Why Live In The First Place?

Ethics
21

By choosing to focus and to think beyond the level of perception you have already chosen to live. Humans must follow their nature which involves being able to perceive and the basic choice to think about those perceptions or not. This choice to think is the choice to live.

You say that chosing to live comes prior to choosing to think, but then you say that they are the same choice, which would mean that neither is prior to the other. Which do you wish to say it is?

I can almost agree to saying that they are the same choice, since my position is that choosing to think requires that you simultaneously adopt life as the standard of value. The reason I draw the distinction is that what you actually do when making the choice is focus.

That’s why to think about the question “to live or not” without regards to any context other than the question itself is redundant and self-answering.

When we first make the choice, though, we aren’t thinking about it. We can only think about the choice in hindsight, since thinking requires first having chosen to think.

22

Which do you wish to say it is?

I was a bit confusing in my wording, but to come out with it, it is the same choice I think. I think that it is human nature to choose to think, initially. I would say that a baby is following its nature when it chooses to think and therefore to live. The choice not to think, can only come later I think; at some point that follows the initial force of nature. Think more on this I will…

23

I was a bit confusing in my wording, but to come out with it, it is the same choice I think. I think that it is human nature to choose to think, initially. I would say that a baby is following its nature when it chooses to think and therefore to live. The choice not to think, can only come later I think; at some point that follows the initial force of nature. Think more on this I will…

I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to actually go the extreme non-thinking route. But it’s not a binary thing, there are levels. I’m inclined to agree that the choice not to think can only come later, since non-focus is the default state and one must chose to expend the effort to be in focus and stay there. A (pre-conceptual) child can chose to be in focus, or make no choice at all.

I think everyone, at some point, makes the choice to think, which is why I say that it is impossible to consistently hold to any standard of value other than life. If one attempts to hold to another standard, the moment one takes any volitional action whatsoever, one is implicitly acting on the standard of life. But, as I said before, the recognition of that fact cannot come until much later, after one has already adopted the life standard, and cannot be a justification for making the initial choice.

24

BTW, we only have to pay $26.95.

Don’t underestimate me. I just ordered it new for 21.30€, which is $25.60. With free shipping. :worry:

The question of a foundation for the choice is legitimate, but again you seem to be asking these purposive questions about reasons for doing something. Most living things do not have a choice: humans are the only beings that can actually ponder the question “Shall I exist?” Here’s a proposal – just say yes to existence. Let it be arbitrary, the one unreasoned choice you make. Having made this one and only arbitrary choice, this is your axiom of choice (nyuck nyuck), and you never ever have to make another arbitrary choice, because all other choices are evaluated with reference to this one foundational choice.

So you agree that it is arbitrary. What ruins it all for me is that the foundation of ethics is built upon such an arbitrary choice where I would expect something … well … more solid. And if the very foundation is arbitrary, doesn’t it transfer to the entirety of Objectivist Ethics, as they are logically deducted from that first choice? Just like when you wiggle one end of a stick, the rest wiggles, too? That’s what still gets me. All this effort to build something based on reason and reality. And then, in the end, it all boils down to an arbitrary choice.

What do you answer a subjectivist who says that the very foundation of Objectivist Ethics is subjective and arbitrary?

25

So you agree that it is arbitrary. What ruins it all for me is that the foundation of ethics is built upon such an arbitrary choice where I would expect something … well … more solid…What do you answer a subjectivist who says that the very foundation of Objectivist Ethics is subjective and arbitrary?

The initial choice which gives rise to Ayn Rand’s morality might be arbitrary, but the principles which follow from having made that choice are not.

Every “must” implies an “if.” I might be quoting Ayn Rand on that. Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in every bit of the Objectivist ethics is the qualifier, “If one wishes to live, then…” Recognizing that there is an alternative at the root is what makes it contextual, rather than rationalistic and dogmatic, and keeping it tied to that initial choice is what makes it objective.

26

… keeping it tied to that initial choice is what makes it objective.

I agree. But if that initial choice is arbitrary, doesn’t that make all the rest that is tied to it arbitrary, too? You can always argue with “That’s just because of your arbitrary choice to value life in the first place.”

How do you answer that?

27

You can always argue with “That’s just because of your arbitrary choice to value life in the first place.” How do you answer that?

Who could make that argument unhypocritically, unless they were dead.

28

The funny thing is, that all this means that philosophy cannot answer the questions:

“Why live?” and “What is the meaning of life?”

29

The funny thing is, that all this means that philosophy cannot answer the questions:

“Why live?” and “What is the meaning of life?”

Life does not exist. What exists are individual living things. The meaning of your life is what you have chosen, and will chose, what to do and what to make of it. Once you leave the stratospheric no man’s land of floating abstractions, you will find questions like this much easier to answer.

That should read “what to do_ with_”.

30

Life does not exist. What exists are individual living things. The meaning of your life is what you have chosen, and will chose, what to do and what to make of it. Once you leave the stratospheric no man’s land of floating abstractions, you will find questions like this much easier to answer.

That should read “what to do_ with_”.

Do you actually want to tell me that you found the meaning of life?

31

A few times, Christians have asked me how I can be an atheist. Wouldn’t that mean that life has no meaning? Fundamentally, the Christian is using a different concept from me. To him, the “meaning of life” is something that explains why life was created. In that sense, life has no meaning. The meaning, to a Christian, is why he was created, and therefore what he must continue to pursue.

Rationally, one has to drop the supernatural element. Then, the meaning is why one chooses to stay alive. Sometimes, people decide that their life has becomes meaningless, and people should have the right to terminate their life in such case.

32

Life does not exist. What exists are individual living things.

What do you mean by “exist”? Are you conflating “entity” and “existent”?

33

I think it’s inaccurate to refer to existence vs. non-existence as a choice, and that it’s more correct to call it an alternative, as Peikoff did in OPAR. He also says that the fundamental choice is to think or not to think. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I actually think it’s an important distinction.

Well, see AS 931 “It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death”, and then OPAR 208: “‘Alternative’ does not necessarily imply choice; it means that the entity is confronted by two possible results: either it acts successfully, gaining the object it seeks, or it does not (and thus fails to gain the object).” Man makes choices when he recognises alternatives: any choice implies an alternative. So I think it is accurate to say that man must make a choice between thinking or not thinking, existing or not existing. Rand sees living as the fundamental moral choice (AS 936): “My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live.” The key here, which eluded me before (thanks for bringing this point into focus) is that the fundamental moral choice is the choice to live. The choice itself cannot be made by using logic and recognition of fact, but you nevertheless must chose. Chosing to exist presuppose choice, which is a particular kind of thinking.

34

Life does not exist. What exists are individual living things. The meaning of your life is what you have chosen, and will chose, what to do and what to make of it. Once you leave the stratospheric no man’s land of floating abstractions, you will find questions like this much easier to answer.

I think you’re making a slight mistake here. Life does exist, as an characteristic of certain things.

Do you actually want to tell me that you found the meaning of life?

The meaning of life is all of the goal-directed actions of all living organisms. The particular actions one might take to give his own life meaning are highly optional–the meaning of your life is all the goal-directed actions you take, which really means: all the values you act to gain and/or keep.

This really isn’t a difficult question once you put it into the perspective of Objectivism.

I agree. But if that initial choice is arbitrary, doesn’t that make all the rest that is tied to it arbitrary, too? You can always argue with “That’s just because of your arbitrary choice to value life in the first place.”

How do you answer that?

I’d say, “That’s right. And you must have chosen it too, or else you couldn’t even ask the question of why to chose it.”

A few times, Christians have asked me how I can be an atheist. Wouldn’t that mean that life has no meaning?

I have a very good answer to this, which I’ve used a number of times:

You look around at the world and think it’s not enough, so you have a God to give your life meaning. I look around at the world and think how great it is I that I get to be here; all this is the meaning.

The key here, which eluded me before (thanks for bringing this point into focus) is that the fundamental moral choice is the choice to live. The choice itself cannot be made by using logic and recognition of fact, but you nevertheless must chose. Chosing to exist presuppose choice, which is a particular kind of thinking.

I’m confused as to what you mean by a “particular kind of thinking.”

What you said, though, (even though I think I disagree) gave me an additional level of understanding of my own views on this. I said before that, in the initial choice to think, one is simultaneously adopting life as the standard of value (why think, if it isn’t to live?). Then later, I said that I could almost agree to calling them the same choice. I’m much more ready to call them the same choice now that you have put forth the idea of “moral choice.” Metaphysically, the referents of the choice are the same–that initial act of coming into focus for the first time–but conceptually, like so many other concepts, they are the same thing, viewed from a different perspective. The choice to live is the choice to think, viewed from a moral perspective.

35

The key here, which eluded me before (thanks for bringing this point into focus) is that the fundamental moral choice is the choice to live. The choice itself cannot be made by using logic and recognition of fact, but you nevertheless must chose. Chosing to exist presuppose choice, which is a particular kind of thinking.

If it can’t be made by logic or recognition of fact, how is it moral? I thought it was pre-moral.

The funny thing is that the very quote you mentioned got me started on this in the first place.

36

If it can’t be made by logic or recognition of fact, how is it moral? I thought it was pre-moral.

The funny thing is that the very quote you mentioned got me started on this in the first place.

I don’t think that anything living beings do can be “pre-moral.” Living beings are by their nature valuing beings. Try this question: Should I or shouldn’t I value?

This question is even more basic than, “should I live or not?” But words like should and shouldn’t presuppose a value standard. You simply cannot answer a question that involves a value judgment without a value standard. It’s impossible.

The question then becomes, what should the value standard be? And as I said before, no values are possible without life. So, the standard is life. Therefore, the answer to the question of the thread is emphatically, “Yes!”

My point is, answering with a “no” to the life question involves a contradiction. It’s not an arbitrary choice.

-edited for clarity

37

I don’t think that anything living beings do can be “pre-moral.” Living beings are by their nature valuing beings. Try this question: Should I or shouldn’t I value?

So you would morally judge the non-volitional actions of living beings such as bacteria, plants, fish, dogs, apes, and children who have not yet started to use their conceptual faculty?

My point is, answering with a “no” to the life question involves a contradiction. It’s not an arbitrary choice.

-edited for clarity

And now we’re back to begging the question. A “no” answer does involve a contradiction, but using that to validate the life-standard presupposes that you are already acting on the life standard, since the only reason to avoid a contradiction is if one chooses to live. Remember, reason is a value according to some existing standard–the life-standard.

Edit to add: To nip any further question-begging attempts to rationally justify choosing to live, I’ll point out that any rational justification involves the use of reason, which assumes that one already holds life as the standard of value. Therefore, the intial choice cannot involve an act of reason, and must be arbitrary. Any rational justification for the choice must be done in hindsight, just as we can only know that the intial choice was arbitrary in hindsight.

38

If it can’t be made by logic or recognition of fact, how is it moral? I thought it was pre-moral.

It’s moral in the sense that it’s the choice which defines morality. Morality pertains to evaluating choices, with respect to that fundamental choice. You apply logic to knowledge of reality, and evaluate a choice in terms of whether it works towards that goal. The goal itself is thus above evaluation: it is the standard for evaluation of all other choices.

39

This initial choice that is being spoken of is not a moral choice, and I can’t see why it has anything to do with Objectivist ethics. While different from the cognition of lower animals, this ‘first choice’ (the first decision to focus) is probably an automatic action, and animalist in that sense. Once one posesses a developed rational faculty, only then can one actually ‘choose life’. Once they have reached this stage, their life and its quality depend on the extent in which they choose life.

Why a child chooses life (automatically) is has no weight.

Why a rational person chooses life is a matter for them to decided, and they cannot escape it.

Neither of these choices affect Objectivist ethics.

40

This initial choice that is being spoken of is not a moral choice, and I can’t see why it has anything to do with Objectivist ethics.

The only thing it has to do with it is that the entire ethics assumes one has already made this choice; if someone were to choose the other way, and never come into focus, never take any volitional action, then the entire field of morality would be irrelevant to him.