makes sense to say that something is rational and therefore good, and vice versa. If you do not want to live, then it makes no difference to you whether you are rational or not.

It’s only in this context - the context of living organisms pursuing life - that this usage of the concept “rational” could be formed. Outside this context, there is no need to talk of something as rational or irrational. Thus, to choose life is not more rational than to choose death. The choice is not irrational either. It’s pre-rational.

15

It seems to me you are trying to say this: Since what makes something rational or irrational depend on the ultimate value you choose, then it seems impossible to say that some ultimate value is more rational another. After all, the ultimate value cannot, if it is truly the ultimate, cannot be justified by some other more ultimate value which makes it rational.

If this is what you are trying to say, then I answer by saying: “This is true, but so what? It does not follow from this that anyone is justified to pick whatever ultimate end he wants.” Why? Because what is the ultimate end is not anything one wants it to be. It can be identified as a fact, and it is life. Life is what’s ultimately what’s at stake for living organisms - not your pleasure, not your love, not your house, not your money, etc. And everything you desire and need depend on you living.

Further: Why is it desirable to be rational? Because it is good to be rational? Good? To whom and for what? The fact is that it is only good to be rational for living organisms (human beings to be exact) and only for the purpose of living. Outside this context, you are using the concept “value,” as a stolen concept.

How come? Well, you ignore or forget all the facts that makes something a value, when you just assume implicitly that rationality is something we should care about. But we should only care about it, if we have already chosen life as our ultimate value. Now, most people do not choose life explicitly. They do nevertheless choose it implicitly, as indicated by their (inconsistent) pro-life actions.

There is no reason to say that some ultimate end is more or less rational compared with some other so-called ultimate end. Because as I’ve already indicated, it is only for living organisms who pursue life, it makes sense to say that something is rational and therefore good, and vice versa. If you do not want to live, then it makes no difference to you whether you are rational or not.

It’s only in this context - the context of living organisms pursuing life - that this usage of the concept “rational” could be formed. Outside this context, there is no need to talk of something as rational or irrational. Thus, to choose life is not more rational than to choose death. The choice is not irrational either. It’s pre-rational.

Haha, I’m actually a frequent reader of your blog :slight_smile: That is basically my objection, but isn’t rationality necessary to gain or keep any value, not just life? If you want A then you need to act gain A. As I see it, the problem with life being the ultimate value is that it does not follow that you can’t act to gain a value at the cost of your ultimate value. But if I understand you correctly, do you mean that acting to gain a value while losing life is a contradiction in terms (and thus irrational) because the value is severed from it’s root, life?

16

It’s a small world. :slight_smile:

Life is not the only value, but it is the ultimate value. Now, can you act to gain a particular non-ultimate value, in a rational manner? Yes. Can you act rationally in order to gain this non-ultimate value at the cost of your ultimate value? No.

Why? Well, if I don’t misunderstand you, you put it pretty well when you wrote: “acting to gain a value while losing life is a contradiction in terms (and thus irrational) because the value is severed from it’s root, life?”

This is part of the answer. But there is more to be said.

All of this is too abstract. So let’s concretize. Is it rational to poison yourself? Not if you want to live. Now, there are probably many ways you can poison yourself. Some will get you there faster than others. Does this mean that the most efficient way to poison yourself is the most “rational” - given that you want to poison yourself? My answer is: No. Why? Because if the (non-ultimate) end you pursue is irrational, then it is not rational to pursue it to begin with, and whether you pursue it in one way or another does not make the slightest difference. It’s just ridiculous to say: “Well, given that I want to blow my head off, should I do it with a shotgun or a machine gun? Which would be more rational?”

In the end, it is as I suggested earlier only if you seek life that rationality becomes a value. Why? Because you have to be rational in order to achieve the values that makes your life possible. Achieving the irrational will not help you in this regard, and is therefore irrational.

You can, if it helps, look at it from this perspective. Take a syllogism. Such as this one:

fdsjkfsd is rewrewrwer

rewrewrwer is 123456789

therefore fdsjkfsd is 123456789

Now, contrary to what many would say, this does not constitute logic. The premises are just gibberish and to deduce more gibberish from gibberish does not constitute logic. It has nothing to do with logic or cognition of any kind. Likewise, to achieve the irrational, in the most efficient way possible, does not constitute rationality.

The idea that anything is rational as long as it does the trick, comes from David Hume. And Hume just as wrong about that as he is wrong about everything else.

17

I agree that life is the value that makes all other values possible. Peikoff identifies this as a truism and then proceeds to draw the conclusion that life is the standard of value, and this is where I’m having issues bridging the gap.

“Life” is a very abstract concept, especially once we get away from the metaphysical requirement to stay alive and start talking about a happy life or life as man qua man. So let’s try to simplify this a bit and get more concrete to see what follows logically after you have set a goal or chosen to pursue a value.

Let’s set a simple goal like: dinner is in an hour and you want to cook meatloaf. Once you choose to pursue that value, getting it done becomes the standard of value against which you judge all of your actions. So turning on the oven, chopping onions, mushrooms and peppers, and massaging meat with your hands are all proper actions. Watching TV for an hour is improper.

Now go back to “life” and ask: how does man live? Man survives by using his mind, by being rational. If you were on a desert island you couldn’t survive by being irrational. The same is true in society – man only survives by being rational. So to the degree you are rational, you will survive (and be happy by the way). To the degree you are irrational you are pursuing death. Those who choose not to be rational can only survive on the rationality of another.

18

…While:

Human beings have a right to life.

Socrates is a human being.

Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

does not follow without an ought (namely that one ought to respect the rights of others).

How do you define “right” without entailing the “ought?”