Why choose to live?

Ethics
1

I am reading Leonard Peikoff’s book “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and I am stumped by something. I don’t understand his reasoning. Can someone please say what he is saying in a different way or explain this differently so that I can grasp his reasoning?

The question is why should a person chose to remain alive as opposed to not?

He says, “The commitment to remain in th realm of that which is is precisely what cannot be debated; because all debate (and all validation) takes place within that realm and rests on that commitment.” pg 212

Can anyone clarify please?

2

My paraphrase (based solely on your quote, because I don’t have OPAR on hand) is:

Ethics is the science of action. If one wants to die, go ahead and die; you don’t need a body of knowledge laying down principles for action. However, if one is going to live, then one has to continue to act, and that is where the need for ethics arises. The decision to live, (i.e. the decision to engage in ongoing action) is the basic context that makes Ethics necessary.

3

What softwardNerd said - in the similar manner that one cannot deny reason, because you require a reasonable argument to make an argument against reason; trying to debate requires that you be alive to make that debate - why bother to even make a case against living, if your aim is death? Just simply shut off.

4

Another way to put it is that only life-pursuing beings have any reason to ask questions. Even to ask a question is to seek knowledge, and to seek knowledge is an action taken by a purposeful being, i.e. a being whose purpose is life.

5

Yet a fourth way to phrase this is in terms of what “why should” means. An action can only be evaluated in terms of whether it delivers you to a goal. What is that goal? Why that goal – how do you justify the goal? In terms of another goal? The ultimate, logically most basic goal is “existing” – if you deny existence, that’s the end of the discussion.

6

I am reading Leonard Peikoff’s book “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and I am stumped by something. I don’t understand his reasoning. Can someone please say what he is saying in a different way or explain this differently so that I can grasp his reasoning?

The question is why should a person chose to remain alive as opposed to not?

He says, “The commitment to remain in th realm of that which is is precisely what cannot be debated; because all debate (and all validation) takes place within that realm and rests on that commitment.” pg 212

Can anyone clarify please?

Veritas,

I’m glad you asked this question, and I would like to chime in with the others. AYN Rand attacked the issue of ethics by going to the root: to the question of “meta-ethics" Other philosophers have failed to do this, and so this is one of Ayn Rand’s great contributions to philosophy.

There are many contenders, many possible “moralities” which have been postulated by philosophers: The Ten Commandments or ‘seek the greatest good of the greatest number’ or ‘the moral ideal is service to society’, etc, etc, etc. But what do all moralities have in common? Let’s ask Rand’s meta-ethical question: What is morality? You see, instead of merely asking “Which morality is correct?”—she asked, “Just what is a ‘morality’, anyway?” In other words, she went straight to the root of the question.

A basic point: morality—any morality whatsoever—is generally a set of rules of conduct to guide the actions of an individual human being. THIS is what all possible moralities have in common.

Sticking to the root of the issue, Miss Rand asked: why should there be any morality at all? Her question is a normative question. Let’s rearticulate it in a factual proviso: What would happen to a man who practiced no morality? (This echoes Rand’s “immortal robot”) A man who practiced no morality–NO morality at all–would be a man whose behavior was guided by no rules at all… and this man, of course, would die. (This is evidence that the connection between factual and normative statements is MAN’S LIFE). Man needs morality to live. But just any moral system will NOT do it.

As Ayn Rand said: “Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action."

Bottom line: Man ought to do certain things—because they are necessary for him to be. He ‘is’ because he does what he ‘ought.’ If man simply acted in any random manner, he would not be an “is” for too long. A valid moral code must address human needs long-range; it must conceptual the requirements of human survival into an integrated, hierarchically structured, non-contradictory system of rational principles. The conclusion: Such a code must hold human life as its standard of value.

-Victor

7

The following is my own position. If one were to ask what are the origins of the fundamental choice to live, one might observe that human beings tend to want to live so long as they recognize sufficient opportunities for success. This would explain the relationship between hopelessness and suicide. Excluding the mentally ill (whose faculty of reason is impaired), one will want to live unless one is confronted with no possibility of a fulfilling life, as in the case of irreversible loss or injury, chronic untreatable pain, or the like.

To put it simply: If one is alive and conceives that he is able to continue living (in the Objectivist sense, i.e. flourishing), then he will choose to do so.

Note the central role of cognition: for humans, it is necessary to conceive of a way to success. This of course parallels the fact that reason is man’s means of achieving it. When one can no longer conceive of a way to succeed, one will no longer try.

To put it still another way: Ethics is proper to those for whom life is an option. If it isn’t, then ethics does not apply. When existence has already been denied, one’s “choice” to not live is merely a recognition of this fact. So that what we call the fundamental “choice” of whether or live or not live is actually a fact, an answer to the question: can I live?

8

I am reading Leonard Peikoff’s book “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and I am stumped by something. I don’t understand his reasoning. Can someone please say what he is saying in a different way or explain this differently so that I can grasp his reasoning?

The question is why should a person chose to remain alive as opposed to not?

He says, “The commitment to remain in th realm of that which is is precisely what cannot be debated; because all debate (and all validation) takes place within that realm and rests on that commitment.” pg 212

Can anyone clarify please?

My first response is to say that you’re confused because you’re missing the actual point of that entire section. The section you draw that quote from is about why it is the existence of life and the possibility of its loss are preconditions of value. So far the reasoning can apply to any living creature, where genetic and parental programming for creatures other than man automatically make it act to pursue value so as to live. Your question relates specifically to volitional creatures, the only ones to whom the question of ‘why’ has any actual meaning. That issue doesn’t even get raised until the next section, starting a full page and a half after your quoted words, and your issue doesn’t get answered until the section after that (which starts on page 229.)

Now, recall that at the beginning of Chapter 7 Dr Peikoff posed three questions? The first two questions and answers implicitly presume that the reader wants to live, which is a perfectly rational assumption to make for most (Western) people, and so he then goes on to explain how to judge value and how to decide courses of action. It is not until the answer to the third question - for whose benefit should I act? - that your particular question is dealt with explicitly. The simple answer is because you can - and SHOULD! - benefit from your virtuous, life-affirming actions (p230): “Each individual must choose his values and actions by the standard of man’s life - in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining and enjoying his own life. Thus Objectivism advocates egoism - the pursuit of self-interest - the policy of selfishness.” Later in this section, he goes onto raise the issue of what of those who choose not to live, and shows why it is rational in some cases to make such a choice.

Thus the answer to your question - which is fully dealt with in its own entire chapter! - is simply this: a volitional creature should choose to live, and as a consequence find itself in need of knowledge of a standard of value and system of virtue, because happiness is possible. Life generally is an end in itself, and in application to volitional creatures it is the happy life that is an end in itself.

Enjoy!

JJM

9

Yet a fourth way to phrase this is in terms of what “why should” means. An action can only be evaluated in terms of whether it delivers you to a goal. What is that goal? Why that goal – how do you justify the goal? In terms of another goal? The ultimate, logically most basic goal is “existing” – if you deny existence, that’s the end of the discussion.

How about people contemplating suicide. Their goal is (apparently) to no longer exist. On the other hand one must exist to no longer want to exist.

Bob Kolker

10

How about people contemplating suicide. Their goal is (apparently) to no longer exist. On the other hand one must exist to no longer want to exist.

You seem to be asking about people who have decided to commit suicide rather than people contemplating it. Why would they need Ethics? Why aren’t they dead already? Not sure what point you’re making.

11

How about people contemplating suicide. Their goal is (apparently) to no longer exist. On the other hand one must exist to no longer want to exist.

Contemplating suicide suggests that they are undecided, not that they have set a goal. A person contemplating suicide could possibly still be shown reasons why remaining alive could be a better goal.

Dissatisfaction with Rand’s metaethics and her response the very question you’re asking is what ultimately made me reject Objectivism several years ago. I’m in the midst of formalizing it as expressed in OPAR ch. 7 so that I can assemble a critique of it.

Why would you want to participate on a board dedicated to Objectivism if you reject the philosophy?

12

Contemplating suicide suggests that they are undecided, not that they have set a goal. A person contemplating suicide could possibly still be shown reasons why remaining alive could be a better goal.

Why would you want to participate on a board dedicated to Objectivism if you reject the philosophy?

Youse guys raise the interesting questions. I do not consider Objectivism as a package deal (sound familiar?). I concur with the Objectivists on the issue of capitalism and economic freedom. I have been pro-capitalist since the age of 23 (48 years ago) and I managed to be so without any help from Ayn Rand. When I did get to read what Ayn Rand wrote at the age of 24 (I read -Atlas Shrugged-) I was quite impressed. Finally(!!!), I thought, someone who is as smart as I am. So call me a sympathizer on matters political and economic. I do not have to buy the epistemology or metaphyics in toto.

I subscribe to Reality Lite (my own version which I formulated when I was 21 years old, about 50 years ago). Reality Lite == There is an Out There out there and we are endowed by our evolved biological nature to perceive and grasp part of that reality. A portion of reality sufficient so that we can survive on this planet and even have fun doing so. Ayn Rand did not invent the primacy of existence. I did (along with millions of other people). She wrote about it, I didn’t. So she gets the credit and I don’t.

My motto: Facts Rule, Theories Serve.

My Other Motto: Nature does not give a damn what we think or what we do not think, but how and if we survive depends on whether we do think. I was operating on this principle long before I read a word of Ayn Rand.

The closest thing I have to a sincerely held religious principle are the words of Rabbi Hillel. If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? I not now, then when? (Perke Avot I 15). As you can see one can have a religious principle without being self destructive or stupid.

You don’t have to be an Objectivist to be smart.

Bob Kolker

13

Bob, I think you missed that RationalBiker’s question was not addressed to you. It was addressed to CMDownes.

14

I do not consider Objectivism as a package deal (sound familiar?).

But even by your own “Reality when convenient” standard, you have to admit that in reality, Objectivism is a package deal. You may decide that you like some aspects of it but some irrational aspect makes you reject the epistemology: but still, Objectivism is what it is, and the fact that you reject Objectivism doesn’t change what it is.

My motto: Facts Rule, Theories Serve.

Liar. It’s “Shut up and compute”. Also, in politics, it’s “Rise up early in the morning and rip their heads off”.

15

It was addressed to CMDownes.

Yea it was. The problem came from posting two messages in a short period of time.

16

I subscribe to Reality Lite (my own version which I formulated when I was 21 years old, about 50 years ago). Reality Lite == There is an Out There out there and we are endowed by our evolved biological nature to perceive and grasp part of that reality. A portion of reality sufficient so that we can survive on this planet and even have fun doing so. Ayn Rand did not invent the primacy of existence. I did (along with millions of other people). She wrote about it, I didn’t. So she gets the credit and I don’t.

But since you only get a portion of reality, you could be wrong. That portion that you don’t get could be why you reject Objectivism. :slight_smile:

You can have the Lite version, I guess it’s less filling. I’ll take the Full version, it tastes great!

17

But even by your own “Reality when convenient” standard, you have to admit that in reality, Objectivism is a package deal. You may decide that you like some aspects of it but some irrational aspect makes you reject the epistemology: but still, Objectivism is what it is, and the fact that you reject Objectivism doesn’t change what it is.Liar. It’s “Shut up and compute”. Also, in politics, it’s “Rise up early in the morning and rip their heads off”.

Those are merely consequences. It is the Facts that lead me to the other conclusions.

And let us get the quotations right, shall we? If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first. This is from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A. Ripping their heads off is necessary only if you wish to shit down their necks. Frankly, I am getting too old for violent emotions. I would settle for dispatching my enemies (along with massive collateral damage) by nuclear weapons launched in cold blood. As the Klingons say: Revenge is a dish best eaten cold. Hating takes too much energy and causes indigestion. On the other hand, pest removal can be done in sange froid. Also in vollstaendige freude.

“Shut up and compute” is applicable to quantum physics where the theory is at odds with intuition and “common sense”. Dirac, for example, trusted his mathematics and predicted the existence of anti-matter. This was the first instance of a specific substance accounted for by theory -before- the experimental facts were in hand. The following year, anti-electrons were discovered experimentally. Later on Wolfgang Pauli predicted neutrinos, for mathematical reasons. It took over 20 years to corrobarate his prediction.Sometimes Theory serves very well, indeed. But Facts ueber alles. Which is not so far from your creed: Existence exists. It sure does! Facts are not propositions. Facts are not statements. Facts are not axioms. Facts are.

Bob Kolker

18

Why would you want to participate on a board dedicated to Objectivism if you reject the philosophy?

For the same reasons one might read and discuss the work of any philosopher one disagrees with.

It’s part of a process of engagement with views that challenge one’s own, a process which helps one in arriving at the truth.

It sharpens rhetorical, logical and exegetical skills.

I entertain the possibility of my own fallibility.

Are you suggesting that simply because you disagree with some view you can’t derive any value from discussion of it?

19

Are you suggesting that simply because you disagree with some view you can’t derive any value from discussion of it?

The question was an inquiry. There was no suggestion on insinuation in it. There are a variety of other reasons beyond the one you mentioned that non-Objectivist participate on here as well; I was simply asking your reasons.

That said, you should limit your arguments against Objectivism or aspects of it to the Debate sub-forum as per the forum rules.

20

To get back to topic:

A primary choice does not mean an “arbitrary,” “whimsical,” or “groundless” choice. There are grounds for a (certain) primary choice, and those grounds are reality–all of it. The choice to live, as we have seen, is the choice to accept the realm of reality. This choice is not only not arbitrary. It is the precondition of criticizing the arbitrary; it is the base of reason.

A man who would throw away his life without cause, who would reject the universe on principle and embrace a zero for its own sake–such a man, according to Objectivism, would belong on the lowest rung of hell. His action would indicate so profound a hatred–of himself, of values, of reality–that he would have to be condemned by any human being as a monster. The moment he would announce his decision seriously he would be disqualified as an object of intellectual debate. One cannot argue with or about a walking corpse, who has just consigned himself to the void–the void of the nonconscious, the nonethical, the non-anything.

Note the use of the conditional mood in the second paragraph. It is a counterfactual hypothetical: there IS no man who does not wish to live qua man. Man has no choice about the fact that life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. Even someone to whom life qua man is not possible and chooses to die would wish that he could live qua man.

There are only those who have been failing at life and seek to evade their failure by questioning whether life is a goal at all.