Fundamental Alternative

I was wondering if anybody can explain why life and death are presented as the fundamental ethical alternative in Objectivism. After all, we spend most of our time making decisions that are not motivated by life/death considerations. If we are not concerned with life/death most of the time, doesn't the fundamental alternative fail to provide a mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive set of possibilities?

A.S.

Post 1

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:16pm

AS,

If we are engaged in purposeful endeavours and our values and goals are life affirming, then indeed our day to day decisions are life and death ones. Being human we can plan our actions to further our life far into the future and every moment doesn't have to be a life or death decision for the next moment but these day to day decisions do affect our future flourishing.

Post 2

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:39pm

Hi AS,

Is it on purpose that your initials are the same as Atlas Shrugged?

You playing with us, dude?

But to answer - the life/death poles for ethics are actually two end points with a huge spectrum in between (usually due to differing contexts, but often a value judgment is too small to be placed comfortably completely at one the poles).

As a quick standard of reference for thought and evaluation processes, it is a way to check whether reason has been used or faith/whim/whatever has been chosen (usually by neglect).

Cognitively, as reason is man's basic tool for survival, adopting it will result in probable survival. Abandoning reason is to let survival depend on outside influences only.

Normatively (ethics), choosing reason is akin to choosing to survive. Choosing to abandon reason is to choose to not value life, thus making death more important than life. After all, you must act to live. You will die much sooner than you could if you do not act appropriately. Given the choice, those are the fundamental alternatives of our existence.

Nobody likes it to be this way, but that is the way it is.

Michael

Post 3

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:12am

"Life" is such a vague term in Objectivism. It doesn't mean physiologically alive. What does it mean?

"A process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." Whatever that means.

If I live an average life, never striving for much, never reaching my potential, but living comfortably and eating healthy and exercising, then that is "a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." On the other hand, if I live a life of ambition and achievement, always striving to better myself and make the most of my potential, then that is also "a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." How could you say that the first course of action is any less "life affirming" than the second? The second course of action does not make me physiologically survive longer. The two options are both equally well described as "processes of self-generated and self-sustaining action."

Post 4

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:09am

Daniel,

A concept does not refer only to its definition.

Post 5

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 1:17pm

What do you mean? I don't get it.

When Ayn Rand introduces her ethics, she says that lower animals have instincts that tell them how to behave in order to achieve their survival. But humans have no such instincts, and must figure out how to behave in order to survive. When she says this, it sounds like she's using "life" and "survival" to mean literal physiological survival--not being physically dead.

But then Objectivism goes on to use "life" in some other sense.

If the goal were mere physiological survival, that would be easy. You don't have to act much like an Objectivist in order to achieve that. All you need is a safe job and a healthy lifestyle.

(Edited by Daniel O'Connor on 11/16, 2:17pm)

Post 6

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:41pm

Daniel, you've meandered into the ongoing debate among Objectivists and their fellow travelers over "survival" and "flourishing." Does Rand's ethics mean just the former, or does it mean something much richer?

About a decade ago, I weighed in with my own thoughts. In that long essay, I concluded, from Rand's own works, that her s ethics could NOT amount simply to adopting policies most likely to extend one's lifespan, or opting for physical survival above all else, in any and all circumstances.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 11/16, 3:01pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 5:09pm

Thanks for the reply Robert.

I like to read your stuff.

Post 8

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:25am

Daniel,

I think it is physiological survival - maximum lifespan - as well as maximum happiness. Rand believed that these two goals are inseparable, as long as they are viewed from the perspective of someone who is not already in the process of an irreversible death - who is not already dying of an incurable disease. If you are healthy, then pursuing a policy that maximizes your lifespan will tend to maximize your pleasure and happiness, whereas pursuing a policy that threatens, harms or shortens your life will tend to cause you pain and suffering. The reason is quite simple: pleasure and happiness as well as pain and suffering are psychological conditions that have a biological basis in the organism's level of health and wellbeing.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/17, 12:30am)

Post 9

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 8:25am