The Highest (or Greatest) Good

Contrary to what Ayn Rand teaches, life is not the greatest good or end, at least according to Aristotle, eudeamonia (badly translated as -happiness-) is the end or purpose of living. Staying alive is merely the -means- by which the end is attained. See Nicomachean Ethics I 2. See also 1177 a in the Nic. Ethics.

So Rand and Aristotle disagree as to the greatest good or end for man.

Bob Kolker

Post 1

Saturday, June 21, 2008 - 4:32pm

Alright Bob, I'll take the bait ...

Your talking point involves the assumption of raw, crude, brute, or vulgar "survivalism" in Randian ethics. And that assumption's false. You seem to have read-up on Aristotle, but not on Rand.

Do you own any of Rand's books?

Ed

Post 2

Saturday, June 21, 2008 - 5:31pm

I have read every word she wrote, except for her Letters. I have read AS 10 times. I have enjoyed it as alternative time line fiction.

There is much in her work that I disagree with.

Rand and I are on the same page with respect to self interest. As to her metaphysics I formulated my own theory -Reality Lite- two years before I read any of Ayn Rand's stuff. We both agree that reality is real.

I happen to regard ethics and aesthetics as being in the realm of -doxa- (Greek for opinion). Moral codes and aesthetic systems are not readily testable by empirical means so they are not sciences. Hence I am not interested in such systems of philosophy overly much. I will change my mind when someone comes up with a scientifically solid theory of beauty.

My main philosophical interest is epistemology, particularly of the technical variety that is connected with physics. What do we know and how do we know it. This is the most important application of philosophy to science, which I am interested in. Science and mathematics are the most important thought systems humans have created. Most of the rest is stamp collecting and tideldy winks.

Bob Kolker

Post 3

Saturday, June 21, 2008 - 8:38pm

The last time I read any letter from her news letter or from an book by her she never believed in that sort of life qua life thing. Rather, for Rand is that we direct ourselves and make use of our lives that make life worth living. Or as Rand is attributed as saying, "avoiding death does not ensure life."

-- Brede

Post 4

Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 10:13am

I agree with Brede.

Ed

Post 5

Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 10:30pm

Who said the following:

The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one's own life as one's ultimate value, and one's own happiness as one's highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one's life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. . . . And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself -- the kind that makes one think: "This is worth living for" -- what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself. ?

- Bill

Post 6

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 6:19am

Contrary to what Ayn Rand teaches, life is not the greatest good or end, at least according to Aristotle, eudeamonia (badly translated as -happiness-) is the end or purpose of living. Staying alive is merely the -means- by which the end is attained. See Nicomachean Ethics I 2. See also 1177 a in the Nic. Ethics.

So Rand and Aristotle disagree as to the greatest good or end for man.

All of Rand's writings endorse that idea that it is not mere life (as in the mechanical perpetuation of our existence) which is our highest value, but a particular kind of life, the good or best life, that is the standard. She differentiated between life, and a particular kind of life with life qua man, but this should require further distinction into life qua ME.

I've raised this point on a few forums recently, I don't think Rand contradicts Aristotle here, only that Aristotle developed this particular aspect further and it derserves further consideration within objectivism

Here's a bit of a discussion on the point
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=12069&st=100&p=175248&#entry175248

Post 7

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 6:32am

William Dwyer said:

And one's own happiness as one's highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement...what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.

I don't think "Happiness" is a sufficient standard, because we can have a drug induced euphoric happiness, which is certainly not a flourishing life, and we can have happiness as an achievement of values. And we can value bad things, and be happy to achieve them (bad as in not conducive to a flourishing life) Osama is probably pretty happy that he has achieved one of his highest values, but what he values is not good. I might value playing every video game ever made, or playing the same one over and over again, and I work to sustain my hobby, and I don't sacrifice anyone to it, but would this properly be considered a 'flourishing' life?

A flourishing life is probably charachterized by rationality, productivity, intellectual growth, emotional progress, etc, but all of these must be qualified by the good, where we must produce good things, we must learn good things, etc.

This particular standard of 'good', which is the standard of a flourishing life, can not be one possible path applicable to all people (platonic idealism is not the best place to start with the objective standard for flourishing in an individualistic ethics) and so must take into account the different values individuals choose in pursuit of their flourishing life, but life is a part of the flourishing life, and maintaining physical life requires a set of goals virtually identical among all people, so some aspects of this standard will be universally applicable, and some will come to individualistic manifestations. But all must be compared against this standard of 'good'. But the actual standard which we judge things to be good or bad toward a flourishing life remains elusive to me.

Post 8

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 7:48am

Uh, Michael, go back and read my post!

I didn't say that; Rand did. Or are you so unfamiliar with her writings that you didn't pick that up?

- Bill

Post 9

Monday, June 30, 2008 - 9:01am

Ugh, William, calm down.

I'm sorry, I should have wrote "William wrote" instead of "said" which implied that comment was of your own authorship

Yes I know Rand said that Bill, as I said above, I do not feel she developed the concept as fully as Aristotle did, and still neither identify the standard by which to judge that which is good for a flourishing life. I find your subtle insult uncharachteristic of your usual high quality discussion.

Here is a good essay examining the question

A Philosophy for Living On Earth
http://www.saint-andre.com/thoughts/apfloe.html

I ask you, if happiness is the highest good we aim for, how do we distinguish between happiness based on achieving good values and happiness based on achieving bad values. What is that standard by which we judge our *values* to be good or bad?

Post 10

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 7:02am

Michael,

I don't think "Happiness" is a sufficient standard, because we can have a drug induced euphoric happiness, which is certainly not a flourishing life, and we can have happiness as an achievement of values.

I'm not sure that you don't understand (you may be merely using words rhetorically), but your words are awfully flippant -- so I'll respond to them appropriately. While there is current contentment and the satisfaction of felt desire under drug inducement, that's not a form of human happiness. And while we can have happiness as an achievement of values, we can't have happiness as an achievement of ANY values. The word "happiness" is such a psycho-philosophically elite concept that only those who discover its objectivity even understand it (others merely equate it with current contentment and the satisfaction of felt desire). This prevents a lot of progress in discussion of it, as one side can't even conceptualize what the other is talking about.

And we can value bad things, and be happy to achieve them (bad as in not conducive to a flourishing life)

We can be currently content when we achieve bad values, we cannot be happy achieving them. You can't have a form of happiness that is "not conducive to a flourishing life."

Osama is probably pretty happy that he has achieved one of his highest values, but what he values is not good. I might value playing every video game ever made, or playing the same one over and over again, and I work to sustain my hobby, and I don't sacrifice anyone to it, but would this properly be considered a 'flourishing' life?

I acknowledge the question as rhetorical -- and, therefore, meant to initiate introspection and reflection. Osama is probably NOT ever "happy" because he doesn't have the life of a flourishing human. Video games are like drugs, only better (but not redeemably so). In games, you actually interact. With drugs, you merely feel.

Ed

Post 11

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 8:16am

Ed Thompson said:

And while we can have happiness as an achievement of values, we can't have happiness as an achievement of ANY values.

I am well aware of this line of reasoning, and Rand expands on this idea. You are basically differentiating between the kind of happiness which is achieved from achieving good values, and the kind of happiness which is felt from achieving bad values (values not conducive to flourishing) and you are simply saying that the happiness of the latter is not true 'happiness' (even though the physiological and psychological reaction and emotion is the same)

When you say we can not have happiness as an achievement of ANY values, you are necessarily making a judgment on the values we hold, and must be comparing them against some standard. What is your standard? - The Flourishing life. You are merely moving the goal post. I am saying that happiness comes from achieving values, either good or bad, you are saying that happiness only comes from achieving good values, and when from bad values isn�t really 'happiness', but both require the differentiation between good and bad values. So you've not made any headway, just changed the terminology.

The word "happiness" is such a psycho-philosophically elite concept that only those who discover its objectivity even understand it (others merely equate it with current contentment and the satisfaction of felt desire).

Happiness is an emotional and psychological response to the recognition that one has achieved, or furthered something that one values. The context you are using happiness here, as a 'psycho-philosophically elite concept' could be reworded as the 'happiness' which comes from living a flourishing life. It's a particular kind of happiness, the best kind - or, the happiness at being happy from achieving the right kind of values. So again you are just changing the terminology, not identifying the standard for the flourishing life.

Either that, or you are saying "you do not understand true happiness so I can't talk to you about it"

We can be currently content when we achieve bad values, we cannot be happy achieving them. You can't have a form of happiness that is "not conducive to a flourishing life."

You can only make that claim because you are changing the definition of happiness from that of achieving values to that of achieving values conducive to a flourishing life, and no other kind, the other kinds are just 'contentment'

The psychological and physiological response to achieving good values or achieving bad values is the same, you can not say one is 'contenment' and one is 'happiness' unless that person who experiences that response actually differentiates within themselves between good and bad values, unless you are suggesting the existing of some supernatural objective standard enforced on us all which always checks our happiness against some perfect standard of the right kind of values.

The qualitative judgment you are using to differentiate between the good values and the bad values, regardless of whether they cause 'contentment' or 'happiness' is what I am looking for. What is the standard by which you judge a value good (conducive to a flourishing life, and not just perpetuating our mechanical existence) or bad (not conducive to a flourishing life, or harmful toward existence) The life/existence standard is easy, the good life standard, the best kind of life possible to man, or possible to each individual man, is a much harder standard to pin down.

Post 12

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 1:10pm

Michael,

The psychological and physiological response to achieving good values or achieving bad values is the same, you can not say one is 'contenment' and one is 'happiness' unless that person who experiences that response actually differentiates within themselves between good and bad values, unless you are suggesting the existing of some supernatural objective standard enforced on us all which always checks our happiness against some perfect standard of the right kind of values.

You've set up a false dichotomy. Either contentment and happiness are the same -- because some EEG readings said so -- or there's this "supernatural objective standard." The answer is that there's a natural objective standard. The best way to describe it is piecemeal, by showing definite parts of it. These definite parts of it would be natural human needs, necessary for happiness attainment.

There was a philosopher who asked if you would willingly enter an altered state where you would "feel" happy, but you wouldn't really be living as a human. Think of swallowing the Blue Pill, in the epic motion picture: The Matrix. Do you want the Blue Pill -- along with a guarantee of a false sense of happiness by living in a mere Matrix-world dream -- or do you take the Red Pill because you want to live in reality? I take the Red Pill. That means that there's something more than neurological contentment involved in human happiness.

Back to the piecemeal explanation of the real standard of happiness, here are some things which, as a human, you have got to have -- in order to be truly happy:

-knowledge
-health (some approximate, minimum threshold of physical and mental health is required for human happiness)
-the experience of beauty (you couldn't be happy if you never experienced beauty in any form)
-friends (you couldn't be happy if you didn't have any shared values)
-self-esteem (you couldn't ever be happy if you didn't have any self-esteem)
-purpose (you couldn't be happy being totally aimless)
-freedom

Ed

Post 13

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 1:51pm

Hi Ed,

I do not consider this a false dichotomy, it is a true dichotomy, either happiness comes from the recognition of the acquisition of values (properly, of course it could come from a drug induced euphoria) or it comes from attaining particular values which are good by an outside 'supernatural' standard. That which brings an individual happiness is not dependant on objective natural standards, only on that which they have chosen to value and whether it is acquired or not. What makes you happy is entirely an intrinsic internal response.

You are setting up a self referential standard, that which is good is that which makes you happy, but that which makes you happy is only properly the good things.

That natural objective standard you are talking about is the standard for the flourishing life, the standard by which we ought to judge our values against in order to attain the most fulfilling life possible to humans. But the emotional response in our minds to achieving our values is not checked against that standard unless we are intrinsically aware of it.

The answer is that there's a natural objective standard. The best way to describe it is piecemeal, by showing definite parts of it. These definite parts of it would be natural human needs, necessary for happiness attainment.

I've gone down this line of inquiry while thinking on this topic, what you are describing here are characteristics of the standard, not the standard itself. That is why you say the best way to describe it is piece meal. I thought the same

Consider these as characteristics of a flourishing life (I've expanded your list some)

-knowledge (acquisition of information)
--one can acquire information about good things, useless things, or bad things

-learning (applying and discerning useful links from information)
-- one can learn 'good' things (how to play an instrument) and one can learn 'bad' things (how to manipulate people)

-perpetual intellectual growth (rigorous standards of thought, logic, etc)
--one can use rigorous thought for bad ends, or grow in an intellectual manner toward an end which is not conducive to a flourishing life (Machiavellian behaviors for instance)

-health (some approximate, minimum threshold of physical and mental health is required for human happiness)
--one can pursue health to a bad degree (obsessing throughout ones life over non-essential physical achievements not conducive to a flourishing life) but yet still be very healthy in a physiological sense.

-the experience of beauty (you couldn't be happy if you never experienced beauty in any form)
-- one could find bad things (death, torture) beautiful

-friends (you couldn't be happy if you didn't have any shared values)
-- one could have too many friends of very superficial relationships, instead of a few friends with a sincere eudaemonic relationship. Or acquire friends as means to achieve ends, in a pejorative sense. One should have the right kind of friends and have the right kind of relationships with them

-self-esteem (you couldn't ever be happy if you didn't have any self-esteem)
-- one could have a completely artificial elevated sense of self (like the gang / thug culture) or have an elevated sense of self through achieving productive ends, but which are never the less still 'bad' ends (learning how to make bombs to kill infidels) Self esteem should be based on the right things and be experienced to the right degree.

-purpose (you couldn't be happy being totally aimless)
--- your purpose can be bad

etc

Each of these examples of characteristics must be qualified by a good or bad alternative, or a good or bad extreme. And judging them good or bad requires holding them up to the standard of the most flourishing life possible to humans.

It's easy to see that end, and I have a clear sense when faced with alternatives of which is more eudaemonic, but I can not put my finger on that standard I am judging it by, even though it seems easy to choose which is more conducive to a flourishing life.

Post 14

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 5:07pm

Michael,

It's easy to see that end, and I have a clear sense when faced with alternatives of which is more eudaemonic, but I can not put my finger on that standard I am judging it by, even though it seems easy to choose which is more conducive to a flourishing life.

Heh! That reminds me about a time way, way back "in the day" when someone -- I can't remember who -- when someone asked Aristotle how to specifically go about leading the Good Life. He said that the really good people would know (and that we should go and learn from them or, if necessary, attempt to mimic their basic life choices with our own).

Ed

Post 15

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 6:29pm

Very useful answer Ed, thanks. /sarcasm

Post 16

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 8:42pm

Michael,

=========
... either happiness comes from the recognition of the acquisition of values ... or it comes from attaining particular values which are good by an outside 'supernatural' standard.
=========

Either subjective or intrinsic, either subjective or intrinsic -- it's a false dichotomy. Rand addressed this in detail. I can't believe that you can't see that yet.

=========
(properly, of course it could come from a drug induced euphoria)
=========

Only if you equate contentment and the satisfaction of felt desire with happiness. This is the part I warned about where one side of the debate can't even conceptualize what the other side is talking about.

=========
That which brings an individual happiness is not dependant on objective natural standards, only on that which they have chosen to value ...
=========

That's subjective whim-worship, though.

=========
... that which is good is that which makes you happy, but that which makes you happy is only properly the good things.
=========

Right.

=========
... the standard by which we ought to judge our values against in order to attain the most fulfilling life possible to humans. But the emotional response in our minds to achieving our values is not checked against that standard unless we are intrinsically aware of it.
=========

Subjective or intrinsic, subjective or intrinsic -- that's a false dichotomy.

Is that a more useful answer?

:-)

Ed

Post 17

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 8:52pm

Michael,

=========
--one can acquire information about good things, useless things, or bad things
=========

Just because you can acquire knowledge of bad things doesn't mean that knowledge isn't an objective value for all humans everywhere -- for all time.

=========
--one can use rigorous thought for bad ends, or grow in an intellectual manner toward an end which is not conducive to a flourishing life (Machiavellian behaviors for instance)
=========

Just because you can use rigorous thought for bad ends doesn't mean that rigorous thought isn't an objective value for all humans everywhere -- for all time.

==========
--one can pursue health to a bad degree (obsessing throughout ones life over non-essential physical achievements not conducive to a flourishing life) but yet still be very healthy in a physiological sense.
=========

Just because ... (etc.)

=========
-- one could find bad things (death, torture) beautiful
=========

But one can't find death and torture beautiful -- and be happy

=========
-- one could have too many friends of very superficial relationships, instead of a few friends with a sincere eudaemonic relationship. Or acquire friends as means to achieve ends, in a pejorative sense.
=========

Just because ... (etc.)

=========
One should have the right kind of friends and have the right kind of relationships with them
=========

Right!

=========
-- one could have a completely artificial elevated sense of self (like the gang / thug culture)
=========

Just because ... (etc.)

=========
Self esteem should be based on the right things and be experienced to the right degree.
=========

Right!

=========
--- your purpose can be bad
=========

Just because ... (etc.)

Ed

Post 18

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 10:25pm

=========
... either happiness comes from the recognition of the acquisition of values ... or it comes from attaining particular values which are good by an outside 'supernatural' standard.
=========

Either subjective or intrinsic, either subjective or intrinsic -- it's a false dichotomy. Rand addressed this in detail. I can't believe that you can't see that yet.

Actually, that would be absolute or subjective. How is a supernatural standard 'intrinsic' I can't believe you can't see how your answers are not applicable to the question.

The short version -

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life..." --Ayn Rand

"Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values." [Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged]

A value is "something you act to gain or keep." (Ayn Rand)

=========
(properly, of course it could come from a drug induced euphoria)
=========

Only if you equate contentment and the satisfaction of felt desire with happiness. This is the part I warned about where one side of the debate can't even conceptualize what the other side is talking about.

Happiness is the physiological response one's mind produces within one's body in response to the recognition of the acquisition or promulgation of something one values. Are you suggesting that the actual 'emotion' of 'happiness' is something else? Sadness is the physiological response which comes from the recognition of the LOSS of something one values. Love is the physiological response to the recognition of one's highest values present in another being.

Drug induced euphorias circumvent the recognition response which causes the physiological changes of the emotional reaction, and just trigger the emotional reaction.

Please present a clearer conceptual definition of happiness, you seem to have asserted that it is what we feel when we attain the 'right' values, and with the wrong values it is merely 'contentment' Yet the emotional reaction is the same. And this neglects the wide array of values which do not directly relate to the perpetuation of one's existence, and neglects the fact that we have no way to know if we have chosen the 'right values' (those conducive to a flourishing life, and not merely perpetuating ones existence) without having all ready recognized and integrated those 'right values' into our own mind and value hierarchies, and thus our 'contentment' at achieving 'bad' values actually comes from our own recognition that we have NOT in fact achieved our values, or the values that we OUGHT to be achieving.

If you clarified your argument more instead of complaining about the 'other side not conceptualizing' that would probably help.

=========
That which brings an individual happiness is not dependant on objective natural standards, only on that which they have chosen to value ...
=========

That's subjective whim-worship, though.

No, it's not. That thing that they CHOSE to VALUE was subjective whim worshiping, but the fact that they FEEL HAPPINESS at ACHIEVING that which they value, is not. Our reaction to the gain or loss of what we value is not something we have any control over, it is the natural and proper function of an emotion, but WHAT we CHOOSE to value is what we have control over.

"Your emotions are estimates of that which furthers your life or threatens it, lightning calculators giving you a sum of your profit or loss. You have no choice about your capacity to feel that something is good for you or evil, but WHAT you will consider good or evil, what will give you joy or pain, what you will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on your standard of value. Emotions are inherent in your nature, but their content is dictated by your mind." - Galts Speech

=========
... that which is good is that which makes you happy, but that which makes you happy is only properly the good things.
=========

Right.

It's circular, you don't see that? What is good? That which makes you happy. What is happiness? achieving that which is good. The 'good' requires a standard beyond being that which makes you happy.

=========
... the standard by which we ought to judge our values against in order to attain the most fulfilling life possible to humans. But the emotional response in our minds to achieving our values is not checked against that standard unless we are intrinsically aware of it.
=========

Subjective or intrinsic, subjective or intrinsic -- that's a false dichotomy.

Is that a more useful answer?

Not particularly. You are merely asserting that you do not feel 'true' happiness (or what Rand referred to as just happiness) unless you value the right things and achieve them. But you also assert that the right things to value are those things which bring about true happiness.

What we choose to value is entirely subjective, the physiological response we have to gaining or losing that is entirely OBJECTIVE. YOu might call the achievement of useless or bad (in regards to a flourishing life) values as 'contentment' and not 'true happiness' but again you are just moving definitions, not formulating a standard to judge the good for the flourishing life by.

Post 19

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - 10:34pm