Let me spell out your derivation:

P1: You have to be alive in order to value
C1: Therfore all values ought to be directed at keeping us alive

Let me eloborate on C1 a bit:

C2: Therefore all our actions ought to be measured by thier impact on our life expectancy.

This conclusion does generate plenty of content that could be condensed into a code for action, but the ultimate end is obviously silly, and it is obvious that the logic isn’t faulty between C1 and C2, C2 follows straight from C1. The problem is of course that C1 doesn’t follow from P1. Nothing whatsoever forces me to accept C1 once I have accepted P1. There is a semantic relation between P1 and C1 since they both alludes to the concept life (as in “existence”), but that’s all.

The problem for you is that you don’t accept C2, which means that you don’t accept C1 even though you fomulated this exact derivation in the cited paragraph. The derivation you need in order to get the conclusions you want is:

P1: You have to be alive (in the normal sense of the word) in order to value
C1: Therfore all values ought to be directed at keeping us alive “qua man”.

This derivation fares even worse than the previous one. Since “qua man” means “the life proper to man”, and since what is proper to man is the very question we wanted an answer to in the first place, the derivation is pointless, it cannot generate any content. All content is smuggeled into to the conclusion via the “qua man” appendix, and you have not presented any method that let us determine whether an action is “qua man” or not. In the first derivation, what is proper is related to our literal survival, in the second derivation what is proper rests on “qua man” which rests on what is proper.

“Well he would be contradicting himself – and it’s staggering that you can’t see it: pursuing other people’s happiness as your PRIMARY concern would NECESSARILY place your life as less important. It would make you a sacrifice animal for the whims and emotions and needs of others – it would require you to give up the things you value in exchange for the things you don’t – it would require you to be irrational and servile – it would ask you to be anything except a rational intelligent being, that is, a man.”

You are begging the question. If pursuing other peoples happiness is “qua man”, then it would be detrimental to your life as a rational being not to pursue it. And if you wanted to live as a rational being and felt sympathy for this ideal, then the sacrifice would be to refrain from pursuing other peoples happiness. If you did not value pursuing other peoples happiness it would be a sacrifice to do it in the same sense as it would be a sacrifice for Mao to give up his preferred life as a dictator, that is, it would be a sacrifice of irrational values.

What I’m getting at is that you have no non qustion begging method for determing whether this particual action is qua man or not. If you accepted C2, then we could point to the fact that pursuing other peopels happiness might have a negatve impact on our life expectancy, but since living “qua man” is “not merely survival” then you have nothing substantial to point to that links you fundamental premise to your desired conclusion. All you have in the end is the utterly trivial observation that we have to be alive in order to value, and very, very little follows from this.

The problem FO, is that you are trying to formulate a summary or conclusion of the entire argument from me into a formal argument, without the context or content or everything else I have said. In essence, you’re attacking a strawman and that’s most likely because you haven’t read the entire article and comments.

I believe I have already explained this in detail in the article and subsequent comments, but I will elucidate here again (hopefully) without labouring the point.

A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain. This implies that an agent is capable of goal-directed action. The only “agent” that is capable of such action is a living one. And there is only one objective standard by which “value” can be measured: the agent’s life. I have already explained why objectivity is essential (and from a philosophical point of view I assume you would not question the need), and why life is the standard (all values are directed towards the pursuit of life – this is a metaphysical fact whether one accepts it or not – since the alternative is death, and if one pursues values that lead to death, then a guide to life-sustaining values, i.e.: morality, is irrelevant, and one should kill oneself immediately. Any action that furthers one’s life is irrational if one does not accept life as the standard). Indeed, life is the only value that isn’t directed towards anything else.

Now, Objectivism identifies man as an integrated being of body and mind. We are not mindless brutes nor are we brains floating in a jar. Just as man has a certain biological nature, he also has a certain intellectual nature, and that is the essence of being a man qua man. All lifeforms pursue values – that which is beneficial to their ultimate value: life. The difference is that animals do this automatically – humans do not. Objectivism identifies man’s most fundamental nature as that of a rational being (this cannot be denied without presupposing its veracity), and basically says “since you’re alive there are necessarily things which are of value to you. As a rational being, you must identify (as opposed to just knowing through instinct or being forced to accept) those values that are beneficial or inimical to your life. To do so means one must understand what type of being one is, and identify those things that benefit or harm you. Here arises a code of values to guide your actions, which is the purpose of morality. Notice that the standard is the life of a rational being: it is not the subjective whim of that being; “whatever makes me happy” nor is the idea of intrinsic values external “one must serve others/god because serving others/god is necessarily good” – indeed subjectivism leads to nihilism and intricism is a contradiction in terms anyway (as values don’t exist apart from a valuer).

So, the question of morality is a matter of values: “what is of objective value to my life as a rational being? What is good or bad for my life? How do I achieve?” Man cannot survive without reason, therefore if one accepts reason as a primary value, and rationality as the only means to attain it, everything else follows; everything else, all other “sub”-values if you will, are harmonious and consonant with one’s primary value: life as a rational being.

But unless one recognises that an ultimate value can and DOES exist, no other values are possible; morality is irrelevant, reason is arbitrary; one ceases to function like a man qua man; one becomes little more than an animal. In fact, an animal can survive without reason, a human can’t – so one becomes less than an animal.

Now, morality is not a guide for how to surrender your life, it’s a guide on how to live it; YOUR life. But in order to live YOUR life as a rational being, one must act in one’s best interest. It is ironic that Objectivism has taken so much criticism for declaring that it’s in man’s best interest to act in his best interest! Since reason is man’s primary means of survival, irrationality is to be avoided. Yet that is exactly that opposite of what living for other people demands. If one treats other people as the primary value in life, it is MORAL to surrender one’s values to others. Yet values are the very things that guide our decisions! After all, why help your friends when you can help strangers? Why save the life of a lover over an enemy? Why give 70% of your wages to charity when you can give 80%? Why devote yourself to the love of your life when you could devote yourself to someone you care little about? All the above presuppose that the beneficiary of one’s action is ONESELF. Altruism, the placing of others above yourself, would negate the entire basis of value and morality. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational, immoral, for a man to NOT act in his best interest. And that is why living as a man qua man cannot mean to treat others as primary importance. You cannot redefine “man qua man” the way you tried to do above. Values arise through man’s nature and his relationship to reality. IF one intends to live as a rational being, one must use his own life and values as primary importance. This isn’t dependant on what one feels or “sympathises” (your words) with – it isn’t a product of whim or emotion or authority, but rather, reason.

You’re welcome to re-arrange that into any logical structure you will, but I think that very briefly clarifies the Objectivism approach to life and value. Unfortunately, as rational and reasonable as that is, there are still people who love any excuse to attack Ayn Rand. Is it because they are afraid of the idea of ultimate objective values and definite black/white statements, is because they simply misunderstand her? Who knows.

Now, here I mean “life” as in “existence” or “just being alive”: The reason life [as in "existence"] is the ultimate value [C1], and I have explained it time and again, is because it makes all other values possible [P1]; all other values are means to the end of that life. To eat, to drink, to have sex, are all means to the end of life.

Let me spell out your derivation:

P1: You have to be alive in order to value
C1: Therfore all values ought to be directed at keeping us alive

Let me eloborate on C1 a bit:

C2: Therefore all our actions ought to be measured by thier impact on our life expectancy.

This conclusion does generate plenty of content that could be condensed into a code for action, but the ultimate end is obviously silly, and it is obvious that the logic isn’t faulty between C1 and C2, C2 follows straight from C1. The problem is of course that C1 doesn’t follow from P1. Nothing whatsoever forces me to accept C1 once I have accepted P1. There is a semantic relation between P1 and C1 since they both alludes to the concept life (as in “existence”), but that’s all.

The problem for you is that you don’t accept C2, which means that you don’t accept C1 even though you fomulated this exact derivation in the cited paragraph. The derivation you need in order to get the conclusions you want is:

P1: You have to be alive (in the normal sense of the word) in order to value
C1: Therfore all values ought to be directed at keeping us alive “qua man”.

This derivation fares even worse than the previous one. Since “qua man” means “the life proper to man”, and since what is proper to man is the very question we wanted an answer to in the first place, the derivation is pointless, it cannot generate any content. All content is smuggeled into to the conclusion via the “qua man” appendix, and you have not presented any method that let us determine whether an action is “qua man” or not. In the first derivation, what is proper is related to our literal survival, in the second derivation what is proper rests on “qua man” which rests on what is proper.

Well he would be contradicting himself – and it’s staggering that you can’t see it: pursuing other people’s happiness as your PRIMARY concern would NECESSARILY place your life as less important. It would make you a sacrifice animal for the whims and emotions and needs of others – it would require you to give up the things you value in exchange for the things you don’t – it would require you to be irrational and servile – it would ask you to be anything except a rational intelligent being, that is, a man.

You are begging the question. If pursuing other peoples happiness is “qua man”, then it would be detrimental to your life as a rational being not to pursue it. And if you wanted to live as a rational being and felt sympathy for this ideal, then the sacrifice would be to refrain from pursuing other peoples happiness. If you did not value pursuing other peoples happiness it would be a sacrifice to do it in the same sense as it would be a sacrifice for Mao to give up his preferred life as a dictator, that is, it would be a sacrifice of irrational values.

What I’m getting at is that you have no non qustion begging method for determing whether this particual action is qua man or not. If you accepted C2, then we could point to the fact that pursuing other peopels happiness might have a negatve impact on our life expectancy, but since living “qua man” is “not merely survival” then you have nothing substantial to point to that links you fundamental premise to your desired conclusion. All you have in the end is the utterly trivial observation that we have to be alive in order to value, and very, very little follows from this.

As pointed out by critics in the other thread, it’s rather obvious that you eqivocation on the term life makes your argument vacous. As an analogy, if you are going to selct a car then you have to do two things, first you have to indentify qualities that are, so to speak, ends in themselfs, and then you have to find a method that reconcile those distinct ends. You might recognies that it is good to have a fast car while it is also good to have a cheap car and those ends may conflict. An ultimate end according to Objectivism would then serve two purposes 1) it tells you what is good and 2) It tells you how to reconcile distinct goods.

If life as an ultimate value meant that man ought to live as long as possible then you would have an answer to both questions. Survival is the only good and in the choice between two options we ought to choose the one that has the greatest positive impact on our lifeexpactancy.

Because survival qua animal is not what Objectivism recommends. Objectivism identifies man’s fundamental metaphysical nature as a rational being – therefore it recommends that he live this way and pursue his own happiness in accord with his nature. Therefore, happiness cannot be achieved by denying man’s nature. In other words, it’s not enough to merely exist from one moment to the next, scratching around in bins like an animal would.

Now, you don’t accept this; life as an ultimate value means, by eqivocvation, the life proper to a rational being. It’s just that in order to find out the content of the concept “life proper to a rational being” you have to answer the questions 1 and 2, and now you cannot motivate a good by saying that it is good because it is conductive to the ultimate end of a life proper to a rational being, that would be circular, you thus have to use some other method. What exactly is this method? As an example, if a person is putting forth a competing ethical ideal that he claims is “proper for a rational being” that involves self preservation as well as the pursuit of other peoples happiness, how are you going to prove that his ideal is wrong without making a circular reference to “the life proper to a rational being”? He is saying that the pursuit of other peoples happines is a part of a proper life for a rational being, therfore having you own life as an ultimate value implies pursuing other peoples happiness.

None of that makes any sense – nor does it bear any resemblance to Objectivism.

I have already established above (although I did it in the article and subsequent comments) that there is no equivocation over “life” – I have used it quite clearly in context to mean “life as in existence” and “life qua man”. The context and my comments determine the usage. For example, an animal’s values are ends to the animal’s ultimate value, life. The same for a man, except the man’s life is that of a rational being.

Now, what is proper to the life of a rational being is not merely survival, although man should indeed treat his life as the ultimate value. But this does not mean “survive at all costs” – indeed, there might be circumstances where it is necessary and MORAL to end one’s life.

Now, here I mean “life” as in “existence” or “just being alive”: The reason life is the ultimate value, and I have explained it time and again, is because it makes all other values possible; all other values are means to the end of that life. To eat, to drink, to have sex, are all means to the end of life. However, life is not a means to anything else! Even animals have values – their life gives rise to values that they must pursue in harmony with their ultimate value, their life. The difference with animals is that they have no control or understanding of their values, no freedom of thought and action, and therefore the concept of morality is lost on them.

Philosophically, an ultimate value is logically necessary. It is necessary because it is the only way to avoid contradiction in thought and action, and it is necessary because it provides an objective standard by which the word “value” and as a corollary “morality” has any meaning. There is only one value in this universe which does not reduce to any other value; which does not further anything else – and that is life. I challenged anyone to name another ultimate value – as you can see from all the comments above (which I suggest you read), they all failed. That is not a boast on my part, they lost because they denied reality.

He is saying that the pursuit of other peoples happines is a part of a proper life for a rational being, therfore having you own life as an ultimate value implies pursuing other peoples happiness.

Well he would be contradicting himself – and it’s staggering that you can’t see it: pursuing other people’s happiness as your PRIMARY concern would NECESSARILY place your life as less important. It would make you a sacrifice animal for the whims and emotions and needs of others – it would require you to give up the things you value in exchange for the things you don’t – it would require you to be irrational and servile – it would ask you to be anything except a rational intelligent being, that is, a man.

Needless to say, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take care of people (I have to add this, as there are always those willing to misunderstand Objectivism), the point is that you shouldn’t LIVE FOR other people. Whatever place helping others has in your life, it must come within the hierachy of your values. That is why, obviously, I don’t go around helping out enemies with money, but I do help my friends out.

The problem I think most critics have with Rands argument is that it fails either way; either we interpert life literally and accept that “life as the ultimate value” implies that we ought to pursue life expectancy maximization. This fails because it is obviuosly absurd and it also highlight the utter lack of logic in the meta ethical argument. The alternative is to eqivocate the term life and thereby smuggle in an ethical ideal, but that just raises the question where this ideal come from? It also makes the meta ethical argument inconsistent (as well as vacous), for example, Objectivists say that life is the ultimate value because without life we cannot value, but this is obviously false if being alive means to emulate a Randian hero.

FO, you would do well to proof-read your comments in future before posting.

If life as an ultimate value meant that man ought to live as long as possible then you would have an answer to both questions. Survival is the only good and in the choice between two options we ought to choose the one that has the greatest positive impact on our lifeexpactancy.

Now, you don’t accept this; life as an ultimate value means, by eqivocvation, the life proper to a rational being. It’s just that in order to find out the content of the concept “life proper to a rational being” you have to answer the questions 1 and 2, and now you cannot motivate a good by saying that it is good because it is conductive to the ultimate end of a life proper to a rational being, that would be circular, you thus have to use some other method. What exactly is this method? As an example, if a person is putting forth a competing ethical ideal that he claims is “proper for a rational being” that involves self preservation as well as the pursuit of other peoples happiness, how are you going to prove that his ideal is wrong without making a circular reference to “the life proper to a rational being”? He is saying that the pursuit of other peoples happines is a part of a proper life for a rational being, therfore having you own life as an ultimate value implies pursuing other peoples happiness.

The problem I think most critics have with Rands argument is that it fails either way; either we interpert life literally and accept that “life as the ultimate value” implies that we ought to pursue life expectancy maximization. This fails because it is obviuosly absurd and it also highlight the utter lack of logic in the meta ethical argument. The alternative is to eqivocate the term life and thereby smuggle in an ethical ideal, but that just raises the question where this ideal come from? It also makes the meta ethical argument inconsistent (as well as vacous), for example, Objectivists say that life is the ultimate value because without life we cannot value, but this is obviously false if being alive means to emulate a Randian hero.

Evolution is an explanation of the natural world, it is not a prescription for what is right or wrong. And by “right” or “wrong” we mean: what is good or bad for a rational being. Based on what? Based on that rational being’s life and its relationship to reality.

That is why Rand identified the good as that which benefits the life of a rational being, and evil as that which harms it.

The highest moral purpose man can pursue is his own happiness. This is not to be found by spreading one’s seed at every opportunity like an animal, because man is not an unthinking instinct-driven animal, (although a lot of our behaviour is indeed a result of evolution), we are rational beings. Which means to live AS rational beings, in Rand’s words “man qua man” we must pursue reason in order to attain happiness.

Whenever anybody tries to say something like “all that matters…” outside of the context of life, they are stealing the concept of value away from its antecedents (as I explain in the article).

The standard of value for morality IS life, because it cannot be anything else and still be objective. All other “standards”, such as god or religion or authority or altruism or society etc all reduce to subjectivism and nihilism.

The thing to bear in mind is not to let people steal concepts that they have no epistemological basis for. Take this article for example: Martin tries to use the terms value and “ends” with no regard to where they actually come from. When he tries to suggest that desires such as pleasure can be ends in themselves, he shoots himself in the foot without realising it.

This is why Ayn Rand always said to her opponents: “name your primaries” and let’s go from there.