Ultimate Value and Morality
Posted by evanescent on 2 May, 2008
I had a discussion briefly with several atheists on other blog that fancied themselves critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
The blog-owner himself claimed that he had been an Objectivist for seven years, before realising the philosophy was flawed. One of his reasons for rejecting Objectivism was of its notion of intrinsic values. Later on, he clarified that the paper he wrote debunking Objectivism (which of course was highly praised in the Philosophy community) was actually an attack on Libertarianism.
Objectivism REJECTS intrinsic values. Objectivism is NOT Libertarianism. So, once again we see that those who pretend they have found a flaw with Ayn Rand don’t actually know what they’re talking about.
The only thing I can’t understand is why Objectivism should meet such a vociferous reaction; atheists like this slaughter theists when the latter make ridiculous claims about evolution and science; yet every other New Age Atheist feels themselves qualified to attack Ayn Rand on philosophical grounds when they haven’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about. It’s pretty embarrassing.
One point that was raised again and again was: why is life the ultimate value? One commenter even asked me for empirical proof to justify this statement, a question that belies gross philosophical ignorance. Again, I wouldn’t criticise somebody for just being ignorant – what I criticise is those who pretend to know what they’re talking about and cover it in all the usual postmodern philosophical rubbish to make it seem like they do. (If you want an example of this nonsense, wait until one of these philosophy students says something like “but how do you even KNOW you exist??”)
Since this “ultimate value” issue seemed to be the biggest bone of contention, I’ll deal with it here, and then encourage discussion in the comments below.
First of all, what is a value? A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain. To quote Rand:
“The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.”
Where there is no valuer, there is no value. The concept “value” means something only in relation to a living being, because only living beings face the dichotomy of LIFE OR DEATH.
Ayn Rand again explains this better than I can:
“Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
To even ask the question “why is life the ultimate value?” is to assume that there can be value without life! This is the fallacy identified by Rand of “concept stealing”. It is the philosophical equivalent of bungee jumping without a rope.
Life makes value possible. And all sub-values exist precisely because one is alive and needs things to further one’s existence. Ultimately, every value one pursues either has a positive or negative effect on one’s life.
I’ll let Miss Rand have the closing remarks:
“To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.”
Once we understand the correct concept of “value”, we can understand the meaning of the terms “good” and “bad” – but good and bad, for whom?? “Good” and “bad” are moral concepts that presuppose a living being for whom something can have a positive or negative effect. But an effect on what?? That entity’s life! Therefore, the standard of morality is life. It is not duty, sacrifice, authority, consensus, society, god, or ‘others’, which define morality. What defines morality is that which is of value to the life of a rational being: that which benefits such a life is the good; that which harms such a life is the evil.
2 May, 2008 at 11:29 am
>”The only thing I can’t understand is why Objectivism should meet such a vociferous reaction; …”
For me, the fictional character James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged provides the best general psychological explanation: Objectivism’s central concept is objectivity, which means that all of one’s ideas must be drawn logically, and volitionally, from observed facts of reality.
This means, on a personal level, that one must exert the effort to make a commitment to observing reality, focusing on aspects of it, and struggling to reach a logical conclusion about those facts.
The two main alternatives, intrinsicism and subjectivism, are attempts at a short-cut around all that need to exert one’s mind.
2 May, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I find it strange that the academic community is alleged to have no interest in Objectivism, but then are alleged to have been highly receptive and appreciative of a paper critical of a philosophy they have no interest in. Anyone else notice something peculiar about this?
2 May, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Well, this is a particularly stupid bit of pseudophilosophy.
This is a sensible assertion. Goals and values are essential properties of (living) minds, and presuppose alternatives that are both (in some sense) physically possible.
But Rand immediately goes off the rails.
Rand’s reasoning here is somewhat torturous. In a sense, she’s right, but in a trivial way: Without goals that are specifically “ultimate”, there cannot be goals that are specifically “lesser”. But Rand here is presupposing what she sets out to prove: That goals can and should be organized into a strict hierarchy. Without an absolute, strict hierarchy, the objection of infinite regress fails. (And any time any philosopher talks about “metaphysical impossibility”, she is bullshitting the reader.)
I’ll grant Rand that life is indeed one end in itself, but why should it be the only end in itself? Rand (or your selection of quotations) is silent on the point.
This point is irrelevant, given that Rand has argued neither that values must be arranged in a strict hierarchy, nor that life is the only end in itself.
But Rand apparently cannot help slipping a fallacy into even an irrelevant argument. Here Rand has to add an additional attribute — unchangeability — to immortality. Granted, an unchangeable entity cannot have goals and values as we understand them, but immortality does not entail unchangeability.
It might be the case that you personally are simply unable to extract a cogent philosophical argument from a writer on whom you deem yourself an expert. I claim no such expertise — I’m addressing your argument, not necessarily Rand’s — so I’m unable to determine whether the philosophical incompetence is Rand’s or your own.
2 May, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Note too that I typically don’t bill myself as a critic of Rand, just as a critic of Randians, whom I’ve found uniformly stupid and cultish.
If Rand were a such terrific philosopher, however, I imagine she would have attracted a better class of disciples.
2 May, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Bum,
“But Rand here is presupposing what she sets out to prove: That goals can and should be organized into a strict hierarchy. Without an absolute, strict hierarchy, the objection of infinite regress fails. (And any time any philosopher talks about “metaphysical impossibility”, she is bullshitting the reader.)”
Actually, you don’t seem to be aware of the logical fallacy that Rand is particularly referencing here. Aristotle pointed out that any argument which calls for an infinite regression is by default an invalid argument–and fails precisely on those grounds. Rand is merely referencing this point. *YOU* have added to her words the phrase “strict heirarchy.” It appears nowhere in her argument. The hierarchy (and indeed there is an heirarchy) that Objectivism identifies is neither strict nor linear but reciprocal, mutually reinforcing, and synergistic. For example, life is not only the ultimate value (thus being at the apex of the value-hierarchy) but also the standard for all values (thus synergestically reinforcing the valuation of all other values).
Likewise, the cardinal values of Objectivism–reason, purpose, and self-esteem–are mutually reinforcing even though they are heirarchical, with reason first, then purpose (which reason makes possible), then self-esteem (which is derived from a sense of purpose and being rational, but feeds into a continuous cycle of rationality and purposeful action), and finally, all three values instrumentally achieving the ultimate value for each man’s life–his own happiness.
For a full exploration of this view, read the works of Objectivist philosophers. (And anytime a commentor puts words into the mouth of his opponent only to refute them later, know that he’s extracted total BS from his own bum.)
“I’ll grant Rand that life is indeed one end in itself, but why should it be the only end in itself? Rand (or your selection of quotations) is silent on the point.”
Actually, Rand is most certainly not silent on this point. Again, read the relevant books to learn more. The statement “life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself” is an observation of reality. The definition of life identifies the fact that life is a process of *self*-sustaining and *self*-generating action. In other words, life is the only phenomena that is irreversibly and undeniably oriented to itself–each man’s own life. A man–metaphysically–cannot live for another man, just as a man–metaphysically–cannot think for another man. Since thinking is made possible only to a living (conscious) human being, it is dependent on life and placed in the service of life (hence thinking is not an end in itself). However, the process of living itself is a self-directed activity, i.e., an activity oriented only to itself own furtherance, i.e., a fundamentally selfish activity, i.e., an activity that is an end in itself.
Actually, Bum, I’m surprised that you question Rand on this point because even Kant (perhaps your favorite philosopher) made a similar if not exact point about life being an end in itself. Have you studied philosophy at all?
“Here Rand has to add an additional attribute — unchangeability — to immortality. Granted, an unchangeable entity cannot have goals and values as we understand them, but immortality does not entail unchangeability.”
Critisizing Rand for being totally consistent within the scenario she defined is a rather peculiar approach; sounds like your so desperate to project your warts on others that even their consistencies are targets for criticism! Very strange, and sad, indeed.
2 May, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Ergo:
Just because Aristotle makes an assertion doesn’t mean it’s true, no matter how much Rand deifies him. The ancient Greeks were tremendously prejudiced against infinities. However, a considerable portion of modern physics and mathematics employs infinite regress.
But the appeal to infinite regress is itself irrelevant.
The usage of “ultimate” and “lesser” implies a strict hierarchy.
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
You apparently did not read or understand my proviso. I’m simply not interested in learning more about Randianism: Those who are interested, such as you and evanescent, have completely failed to generate the smallest motivation to learn more.
You make the same error that Rand (or evanescent) makes: That life has some particular characteristics does not entail that life is the only phenomenon with those characteristics. Furthermore, that some particular characteristic is sufficient for value to exist does not by itself entail that the characteristic is itself valuable. That’s a trivial level-crossing fallacy. (Example: Complex organic molecules are sufficient to establish living chemistry, but that does not entail that complex organic chemicals are alive.)
This is a non sequitur. There’s no reason to define “end in itself” as entailed by physical dependence. The choice of life itself as a stopping point (or defining the particular characteristics of life itself as the criteria for a stopping point) is arbitrary. Why not reproduction? Or organic chemistry, or the formation of heavier elements in supernovas?
There’s nothing wrong per se with making arbitrary value distinctions. But calling an arbitrary value distinction an actual argument is an offense against reason.
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? Let me repeat: “I’ll grant Rand that life is indeed one end in itself…”
How am I talking about consistency? Rand commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle, which is invalid reasoning, not inconsistency.
2 May, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’m somewhat curious about this. Would you (or would Rand) have considered removing Terri Schiavo (http://www.nndb.com/people/435/000026357/) from life support to be morally wrong? If life is the ultimate value wouldn’t the perpetuation of your life be of greater concern then whether that life is spent as a vegitable?
2 May, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sorry for the spam, I had another thought just as I hit Submit.
Isn’t the robot analogy actually harmful to objectivism? It seems to be saying that an entity (even if alive) that cannot change has no value. Isn’t this a claim that “changability” is a great value than life is?
At the risk of arguing from fictional evidence, I can see no reason why an indestructible immortal being who CAN change would be unable to have values. Heck, some day I would very much like to become indestructible and immortal, I don’t see how that would affect my love for my family though.
2 May, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Eneasz, life is the ultimate value for each rational being, that is, their own life. Life makes values possible. That is not to say that human life is of intrinsic value in itself. It is valuable to those human beings who are alive.
To live as a rational being is not to exist from moment to moment with your body meeting the fundamental functions necessary to survive; to live as a human being metaphysically, is to pursue happiness and flourish. This is because there is no dichotomy between the mind and the body. Humans are integrated beings of body and soul. To live as a human is not just to live as as unthinking animal going through the motions without purpose or reason. Therefore in some contexts, turning off a life support machine is actually the moral thing to do.
As for the robot analogy, you seem to have misunderstand “value”. You ask whether an entity that cannot change has no value - value to whom? The analogy is not meant to argue that such an entity is of no value TO SOMEONE ELSE. The point is that such an entity would hold no values OF ITS OWN.
If there was nothing that could harm you or benefit you, then you could not value anything. The reason you love your family and friends is because they are of value to you; because you can LOSE them, and because they are an important part in making your life enjoyable - they give value and purpose to your existence. But if you were incapable of losing them, or being harmed (emotionally or physically) by their existence or loss, you would not value them. That’s the point.
This is one of the many contradictory propositions with “god” - a being that supposedly has values yet is defined in such a way as to require none.
2 May, 2008 at 6:16 pm
evanescent
“To even ask the question “why is life the ultimate value?” is to assume that there can be value without life!”
False. To draw this implication is to confuse value as ends and value as means. The proposition, “There can be no value without life” says that life has instrumental value. Your implication above is, ‘Life has value as a means; therefore, life has value as an end,” which is an invalid implication.
Second, life may be essential for the existence of value, but the existence of value, and the value of value are not the same thing. Many things exist that have no value, and many things that would have value if they existed do not exist.
We can see this distinction by looking at the fact that I value chocolate ice cream. My desire for chocolate ice cream would not exist if I were dead. However, is it a good thing that I desire chocolate ice cream? This question is entirely different from the question, “Does my desire for chocolate ice cream exist?”
So, even if it is the case that life is necessary for the existence of value, you have not demonstrated how ‘value exists’ has value. Even if you demonstrate that “value exists” has value, you have only demonstrated that life has instrumental value (is necessary for realizing the value that is intrinsic to ‘value exists’), not that it has value as an end.
I do hold that there are ultimate values - aversion to pain, desire for sex, desire to eat, desire to drink, etc. These are the ‘ends’ that evolution has given us - molded by evolution to select for those ends that tend to (but do not guarantee) genetic replication. Genetic replication itself is not an end, it is a side effect. Whereas being alive is useful for genetic replication, these natural ends tend also to lead to survival (as a side effect, not as an ‘ultimate end’).
2 May, 2008 at 6:18 pm
to live as a human being metaphysically, is to pursue happiness and flourish … To live as a human is not just to live as as unthinking animal going through the motions without purpose or reason. Therefore in some contexts, turning off a life support machine is actually the moral thing to do
Ignoring that many animals actually do a fair bit of thinking and feeling (otherwise how could it be considered immoral to torture a puppy?), I kinda feel like this is moving the goal posts. Now life is not just being alive, but includes pursuing happiness and flourishing.
I agree that pursuing happiness and flourishing are important values of course, I wouldn’t want to live a life were I couldn’t do those. But when you recognize these values are important (even important enough that a life without them is meaningless), instead of saying “There are other values that are also very important, and in some cases can even trump continued life in importance” you simply say “Well… my definition of life includes those values in it.” Basically redefining “life” into a definition that no one else uses, and in a way that makes it fairly useless. What’s the big deal about saying “Life is important, but other stuff is too, and sometimes a number of values can outweigh one or two other values”? It’s more consistant, and refusing to modify a minor flaw in a position smacks of sticking to dogma just because it is the dogma.
You ask whether an entity that cannot change has no value - value to whom? The analogy is not meant to argue that such an entity is of no value TO SOMEONE ELSE. The point is that such an entity would hold no values OF ITS OWN
Well no, that was exactly my point. At first you said life has value of it’s own. Then you said an immortal & indesctructable being that cannot change has no value of it’s own. Since this being obviously possesses life (and cannot lose it) but cannot change, the thing that has value of it’s own appears to be “changeability” and not “life”.
Although I suppose under your new definition of “life” that includes “pursuit of happiness and flourishing” this would no longer be an issue.
But wouldn’t that also mean that someone who is incapable of pursuing happiness and flourshing not really alive? Like our hypothetical robot, or perhaps a slave?
2 May, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Alonzo said:
Instrumental value? What is life instrumental for?? Life is a value, because a value is that which one acts to pursue and/or gain (see article above). All other values we pursue are consonant with our life. And there can be only one ultimate value, by definition.
Everything else you’ve said was addressed by the article itself and by Ergo’s comments.
And I have no idea what this means. I think you are confusing yourself.
I don’t think you read the comments above. The things you cite here are NOT ends in themselves. Why should one avoid pain? Why should one desire sex? Why should one desire food, drink etc? These things are only desirable because they are of VALUE to our lives.
All the things you mention, and more, are means to an end - the end being life. However, life is not a means to anything else. It is its own end. Again, see comments above.
Evolution hasn’t given us any ends. Evolution is the scientific explanation for how life developed. It has given us the means to achieve our end: life.
Even your statement above is contradictory: you suggest that evolution has given us “ends” to achieve genetic replication, presumably an end in itself?! So you’re saying we have ends to achieve ends? This makes no sense. There is only one end in itself, otherwise we cannot avoid the nihilistic infinite regress.
Besides, evolution is not prescriptive as to how a rational being should live his life - it merely describes a biological process.
Eneasz said:
No it’s not moral to torture an animal - but that’s not because it can feel pain. Suffering is not the standard for morality.
As for moving the goal posts, no, I was clarifying a point, not changing it.
Of course not, because life as a rational being demands certain additional values to further such a life. Music, art, love etc are all necessary facets to a rational being (these are examples) because they add purpose and meaning to your life - they also improve you as a person. To live as a human is to live like such a person.
If you understand this, then most of your other questions are answered.
Metaphysically, yes! Biologically speaking, life is defined by certain biological processes, so whilst a robot or human might be functioning on autopilot, philosophically speaking a human being that couldn’t pursue happiness wouldn’t be living like a human being. However, that state of affairs can only exist where force is present, and force destroys alternatives, and alternatives allow values.
2 May, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Basic reading comprehension is a skill that seems in short supply around here. That’s the question that Alonzo is asking you. As he notes, “The proposition, ‘There can be no value without life’ says that life has instrumental value.”
If you’re going to do philosophy, it’s useful to learn how to make straightforward logical inferences without having every little step spelled out for you.
Defining yourself to be correct is not considered the strongest possible philosophical argument. As I myself noted, the premise that values must be organized in a strict hierarchy — the only way one can conclude the existence of an ultimate value — is itself a controversial premise.
Again, you are begging the question (or you are indulging in banality). Granted, these things can have value only to a living being (assuming a sufficiently broad definition of “living”
but they are not always valuable because they keep us alive or allow us to live longer. Tasty food, for example, is more valuable than bland or ill-tasting food, even if both serve the same physical effect of providing calories.
Alan Sokal said, “When one analyzes [post-modernist and deconstruction] writings, one often finds radical-sounding assertions whose meaning is ambiguous and that can be given two alternative readings: one as interesting, radical, and grossly false; the other as boring and trivially true.” The same can be said about a lot of bad philosophy.
It would definitely be helpful for you to look up the definition of scare quotes.
While argument from unsubstantiated assertion might have allowed Rand to persuade you, it really has little effect when you attempt to persuade others, especially those of us with quantities of neurons that require exponential notation.
This assertion would seem to facially contradict your assertion that life is the one and only singular “ultimate” value, unless you are using the word “ultimate” in a particularly bizarre and idiosyncratic sense. Again, argument by making up your own meanings is not considered the most powerful philosophical tactic.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
2 May, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Alonzo is equivocating on the use of the term “instrumental”. Life makes values possible – it is not an instrument to the end of those values. In other words, it is not instrumental for any purpose other than itself.
Ergo has explained this point to you.
There is no such thing as value without a living being to value it.
As for the latter point, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, since I apparently agree with you? Food is a value to human beings, and more tasty food is of more value to you (generally) because we enjoy it more and it enriches our lives and allows you to appreciate the joy of eating and increases our experience and culture. This is important for a rational being.
Rather than criticise the point, I believe you have reinforced it.
Yes I agree – the sort of philosophical nonsense that asks if life is an ultimate value or not, and denies that it is an end in itself. The sort of bad philosophy that attacks from ignorance without any foundation of its own. (Pssst I’m talking about you here).
Irrelevant remark. I pointed out a contradiction with Alonzo’s assertion.
It seems that in your desperation to defend Alonzo, you overlooked his major error and felt the need to throw any old remark in.
Now THIS is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
If you are going to limit yourself to these half-arsed vacuous attacks, I will have little time for you.
How about an actual philosophical argument of your own, instead of these meaningless attempts at dismissal?
Are you trying to be offensive, or is this a natural skill you possess?
Life is the ULTIMATE value – it is an end in itself. Only ONE thing can be an end in itself. Surely this goes without saying or further explanation? You cannot have two ultimate values?!
I did not say “singular” value – that is your word. Once again, I said ultimate. Because life is not a given and must be constantly strived after, it allows the possibility of other values that either further that life or threaten it. These values are made possible by life itself and are the means to that end – the end being life.
Again, I am at a loss to understand why the attitude of those who think they can debunk Objectivism is so hostile.
Another lazy comment. You should have explained what you think I think it means, and then explained what it “really” means, and point out where I was going “wrong”.
If your comments are this lazy, I wonder if you have even read the original article.
As for “metaphysically”, I am referring to the nature of man as a certain type of being as defined philosophically by his mental/physical characteristics and their relationship to reality.
2 May, 2008 at 11:11 pm
One more point: if anyone actually wants to deny that life is an ultimate value, your task is simple: name another value (something you act to keep and/or gain) that is an end in itself, (i.e.: not the means to any other end.)
For this challenge, one word answers will do.
2 May, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Her ability to destroy the left’s political tenets (Marxism) makes her their worst enemy. Beware of the cornered collectivist.
3 May, 2008 at 12:06 am
Perhaps you would find it instructive to look up the definition of “singular”.
I’m trying. I do have some natural talent, but I’ve spent many years and many thousands of words developing that talent. Given that you started off your post with a string of contemptuous insults, that you are outraged now at my insolence reveals a hitherto unexpected level of obtuse stupidity.
Oh, I’ve derived about as much pleasure as is possible from this little “discussion”.
Just to let you know, normally I leave idiots alone. However, I do read Planet Atheism every day. Granted that you don’t believe any god exists, you have every right to be there, no question. Still and all, If you bring yourself to the attention of people who take philosophy and logic somewhat seriously and who also completed education past the elementary school level, you’re just asking for trouble.
3 May, 2008 at 1:33 am
As for moving the goal posts, no, I was clarifying a point, not changing it.
Well in my humble opinion if you had intended the term “life” to include “persuit of happiness and flourshing” then you really should have said so up front, since that is not the way it is normally used.
However I still feel justified in saying that you are moving the goal posts. In the very same reply that I have quoted in italics, you also said to Alonzo that “Why should one avoid pain? Why should one desire sex? Why should one desire food, drink etc? These things are only desirable because they are of VALUE to our lives. All the things you mention, and more, are means to an end - the end being life.” This clearly implies that the term ‘life’ does not include “pursuit of happiness and flourshing” since you specifically stated that they are seperate from “the end [of] life”, and are merely things that are of value to life, not a part of it.
Therefore I accuse you of equivocating. Bad form. Tsk tsk.
Music, art, love etc are all necessary facets to a rational being (these are examples) because they add purpose and meaning to your life - they also improve you as a person. To live as a human is to live like such a person.
I’m curious, does this mean that people who do not value music, art, love etc are not human?
Regarding: Are robots/slaves who are incapable of pursuing happiness and flourshing not really alive?
Metaphysically, yes! Biologically speaking, life is defined by certain biological processes, so whilst a robot or human might be functioning on autopilot, philosophically speaking a human being that couldn’t pursue happiness wouldn’t be living like a human being.
So, if a robot or slave is not really alive (philosophically/metaphysically speaking, as you say) then there is no harm (nothing morally wrong) in killing them, right? After all, you can’t take away something that someone never had. I really hope I’m completely missing the point, because this sounds much like “If you don’t live up to the Man Qua Man ideal as defined by Rand, then you don’t deserve to keep breathing.”
3 May, 2008 at 10:00 am
Yet again, notice how Bum signs off with a string of cheap remarks and threats. In particular the “I wouldn’t talk about this with the experts!” sort of warning. Unfortunately, he fails to explain exactly where Objectivism is going wrong, and why he disagrees with it, and he has no counter-challenge on philosophical grounds to Ayn Rand. Instead, he pretends the philosophical community is already on his side and then leaves. If even the community was, considering the likes of Kant are taken as gospel, philosophy these days leaves a lot to be desired. Bum has just demonstrated intellectual laziness of the highest order. He came, he slipped in a few lazy remarks, and left.
As for his accusation that I started off my article with insults, that is not true. I started off exposing the ignorant attacks on Ayn Rand from other bloggers. I did not insult anyone, I merely said that their attempts at refutation were born out of ignorance.
On the other hand, Bum does resort to the ad hominem fallacy himself. Remember this:
Also, notice how he failed to answer the simple challenge I set for him (or anyone else). If he wants to win this argument, he only has to name another ultimate value other than life - if Objectivism is so philosophically bankrupt (that’s his opinion), then this should be child’s play!
This continues a trend with these New Age Atheists I’ve noticed - they fancy themselves rational and reasonable, yet try to have a philosophical discussion on their accepted beliefs and see how aggressive they get. Why? Does it remind you of anyone?
Eneasz said:
In all fairness, Eneasz, I did say from as early as possible this was the case. If you think it would have been helpful to say it earlier, fair enough, you might be right.
However the point remains - human beings are not lumps of flesh, nor are we consciousness floating in space; we are united beings of soul and body. The nourishment of the mind is just as important as the nourishment of the body - if you want to live as a rational being that is. Otherwise you would just be an animal. That is what is meant by man’s “metaphysical” nature.
I really don’t know what you mean here. I cannot see how you came to that conclusion from what I said.
I think you’re a bit confused by what you said though, because how can means to an end by separate to that end? If things are a value to life, they are of course a part of it! The fact that I didn’t mention happiness and flourishing in that particular sentence is beside the point, because it wasn’t being mentioned there - I was pointing out to Alonzo that the values he listed were NOT ends in themselves.
Like I said above, “these are examples”. As the article above states, that which benefits the life of a rational being is the good, that which harms it is the evil. Music, art, love, etc are examples of values that benefit man emotionally, spiritually, intellectually. They are examples of essential values for a healthy mind. That is not to say that everyone must love music, art, love etc (as it happens most people do). And the term “art” can include so many other things so I won’t list them. Another example might be “travelling” or “teaching”, or “learning” etc etc.
The point is that a man must be free to pursue his intellectual goals - in order to live AS A MAN these are just as important as the values his body needs in order to survive. Otherwise, a human being that exists as a slave, as a mindless robot, might as well be an animal - they are not living as a rational being.
I think you have missed the point, but it’s a good question to raise. The answer of course is: no. No matter how somebody else lives their life, you don’t have the Right to kill them. Rights are a moral principle that sanction freedom of action. That freedom of action is not surrendered simply because a person lives like a slave, or lives in some other irrational inhuman way.
The only thing that can waive individual Rights is that person violating the Rights of others.
PS: I notice Barefoot Bum has linked here from his own blog. Personally, if I’d shown the laziness Bum has here I wouldn’t want others to see! I believe his blog says (although I haven’t visited it) something along the lines of “check out these Objectivists etc etc”. So before he ever came here, he was looking to attack Ayn Rand. Strange, considering he is obviously ignorant to her works. So again, I ask why? This just reinforces my point about these Atheists who have no HONEST desire for debate.
3 May, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“The hierarchy (and indeed there is an heirarchy) that Objectivism identifies is neither strict nor linear but reciprocal, mutually reinforcing, and synergistic. For example, life is not only the ultimate value (thus being at the apex of the value-hierarchy) but also the standard for all values (thus synergestically reinforcing the valuation of all other values).”
Bum’s fart: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
Haha! I’m totally baffled by the technical sophistication of that response! Gasp! I’m speechless! *note to self: never underestimate the stinging stench of the Bum’s power-fart* LOL!
3 May, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Absence of pain. Physical and emotional.
3 May, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Why would one avoid pain?
Why is pain undesirable?
Because it makes life unpleasant.
And it is better to have as pleasant a life as possible.
Why?
Because it make life enjoyable to live. Pleasure is the physical/emotional reward for achieving one’s goals. But to what are these goals directed?
I’ll give you clue: L__E
3 May, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Otherwise you would just be an animal
Technically we are just animals, with highly advanced brains. I know this is a minor quibble, but it always bothers. It usually leads to bad places when people claim otherwise.
Like I said above, “these are examples”.
Fair enough, I withdraw the objection.
Re: Defintion of “life”
I think you’re a bit confused by what you said though, because how can means to an end by separate to that end? If things are a value to life, they are of course a part of it!
If I’m confused, I believe it’s because you are inconsistant with your usage. You define life as “Life, the pursuit of happiness, and flourishing” (based on our previous dialog). It’s your blog, you can define life however you like as long as you warn us beforehand. But when other commenters have given other values that can at times trump life as the ultimate value (avoiding pain, pursuing happiness, etc) you said ” The things you cite here are NOT ends in themselves. … These things are only desirable because they are of VALUE to our lives
I hate to argue about definitions, because it is IMHO the lowest form of philosophy (if one could even call it that). But it seems like I have to, because you appear to be equivocating. Any time you define a word, you should always be able to substitute that definition for the word and not lose coherency. But if we do so with your definition of “life” we get absurd statements like “The things you cite [pursuit of happiness, avoidance of pain] are not ends in themselves, they are desireable only because they are of value to [life, the pursuit of happiness, and flourishing]”
What sense does it make to say that the pursuit of happiness is only desirable because it is of value towards the end of pursuing happiness? It’s a circular statement. Obviously you were using the word ‘life’ in a different way in that statement. That is equivocating.
“Killing” is in a similar bind, since “killing” is “the taking of life”. Or “the taking of [life, pursuit of happiness, and flourishing]” A slave cannot pursue happiness or flourish. Yet you say that no one has the right to “take the [life, pursuit of happiness, and flourishing] of someone who lacks [life, pursuit of happiness, and flourishing].” That is a bit of an absurdity, because you cannot take something that someone doesn’t have. So again you must have swapped in a different definition for life in this case, which is once again equivocating. These are not rational arguments, these are rhetorical tricks. Please either redefine ‘life’ in a coherent manner, or start using it consistently. This lack of honesty is distressing.
One final note about rights:
No matter how somebody else [lives, pursues happiness, and flourishes], you don’t have the Right to kill them. Rights are a moral principle that sanction freedom of action.
What are these Rights? This is an honest question, I don’t know how Rand justifies rights. Where do they come from, how can you tell a right from a non-right, etc. Desire Utilitarianism has a very good explanation of what rights are, does Objectivism have anything along similar lines?
4 May, 2008 at 6:41 am
“Desire Utilitarianism has a very good explanation of what rights are, does Objectivism have anything along similar lines?”
Actually, DU has a very poor description of rights and Objectivism certainly does not have anything along similar lines. DU is capable of only pointing at a *general* phenomena and ascribing to it the term “rights”–which is not only incorrect but also circular. The argument is circular because it merely uses different forms of the same argument to support the idea that rights exists.
For example, rights exists because generally people have many and strong reasons to encourage aversions to action X. Without all the unnecessary jargonistics, this is the same thing as saying rights exist because people want rights to exist. Well, but why do people want this to be the case? How did most people get those many and strong reasons? How did those reasons originate? What is their basis and is it univeral or cultural or subjective? And what about the few people who do not have those many and strong reasons? What about those who don’t simply care about this either way?
DU is perhaps the silliest thing I have encountered that purports to be a philosophy; at its root, it is deeply confused about whether or not it is a philosophy based on determinism or free will. It insists on the objectivity of ethics but has no epistemological foundation or theory of concepts that demonstrates this objectivity; indeed, it appears that DU is epistemologically relativistic at best and subjectivistic at worst.
WRT Objectivism, it is simply not proper and not feasible to try to convince you of the Objectivist theory of rights on an internet forum. Rarely do people engage in online debates to be persuaded wholly about an opposing view; mostly, it is to bum-troll around looking to get into someone’s hair like a stubborn piece of gum or win debating brownie points on cyberspace.
Primarily, personal and self-motivated study is the way to changing your views and exploring something new. So, if you’re truly interested in learning about the Objectivist theory of rights (and Objectivism in general)–and not simply engaging in fruitless online debates–then read the relevant books.
4 May, 2008 at 6:51 am
“name another ultimate value other than life”
“Absence of pain. Physical and emotional.”
Absence of all pain would in fact destroy all meaning in valuation. It would be detrimental to our lives–we would not know what has survival value in relation to us and what is a threat. Pain serves many different, important, and often life-sustaining functions. Pain can be an indicator of the nature of our actions–whether they are good or bad for us.
In an other sense, imagine your loved one is brutally mutilated by a thug right before your eyes. And then you don’t feel pain; perhaps, you don’t feel joy, but you neither feel pain–just indifference. Then, in what meaningful sense do we talk about valuation and emotional responses to values? How do know what is of value to us and what is not? Given our human nature, we experience our valuations through our emotions (emotional pain or emotional pleasure). With the absence of pain, one of the most important indicators of a healthy life will disappear.
So, no. Absence of pain cannot be an ultimate value. It is in fact important in the service of a truly ultimate value, which is life.
4 May, 2008 at 8:53 am
Why would one avoid pain?
Why is pain undesirable?
Because it makes life unpleasant.
And it is better to have as pleasant a life as possible.
Why?
Because it make life enjoyable to live. Pleasure is the physical/emotional reward for achieving one’s goals. But to what are these goals directed?
I’ll give you clue: L__E
There are two different types of responses to a “why” question: one about the conscious intentions of an agent, and one about mechanisms.
Objectivism defines “value” as something along these lines: some thing or condition that an agent acts to gain and/or keep. Now, let’s analyze this definition with respect to both types of answers to “why” questions.
Under the intentional answer, eating for pleasure, eating to rid oneself of hunger, and eating to give oneself energy for doing known or suspected future tasks are values. Picking up sand on the bottom of my shoe when I walk on the beach is not a value (nor is the sand).
Under the mechanistic answer, anything I gain and/or keep, as well as anything I could gain and/or keep by doing whatever action I’m doing at any point in time, are values. Under this answer, that sand I mentioned is a value. Yet this is absurd and trivializes the notion of value, making it next to useless.
From this analysis, it can be seen that the Objectivist definition of value must reasonably answer the intentional “why” question, not the one I have labeled as “mechanistic”. So, why is pain undesirable? The answer could be “because it just is undesirable” or “because I don’t want to feel bad”. But with the intentional reading of the “why” question, the answer can not be, or at least almost never is, “because it is detrimental to my life”. An intentional answer can not be reduced beyond the issue of consciously known desire, as far as I am aware.
Your answer was pretty good up until you answered the question “but to what are these goals directed?”. It is there that the equivocation on “value” pops up, where you switch to the non-intentional reading of the “why” question.
So life can not be an ultimate value if it is not first a value, and no one, as far as I am aware, consciously holds just being alive, even if unable to do anything, as a value. Clearly, then, it is not the case that every person’s own status as being alive is of paramount value to them. A person’s own life is, at the very least, an instrumental value–it is valuable because it allows one to pursue other values. So one’s own life is a value by the Objectivist definition, but it is only, in general, a means to achieve other ends. Staying alive, then, is almost always, if not always, instrumental. But we can not say that it is an ultimate value. We can, however, say that it (the status of being alive) is a necessary prerequisite for valuing anything. This does not make it an ultimate value under the intentional notion of “value”.
4 May, 2008 at 8:55 am
I didn’t separate the quotation from the rest of my post there. The quotation should be from the first line through the one ending in “L__E”.
4 May, 2008 at 11:29 am
“Staying alive, then, is almost always, if not always, instrumental.”
This is not only false, it is impossible. Metaphysically, life is a given. Metaphysically, life is always self-directed, self-generating action (in plants and animals, including humans). To be an instrumental value, one must be able to act in such a way as to acquire, gain, and keep the value in order to achieve higher, more important values. But this is impossible because life is already given–it is already acquired, it already exists. Your actions prove that you are alive. Hence, it is impossible to acquire the value of life for instrumental purposes.
Life as an ultimate value recognizes a very specific set of requirements: that one must act to acquire, gain, and keep all values that serve the purpose of our life qua human being. Since life qua man is the goal, Objectivism provides the unifying framework for all of man’s actions by defining life as “self-generated action” and man’s life as “goal-directed action.” (Man’s life is “goal-directed” in the conscious sense of the term, because we volitional beings could even choose to commit suicide. Animals exhibit goal-directed action as well, albeit to a limited degree, with the goal being survival.)
Metaphysically, man has one goal, one end–-to live as proper to his nature. Ethically, man has to choose his ultimate goal. Objectivism recommends that man choose his own rational happiness as the moral goal of his life. This recommendation is premised upon a long chain of metaphysical and epistemological analyses.
Objectivism regards happiness as not only possible but also the *proper* state of man’s existence on this earth. To that ethical end–which is justified on a metaphysical end, Objectivism builds a framework of moral rights that safeguard the conditions possible (the means) for the achievement of that end and ennumerates a series of values and virtues that are necessary means to achieving that end.
In both cases, the end is the individual–the man; metaphysically, his life; ethically, his happiness.
5 May, 2008 at 4:47 am
There are two distinct interpretations of the Objectivist definition of “value”. I first note that, with some reasonable inclusions that you can call me on if you object to them, the definition is “a thing or condition which an agent acts to gain and/or keep”.
One interpretation is “a thing or condition that an agent intentionally acts to gain and/or keep”, and the other is “a thing or condition that an agent unintentionally acts to gain and/or keep”.
This distinction is important, since the phrase “act to…” could indicate either intention or the lack thereof. On one interpretation, anything my body gains and/or keeps is considered a value, including dog shit when one steps upon it. This is, of course, absurd, and this interpretation of value–the intentionless one–should be thrown out if we wish the term to be meaningful or useful at all.
We are then left with the intentional interpretation. Only under extremely rare circumstances does a human act with the purpose being to keep oneself alive–usually, actions are done because they accomplish some other goal, including the fulfillment of desires for happiness, pleasure, and other positive emotions–so we see that the mere condition of being alive is, at most, almost never a value under the meaningful Objectivist definition of the term.
From this, we gather that an agent’s life is almost never even so much as a value to that agent under the meaningful Objectivist definition, since we’ve ruled out the intentionless definition and found the intentional one lacking if we wish to consider a person’s life a value to that person, with no qualification.
There is a slight weakness in my above reasoning, however: to say that life is almost never a value (by the Objectivist definition), I made an inductive guess about people’s intentions. But this only shows that, contrary to evanescent’s protestations, empirical evidence is, in fact, necessary to establish life as a value under Objectivism, ultimate or not. “An agent’s own life is something which that agent knowingly, willfully acts to gain and/or keep” is a falsifiable statement that requires empirical evidence for support (but then there’s the dilemma of how long it might be true for, if it could be true).
The conclusion stated above, that life is at most almost never a value under Objectivism, also, obviously, rules out an agent’s life as an or the ultimate value for that agent (when speaking universally). The mistake I made in the post to which Ergo replied was in implying that life is even universally a value at all under Objectivism, when such is not the case (nor is it the case for most of any individual’s life-time). I was equivocating between a standard meaning of “value” and the Objectivist one. No matter. I believe the argument I make in this post stands.
Using “value” in a more standard way, just about everyone values their own life (unless they have turned suicidal, but at one point they valued their life). But when someone is asked if they do and they say “yes, I value my life”, imagine asking them, instead, if they think they would value their life if they were in a coma and would actually never come out of it, or if they were like Terri Shiavo, with a brain no longer functioning even on the level of a small child. My guess is that, if they knew their mental activity were severely impaired to such an extent, they would think–about this situation–something along the lines of “I would have nothing to live for–I wouldn’t want to live that way and I might as well die”. If we assume this to be the most common plausible response, it is very revealing in regard to what type of value (in a more standard sense) one’s own life has to oneself. “I have nothing to live for” and “I wouldn̵