I simply suggested that instead of correcting what you already posted, you copy and paste the text only again.

Or rewrite the jist of it here.

Just checked you are still lacking any way to modify, preview or edit comments. So how can this be tidied up? When that is fixed I will happily clean up and repost. Tell me when you have fixed this.

If you tidy up your comment and repost it, I will read it and respond.

Anyway I had fun writing it!

I’m not sure why Mr. Freedman keeps saying that there is no evidence that life is the ultimate value.
First answer: Mackie showed with the Argument from Queerness that intrinsic value is a fiction, and that theories based on such intrinsic values are in error. This includes “life as the ultimate value” – unless you agree that intrinsic value does not exist, in which case what is your non-question begging theory of non-intrinsic value?

All other ends he suggests, avoiding pain, eating and drinking… they would all be pointless if you weren’t alive
Not pointless, they just would not exist. Life is a precondition to generating value as has been said numerous times, one way or another, before.

Is it not self-evident that because of this then that life must be preserved above all else in order to value anything at all?
No it is not self-evident, this is a hasty generalisation. You need to consider evidence that would disconfirm your claim and then see that such evidence does not exist. But here it does and so your claimed is disconfirmed. One can have values that involve sacrificing one’s life in order to realise value – e.g. for one’s children or family, one’s country or one’s beliefs possibly.

If the “life” of the valuer is a requirement of value then how can any other value be above or equal to “life”?,/quote>
A requirement or precondition of value is not the same as value. Your are confusing process and product – life is usually a precondition or part of the process that produces value.

He says life is of instrumental value… what is life a means to?
Only by contrast to the still emprically unjustified assertion that “life is the ultimate value”. Considered as an instrumental means, life is a means to whatever it is that the agent desires, that is whatever final ends they have, (plus it is up to them to decide and not you to impose it on them).

The only possible answer is “living”… everything else is an aspect of living.
This is a form of equivocation you have gone from “life” to “living”. The question is what is performed in the process of living? This would be the seeking and realisation of one’s desires where being alive is just a usual precondition as already stated here.

If life is an end in itself then it couldn’t be instrumental to any other value.
This is false. Any end can also be a means to other ends.

Suggesting otherwise is to say that life is a means to avoid pain, life is a means to eat or drink, life is a means to enjoy pleasure, life is a means to successfully reproduce, etc. Does Mr. Freedman see the contradiction here? None of these things matter if you aren’t alive.
The contradiction is in your view of how this works, not in mine. The contradiction results from the false dilemma within which you attempt to answer these questions. Having such a contradiction in your model is a good reason to recognise it is flawed and reject it.

In my approach an agent’s life is a usual precondition to them pursuing their desires such as a desire to avoid pain, eat, drink or for pleasure, to successfully reproduce and so on. As you can see there is no contradiction, this is an artefact of your reasoning.

As for his example that evolutionary biologists suggest that “successful reproduction” is preferred over an individual “life”… Evolutionary biologists explain why certain traits have allowed a species to survive over a large amount of time. Put simply, this means that a species that does not have enough of these traits did not continue to exist as a species.
You need to check your evolutionary theory, when it comes to successful reproduction they focus on genes, individuals and populations, arguably groups but generally not species.

This has nothing to do with concept value in the context of morality.
IIRC I never said it was. I was asking on what is the equivalent empirical basis was your value model to be preferred over theirs.

It does not refer to the intentional actions or conduct of any individual member of that species.
Yes so? And note that the capacity for types of intentional actions are certainly evolutionary constrained.

It may, at times, include the automated or instinctual actions that most members of the species share. I believe what they are explaining is a different concept with a different standard.
Well duh! Why state the obvious? This was examining the evidence that you have for your standard and this was in contrast to evolutionary biologists and the evidential basis for their standard. Again what is the equivalent empirical basis for your standard?

Though it does have a similar logic. In the context of the evolutionary process, “species survival and flourishing” is the standard of what is “preferred”. This is nearly mirrors objectivism’s logic that in the context of morality it is an individual’s “life” or “individual survival and flourishing” that is the standard of what is “preferred”.
Addressing you in particular, maybe your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory also applies in moral theory?

When it comes to evolution an individual has no power over which traits help the species survive as they were developed long before he was alive, nor does he have any power over the traits he passes on or even whether the species will survive in his lifetime. Morality simply does not apply to evolution because morality relates to individual choices and actions. I think the problem we see here is comes from this context switching.
The original discussion was a long time ago but IIRC this was not something that was ever argued for one way or another i.e. this is all irrelevant.

I take issue with Mr. Freedman’s is-ought example. We respect another’s right to life because we wish them to respect ours.
This is the golden rule and does not address the is-ought distinction.

It is of no value and in fact quite harmful to our values to participate in a society where anyone may do as they please to any other person without regard. It clearly falls within our self interest to engage and encourage a social environment where moral and ethical concepts such as rights are respected.
You need to explain what these “values” are. You have yet to provide decent support for your above value model. You certainly do not need your dubious value model to consider the above issues on which we would mostly agree. But then again what do you mean by “rights”? As Bentham said these are nonsense built on stilts. So how do you explain rights (but presumably you first need to get some clarity on your theory of value?

In regard to the is-ought aspect, man is a rational animal among other rational animals therefore man ought to preserve the requirements necessarily to live as a rational animal among other rational animals.
You have just committed the error of deriving an ought from an is, what is your justification for doing this? Just making an assertion is not a justification.

I think Mr. Freedman’s suggestion that objectivists should attempt to defend their positions with out relying on definitions is plainly absurd.
A classic riposte of a subjectivist, since their definitions have no objective referents and they cannot talk about objective feature of reality and then you go on…

If you consistently apply the idea that definitions are subjective then nothing can be proven about anything.
Another assertion to which you fail to answer below. Is Pluto a planet or not? Is Egypt in the Middle East or North Africa? Change those definitions and what they refer to – the facts still carry on existing, regardless of those changed definitions. You only want to claim my question is absurd because you cannot point to anything but fictions and fantasies, I will stick to the facts and if you have none, then you have nothing.

Is pain an end? What is pain? The definition of pain is subjective so I’m going to say pain is the color blue. What is blue? It’s something you eat. What’s that Mr. Freedman? You mean in this context you defined pain as the phenomenon of a temporary but unpleasant sensation experienced by certain living beings? So much for not relying on definitions. The fact specific definitions are used consistently when arguing from any perspective is rational and the only logical thing to do. The very purpose of doing such is so that the argument and terms are properly understood and not confused, without them or doing as Mr. Freedman suggests would lead to complete unintelligible chaos.
Again you really on definitions.. ahem.. as ends. I do not, they are just means, a useful shorthand to facilitate inter-subjective communication. However when there is a dispute over definitions one needs to get beyond them to the facts, here you cannot and try to avoid this by claiming to do so is “absurd”. Of course you could redefine “pain” to mean something other than what most people mean but then most would misunderstand you unless they knew and agreed to use your artifical definitions but so what. Oh yes that is what you do with “morality”!

However, at times, people often forget or neglect to provide definitions and assume they are known. Sometimes people do commit equivocation, accidental or not.
Well then (and when I refer to you here and mostly above I am talking to Randians in general not just you Justin) why do you persist with your equivocations over life – man qua man – and morality?

How does Mr. Freedman explain his criticism that objectivism’s statement that “life is the ultimate moral value” relies on equivocation, or double meaning, while at the same time claiming a reliance on specific definitions?,/quote>
I do not claim a reliance on definitions it is you that do. I have already stated my view on definitions above in this post. The double meaning in your case is a quasi-equivocation on life versus living as also noted above.

I suppose there could be a mixed bag of issues. Perhaps he recommends we not take his advise and do define our terms to remove the equivocation?,/quote>
Huh? You admit you are equivocating? It would be useful to define your terms to (a) avoid the equivocation and (b) point to the facts of the matter to which they refer – so we can discuss these without needing those definitions. Given that you have failed to present any arguments to move forward the debate, the provisional conclusion still remains that you cannot do that (disambiguate your admitted equivocation) without your arguments disappearing into thin air!!!

Unfortunately, I am becoming more and more aware that attacks on Objectivism on my blog and others are born, not so much out of innocent misunderstanding and an interest in honest debate, but a deep dislike for Rand and her philosophy and a passion to attack it from a position of ignorance (why???). In this respect, these atheists remind me of creationists.

As for his example that evolutionary biologists suggest that “successful reproduction” is preferred over an individual “life”… Evolutionary biologists explain why certain traits have allowed a species to survive over a large amount of time. Put simply, this means that a species that does not have enough of these traits did not continue to exist as a species. This has nothing to do with concept value in the context of morality. It does not refer to the intentional actions or conduct of any individual member of that species. It may, at times, include the automated or instinctual actions that most members of the species share. I believe what they are explaining is a different concept with a different standard. Though it does have a similar logic. In the context of the evolutionary process, “species survival and flourishing” is the standard of what is “preferred”. This is nearly mirrors objectivism’s logic that in the context of morality it is an individual’s “life” or “individual survival and flourishing” that is the standard of what is “preferred”. When it comes to evolution an individual has no power over which traits help the species survive as they were developed long before he was alive, nor does he have any power over the traits he passes on or even whether the species will survive in his lifetime. Morality simply does not apply to evolution because morality relates to individual choices and actions. I think the problem we see here is comes from this context switching.

I take issue with Mr. Freedman’s is-ought example. We respect another’s right to life because we wish them to respect ours. It is of no value and in fact quite harmful to our values to participate in a society where anyone may do as they please to any other person without regard. It clearly falls within our self interest to engage and encourage a social environment where moral and ethical concepts such as rights are respected. In regard to the is-ought aspect, man is a rational animal among other rational animals therefore man ought to preserve the requirements necessarily to live as a rational animal among other rational animals.

I think Mr. Freedman’s suggestion that objectivists should attempt to defend their positions with out relying on definitions is plainly absurd. If you consistently apply the idea that definitions are subjective then nothing can be proven about anything. Is pain an end? What is pain? The definition of pain is subjective so I’m going to say pain is the color blue. What is blue? It’s something you eat. What’s that Mr. Freedman? You mean in this context you defined pain as the phenomenon of a temporary but unpleasant sensation experienced by certain living beings? So much for not relying on definitions. The fact specific definitions are used consistently when arguing from any perspective is rational and the only logical thing to do . The very purpose of doing such is so that the argument and terms are properly understood and not confused, without them or doing as Mr. Freedman suggests would lead to complete unintelligible chaos. However, at times, people often forget or neglect to provide definitions and assume they are known. Sometimes people do commit equivocation, accidental or not.

How does Mr. Freedman explain his criticism that objectivism’s statement that “life is the ultimate moral value” relies on equivocation, or double meaning, while at the same time claiming a reliance on specific definitions? I suppose there could be a mixed bag of issues. Perhaps he recommends we not take his advise and do define our terms to remove the equivocation?

Thank you, Evanescent and Ergo.

This debate, while stressful to read at points, has clarified many, many things for me. I do have a couple thoughts though.

One of the persons here said their are two definitions of value according to Objectivism centered around intentional acts and unintentional acts. Would I be correct in assuming that “acts” in this context implies only the intentional ones?

Not necessarily. A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain. But animals have values even though they have no choice over them.

Morality applies only to those choices one has free control over, so in a discussion on morality, I’d only be talking about intentional acts.

When discussing values in this article though, a value could be a friend or lover, or food or drink. According to Objectivism, there exist objective values because of man’s requirements and nature. Note than Rand talked about man’s requirements qua man. In its simplest form this means that it’s not enough for man to survive from one moment to the next like an animal does. Man’s metaphysical nature as a rational being has certain requirements and certain values. Man must DISCOVER these values – they are not intrinsic, nor as they based on subjective whim.

She identified three cardinal values: reason, purpose, self-esteem. These aren’t accepted by authority, but they are necessities for a rational being that a rational being must pursue for himself (they can’t be forced).

I may gain values unintentionally, but I keep them intentionally. For example, I breathe automatically, and breathing supports my life, therefore I gained the value of breathing unintentionally. However, to be rational I should act intentionally to keep it by not allowing this automatic process to be interrupted. I would not put a plastic bag over my head and do nothing as my body gasps for air, nor would I allow someone else. I could, but that would not be rational. I could hold my breathe for a while but this would not be necessarily irrational because I wouldn’t be doing it long enough to die.

Yes, exactly.

Life is a constant process of self-generated action. The only alternative is death. Therefore, every action one takes ULTIMATELY (no matter how trivial) is either purposed toward life or death. Since life is a forward process, even non-action, stagnation, is pursuing death.

What Rand said is that IF you choose to live, it is irrational to pursue anything that is not guided towards this end.

So to get back to what you said: holding your breath whilst swimming is of course rational. Holding your breath whilst doing a circus act or something is rational. But holding your breath for the hell of it is irrational. Having said that, doing ANYTHING for the hell of it is irrational.

Regarding the sand example, I may have gained sand unintentionally as a byproduct of walking on the beach. However, it has no value because I did not do it intentionally nor do I intentionally keep it. I may bear the annoyance for a certain amount of time because it wouldn’t be worth my time to constantly remove it. That time wasted could very well prevent me from the values that I am intentionally acting to gain or keep… such as a romantic experience with my partner.

That is true. I remember somebody asking Ergo a question a while ago and he gave a very good reply. The question was: what’s the difference between smashing a kitten’s head in and smashing rocks in?

Regardless of the cruelty factor, both actions are actually immoral! Because both are totally unproductive uses of time and effort. (Of course there are other reasons why being cruel is immoral but that’s not the point here). This is not the sort of “morality” you’d expect to hear in the philosophy class these days, but that is the beauty of rational egoism: it’s a morality to guide your life! It’s not a “morality” to tell you how you can best serve OTHER people.

I can’t think of a single value that is gained and kept unintentionally. I can think of many that are kept uncritically, without understanding why they are values. I think that’s where the desires as ultimate ends argument comes from. I don’t know why I value avoiding pain, therefore it must be an ultimate end.

But not understanding why you do or don’t act doesn’t make the object of your pursuit an ultimate end. An animal doesn’t know why it flies south for the winter or builds a nest when it comes on heat, but it does these things, not for the hell of it, not as ends in themselves, but to further its life and its instinct-given “purposes” in life, such as reproduction.

For human beings, for rational beings, there is only one ultimate end, and everything we do is either conducive or detrimental to this end, whether we realise it or not.

You don’t need to know for the reasons and hierarchy to still exist. Pain and emotions are reactions that were developed over time because the things that cause pain and negative emotions are possible threats to your life.

Ayn Rand agrees with you.

An immortal vampire might still value the taste of food and avoid the discomfort of pain… but without the possibility of life and death as a precursor to those values how would such a being or category of beings evolve the means to perceive pleasure and pain… or even the capacity for reason? They are a leftovers from his mortal history. Would an immortal vampire be able to maintain the value of those perceptions over time?

It’s a good question and a good point. That’s why we can only posit creatures like vampires as thought experiments – they have no bearing on the real world because they are totally unconnected to anything in reality. Just like God.

Food and drink would be of no value to a vampire at all. Of course, the element of pleasure might be a value, in order to make immortal life bearable and worth living. But if you could never ever die anyway, what would it matter?

In another example they suggest two lovers, of which they see both as having rational value, as an example of rational values that conflict. It’s only a conflict if the either or both of the lovers are against the idea of you maintaining another lover as well. The conflict isn’t in having two lovers, but in your irrational attempts to keep each value. It’s in the delusion, your conflict with reality, that you can have your cake and eat it too… to value something while undermining the requirements to keep or gain it. It’s impossible to have conflicting rational values because by acting to gain or keep one you are already being irrational and ignoring the facts required to gain or keep the other. I think it is possible to have the option of acting on competing potential rational values, just as you have the option to either keep the value of possessing your cake for later use or gain value by eating it now. Competing potential values doesn’t imply a conflict though.

Comments? Am I on track or am I off base somewhere?

Sounds to me like you’ve understood the point about rational values and how they never conflict very quickly and smoothly!

I guess this reassures me that there was nothing wrong with how I was phrasing things! And a lesson to the others in this thread really that if you read what I’ve written properly, it’s all right there.

This debate, while stressful to read at points, has clarified many, many things for me. I do have a couple thoughts though.

One of the persons here said their are two definitions of value according to Objectivism centered around intentional acts and unintentional acts. Would I be correct in assuming that “acts” in this context implies only the intentional ones? I may gain values unintentionally, but I keep them intentionally. For example, I breathe automatically, and breathing supports my life, therefore I gained the value of breathing unintentionally. However, to be rational I should act intentionally to keep it by not allowing this automatic process to be interrupted. I would not put a plastic bag over my head and do nothing as my body gasps for air, nor would I allow someone else. I could, but that would not be rational. I could hold my breathe for a while but this would not be necessarily irrational because I wouldn’t be doing it long enough to die.

Regarding the sand example, I may have gained sand unintentionally as a byproduct of walking on the beach. However, it has no value because I did not do it intentionally nor do I intentionally keep it. I may bear the annoyance for a certain amount of time because it wouldn’t be worth my time to constantly remove it. That time wasted could very well prevent me from the values that I am intentionally acting to gain or keep… such as a romantic experience with my partner.

I can’t think of a single value that is gained and kept unintentionally. I can think of many that are kept uncritically, without understanding why they are values. I think that’s where the desires as ultimate ends argument comes from. I don’t know why I value avoiding pain, therefore it must be an ultimate end. You don’t need to know for the reasons and hierarchy to still exist. Pain and emotions are reactions that were developed over time because the things that cause pain and negative emotions are possible threats to your life. An immortal vampire might still value the taste of food and avoid the discomfort of pain… but without the possibility of life and death as a precursor to those values how would such a being or category of beings evolve the means to perceive pleasure and pain… or even the capacity for reason? They are a leftovers from his mortal history. Would an immortal vampire be able to maintain the value of those perceptions over time?

In another example they suggest two lovers, of which they see both as having rational value, as an example of rational values that conflict. It’s only a conflict if the either or both of the lovers are against the idea of you maintaining another lover as well. The conflict isn’t in having two lovers, but in your irrational attempts to keep each value. It’s in the delusion, your conflict with reality, that you can have your cake and eat it too… to value something while undermining the requirements to keep or gain it. It’s impossible to have conflicting rational values because by acting to gain or keep one you are already being irrational and ignoring the facts required to gain or keep the other. I think it is possible to have the option of acting on competing potential rational values, just as you have the option to either keep the value of possessing your cake for later use or gain value by eating it now. Competing potential values doesn’t imply a conflict though.

Comments? Am I on track or am I off base somewhere?

Martin said:

Evanescent you are repeating yourself, saying nothing new and failing to answer the questions and avoiding them instead. I will analyze your last comment one more time and list the question for actual answer rather than avoidance.

Just because you refuse to accept the answers I give doesn’t mean I am avoiding anything.

Incidentally, you, like your anti-objectivist kin, have yet to answer the challenges that I have presented. Namely: name an ultimate value other than life (since I proved that there MUST be one), and: state your own objective moral system and justify it philosophically from reality.

I am still waiting.

“Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher – life makes value possible.”

This is the genetic fallacy. Just because life is the cause of value does not mean it is value. Alonzo made an equivalent argument over the existence of value versus the value of value.

Objectivist definition of value: that which one acts to keep and/or gain.

Does one act to keep and/or gain life? Yes. Therefore life is a VALUE.

Q1: Now please answer and try to refute either what I or Alonzo said.

“There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself.”
If a value is an end in itself – the other meaning of intrinsic BTW,

You are wrong here. An end in itself does NOT mean intrinsic, it means that it is not a means to any other end.

Intrinsic (in the case of value) means that something is a value in and of itself, without reference to a valuer. Life is NOT a value in itself and Objectivist doesn’t claim that it is. It does claim that life is a value to the VALUER. It does not claim that human life is sacred, or precious in and of itself. What is DOES claim is that a human being’s life is a value to HIMSELF/HERSELF.

(versus a value that is a means instrumental), then there is no “by definition” that there is only one such value. Q2: Where is your argument that this is singular? Q3: What is the meaning of an ultimate value if it is not intrinsic? Do you just mean an end in itself?

Already answered in my paragraph above.

As Ergo and I have already proven, there must be an ultimate value for philosophical and logical reasons that is an end in itself. You haven’t actually rejected this I don’t think, since you recognise the epistemological nihilism that would await you, therefore I assume you accept it; you just deny that life is the ultimate value. However, is necessarily is, and it necessarily is the ONLY ultimate value for the reasons argued above.

“Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.”

This challenge has been repeatedly met. A desire to avoid pain, a desire for happiness, a desire to avoid predators, a desire for food, a desire for drink, a desire for sex. These are all ends in themselves.

How can you not realise the absurdity of your own statements?

Why do you DESIRE these things? Why is happiness a value to you? Why is food, drink, sex, a value to you??

These are self-evidently NOT values in themselves. You eat because you ENJOY food, and pleasure makes life worth living. You eat because otherwise you will die. You eat ultimately because you are pursuing your LIFE. Eating is a means to an end. All forms of recreation are a means to an end. Food and drink are a means to an end.

To ultimately destroy this argument of yours, I will use another analogy using “food” and “drink”. Imagine you are immortal (like a vampire or something) and you don’t need to eat or drink at all – of what value would food and drink be to you then? None.

Imagine you didn’t care if you enjoyed your mortal life or not. Of what benefit would tasty food, good friends, great sex, be to you? None. Zero. They would be valueless.

Everything you can possibly think of is only a value to you in the context of enjoying your LIFE and furthering your LIFE. They are of NO value outside of this context. And it is this more than anything else that refutes everything you’ve said. More than just objective philosophy, this is just common sense. How can you fail to see that?

They are all relational values the value is in the relation between the desire and its fulfillment. Q4: Your “stealing the concept ” argument is invalid. How can you show these are not ends in themselves without breaking Occam’s Razor?

Occam’s razor is totally irrelevant here. For a start, O.R. doesn’t state that the simple-minded explanation is the best. First off, it has to ACTUALLY BE an explanation to begin with! Your suggestions for alternative “ends in themselves” explain nothing, contradict reality, and open more questions – therefore they are not parsimonious and in fact violate O.R.

“There are no rational “multiple ends” – this is logically self-evident.”
Empty rhetoric. Q5: Where is your argument that this is self-evident.

Every goal that you pursue, you do so with your life as the ultimate value. You might deny this but that’s irrelevant, as I’ve already shown it’s the case whether you realise it or not.

Example: to pursue multiple ends is contradictory: it is akin to smoking whilst having therapy for lung cancer (which of course some people do). This is irrational. If one wants to live, therapy is the answer, but smoking is inimical to human life. One might claim to be pursuing pleasure by smoking, but if one’s wishes to stay alive, the irrational pursuit of pleasure (or pain for that matter) is contradictory. Either you want or live or you don’t. If you do, don’t smoke. If you don’t, kill yourself immediately. There is no rational middle ground.

Incidentally, this AGAIN shows you that pursuing pleasure/pain CANNOT be an end in itself. IF it was, then one should pursue pleasure for the sake of it, which means one should take harmful drugs, rape girls for pleasure, steal money, hurt people if necessary etc etc – do WHATEVER brings happiness to you! Is this what you’re suggesting?? I doubt it, but if pleasure is an end in itself as YOU claim, this is the logical corollary.

I won’t labour this point further: it has well and truly been established: to avoid irrationality and contradictions, an ultimate goal/value is necessary.

Far from being “empty rhetoric” this is the objective rational basis of Objectivist morality. And if you think about it, this is probably how you live your life – so why do you deny it here?

“All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life.”

This is a beneficial side effect. We have evolved to have the desire-as-ends that we do as they enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce and we are the result. No animal reasons nor is able to reason this way. As humans we can go further but only need to replace this as needed. Q6: The same argument is made by genetic biologists that the ultimate goal is successful reproduction. As far as I can see these are both abstractions. How can you refute the geneticists and show your is better than theirs?

Because Objectivism identifies man as a rational being, not as a mindless animal. How we evolved to become rational beings is really irrelevant. Evolution is NOT a prescription on morality, and you won’t find a single evolutionist who would claim that it is!

Objectivism recommends that a rational being pursue his own rational happiness in his life. Happiness is not to be found by pursuing arbitrary emotional or instinctive impulses, such as to eat, defecate, or fornicate wherever and whenever one wishes (like an animal would).

Evolutionists describe how life developed to the point it is. Philosophers attempt to answer the question: “how should man live his life? What is right or wrong?” These questions are NOT answered by evolution, and even Richard Dawkins would agree with me on this. Ayn Rand was a monumental philosopher because she answered these questions objectively, rationally, and derived them from existence itself.

“One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.”
Q7:Define rational values. I suggested means-end rationality but you appeared to reject this. Means-end rationality is about reasoning over means not ends.

A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain. If it is non-contradictory with the hierarchy of one’s other values (which themselves are subordinate to life itself), the value is rational.

To use the earlier example, cigarettes are an irrational value.

“Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something – even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action – is to have an end that is an end in itself – something is not a means to anything else: life.”

Q8: Geneticists would disagree with this (see above). What do you say to them
Infinite regress can be also avoided with multiple desire-as-ends so this does not refute such a position.

As I have shown, multiple desires-as-ends do NOT exist, because they result in contradictory irrational behaviour.

To repeat: let’s say my smoking is a desire as an end in itself. Let’s also say that my wishing to avoid dying of lung cancer is a desire as an end in itself. Here we have multiple “ends” – notice the contradiction??

This is just one example, but it is impossible to name ANY “desires as ends” that either: do not conflict with each other, or: reduce ultimately to the pursuit of one’s life. This proves the point.

“Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?”

You are implicitly equivocating over life. I post life too but this does not lead to Objectivism, that is the whole point. I am not presenting an alternative as such, I am saying that everyone seeks to fulfill the more and stronger of their desires.

You are correct that people seek to fulfil their desires, but that is because they DESIRE what they VALUE. And if you wish to live as a rational being, your values should be rationally chosen. Since I doubt you disagree with this, we can proceed to: desires in themselves are NOT guides to actions. Why? Because our desires and emotions are not always rational. Emotions are REACTIONS to the world, not descriptions of the world, therefore they are not reliable guides to what is good or bad for us. E.g.: I’m sure heroin feels amazing (I’ve never taken it) but it is not a rational value (desire) to pursue, because it is BAD for me; for my life; it is ultimately deleterious and potentially lethal.

If on the other hand, one pursues (or desires) rational values, then one’s means will never conflict with each other, or with one’s ultimate end: happiness (non-contradictory joy) in life.

“The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question – you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE.”

Confusing instrumental again. Your are imposing an ad hoc rationalization
Q10: where is your logical or empirical argument that your approach is correct?

Already answered this.

“By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.”

There are no SHOULDS here. Once you have burned your hand in a flame you do not want to do so again. There is no should involved. Desires exist we are not arguing over having desire-as-ends people do not have have, only recognizing the desire-as-ends they do have and the implications of this. You are performing the same instrumental error as before. It does not matter how often you assert it this error will not just disappear without an argument.

I have dealt with the issue of “desires as ends” etc above.

“An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous!”
Q11: How about making an argument as to why this is preposterous.

Already done above.

“Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals – one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value?”
Q12: What is a rational goal? This sounds very Kantian, I thought Rand did not like Kant.

Already explained rational goals above. There is nothing Kantian about this.

Q13: What is the logic that leads one to eat poison one day, certainly not the desire-as-ends already listed.

“One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?”
One always has “ultimate goals”, which ones are activated depends on the situation. When you are thirsty you seek to satiate that thirst. When you are not thirsty you do not.

But if you were incapable of dying of thirst, you wouldn’t seek water! Water sustains life, therefore water is a value (a means) only because life is the ultimate value (an end).

However, life is a not a means to ANYTHING ELSE. One drinks in order to live, but one does not live in order to do anything else. Life simply is; it is metaphysically given.

“It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends!”

To be accurate it is their fulfillments that are the ends.

As I’ve shown many times above, it is rational values that should be pursued, because they are consonant with life.

“If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself.”

Q14: Why would you want to do this?

Why would I NOT want to do this??? That’s the point!

You cannot answer that without begging the question. You’d have to answer that it would be painful. But when I’d ask: why avoid pain? And you’d answer: “avoiding pain is an end in itself, so avoid it for the hell of it.” And I’d answer: “well, pursuing pain is an end in itself, so I’ll chop off my big toe for the hell of it.”

“I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself.”

All these desires are possible and people have had and acted on them. Who is going to recommend and encourage them, rather they are to be condemned and discouraged?

You are begging the question: why should they be condemned rather than encouraged?? If they are ends in themselves they cannot be condemned on any grounds! If would take a foundation of higher value from which to judge an action not good or bad, because “good” and “bad” are terms that presuppose the question: “good or bad to whom??? To what??”

Again, Objectivism answers: life. You don’t answer anything, which means you have no grounds to condemn any action. That is yet another reason why “ends in themselves” is a meaningless bankrupt notion.

” But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values.”

Yea duh!. I am thirsty and I fulfill my desire for water by drinking water.

Because you want to LIVE.

“But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what??”
When I drink this satisfies me.

And when a paedophile rapes a kid he satisfies himself. Desires as ends, eh?

I’ll put this in bold because it’s important and the crux of the matter:

You cannot condemn the paedophile for pursuing his desires “as ends” because that would require you to posit something higher than “desires” as a guide for right and wrong. Objectivism can condemn the paedophile, because LIFE is the ultimate value and must be pursued rationally, therefore all desires are means to an end, which means they can be judged in relation to THAT END. But since you accept multiple desires as ends in themselves, you can no basis to judge anything.

“Objectivism answers: LIFE.”
Q15: So when you are thirsty you want a drink because it will save your life. If you don’t think it will save your life you will not drink?

Well, yeah! I drink water to live, just as I avoid poison in order to live. What alternative are you suggesting??

“A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.”

You need to define what a rational value is then we can see it is impossible or not.

Did this above.

Certainly desires can conflict and this leads to dilemmas, a subject of much philosophical analysis, partly because there can be rational support to both sides of certain dilemmas.

Ultimately, there cannot be rational support to both sides of a dilemma. That is like saying there is rational support for the propositions that the moon is made of cheese, and that is isn’t. In the end, the facts of reality always win out because reality does NOT contain or tolerate contradictions.

Morality also pertains to facts of reality, so there is always a right vs wrong; there is always a good vs bad, and there is always an irrational vs rational.

To suggest that two contradictory positions can be equally rational is illogical.

“All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction);”
This is false, no-one here rejects ultimate ends, it is just we have defined what we mean and you have not.

I had. And if I wasn’t clear before, I certainly have been with this post!

” in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).”

This is a completely empty argument we have covered before. One does not need and can indeed reject Objectivist “metaphysics” and epistemology and make these arguments as we have all done here.

You can indeed reject Objectivism but you must still steal its concepts in order to make your arguments work. That is the point I am making.

I don’t think I could have been more detailed and complete in this post. I believe all your objections/questions/suggestions have been answered and refuted.

“Life is not an intrinsic value – there are no such things are intrinsic values. Values cannot exist without a valuer.”
Yea well we all agree with that. This is not in dispute.

“Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher – life makes value possible.”
This is the genetic fallacy. Just because life is the cause of value does not mean it is value. Alonzo made an equivalent argument over the existence of value versus the value of value.
Q1: Now please answer and try to refute either what I or Alonzo said.

“There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself.”
If a value is an end in itself – the other meaning of intrinsic BTW, (versus a value that is a means instrumental), then there is no “by definition” that there is only one such value. Q2: Where is your argument that this is singular? Q3: What is the meaning of an ultimate value if it is not intrinsic? Do you just mean an end in itself?

“Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.”
This challenge has been repeatedly met. A desire to avoid pain, a desire for happiness, a desire to avoid predators, a desire for food, a desire for drink, a desire for sex. These are all ends in themselves. They are all relational values the value is in the relation between the desire and its fulfillment. Q4: Your “stealing the concept ” argument is invalid. How can you show these are not ends in themselves without breaking Occam’s Razor?

“There are no rational “multiple ends” – this is logically self-evident.”
Empty rhetoric. Q5: Where is your argument that this is self-evident.

“All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life.”
This is a beneficial side effect. We have evolved to have the desire-as-ends that we do as they enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce and we are the result. No animal reasons nor is able to reason this way. As humans we can go further but only need to replace this as needed. Q6: The same argument is made by genetic biologists that the ultimate goal is successful reproduction. As far as I can see these are both abstractions. How can you refute the geneticists and show your is better than theirs?

“One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.”
Q7:Define rational values. I suggested means-end rationality but you appeared to reject this. Means-end rationality is about reasoning over means not ends.

“Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something – even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action – is to have an end that is an end in itself – something is not a means to anything else: life.”
Q8: Geneticists would disagree with this (see above). What do you say to them
Infinite regress can be also avoided with multiple desire-as-ends so this does not refute such a position.

“Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?”
You are implicitly equivocating over life. I post life too but this does not lead to Objectivism, that is the whole point. I am not presenting an alternative as such, I am saying that everyone seeks to fulfill the more and stronger of their desires.

“The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question – you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE.”
Confusing instrumental again. Your are imposing an ad hoc rationalization
Q10: where is your logical or empirical argument that your approach is correct?

“By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.”
There are no SHOULDS here. Once you have burned your hand in a flame you do not want to do so again. There is no should involved. Desires exist we are not arguing over having desire-as-ends people do not have have, only recognizing the desire-as-ends they do have and the implications of this. You are performing the same instrumental error as before. It does not matter how often you assert it this error will not just disappear without an argument.

“An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous!”
Q11: How about making an argument as to why this is preposterous.

“Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals – one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value?”
Q12: What is a rational goal? This sounds very Kantian, I thought Rand did not like Kant.
Q13: What is the logic that leads one to eat poison one day, certainly not the desire-as-ends already listed.

“One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?”
One always has “ultimate goals”, which ones are activated depends on the situation. When you are thirsty you seek to satiate that thirst. When you are not thirsty you do not.

“It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends!”
To be accurate it is their fulfillments that are the ends.

“If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself.”
Q14: Why would you want to do this?

“I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself.”
All these desires are possible and people have had and acted on them. Who is going to recommend and encourage them, rather they are to be condemned and discouraged?

” But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values.”
Yea duh!. I am thirsty and I fulfill my desire for water by drinking water.

“But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what??”
When I drink this satisfies me.

“Objectivism answers: LIFE.”
Q15: So when you are thirsty you want a drink because it will save your life. If you don’t think it will save your life you will not drink?

“You answer: NOTHING! The absurdity of your position is staggering.”
Stop looking in the mirror!

“A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.”
You need to define what a rational value is then we can see it is impossible or not. Certainly desires can conflict and this leads to dilemmas, a subject of much philosophical analysis, partly because there can be rational support to both sides of certain dilemmas.

“All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction);”
This is false, no-one here rejects ultimate ends, it is just we have defined what we mean and you have not.

” in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).”
This is a completely empty argument we have covered before. One does not need and can indeed reject Objectivist “metaphysics” and epistemology and make these arguments as we have all done here.

“You have shot yourself in the epistemological foot and don’t even realise it.”
Dare I mention that pesky mirror again

Life is not an intrinsic value – there are no such things are intrinsic values. Values cannot exist without a valuer.

Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher – life makes value possible. There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself. Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.

There are no rational “multiple ends” – this is logically self-evident. All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life. One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.

Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something – even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action – is to have an end that is an end in itself – something is not a means to anything else: life. Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?

The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question – you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE. By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.

An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous! Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals – one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value? One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?

It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends! If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself. I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself. But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values. But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what?? Objectivism answers: LIFE. You answer: NOTHING! The absurdity of your position is staggering.

A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.

All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction); in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).

You have shot yourself in the epistemological foot and don’t even realise it.