Viable Values

I have recently read Viable Values by Tara Smith, and in it she makes the argument that actions can only be good or bad, rational or irrational, right or wrong relative to some kind of purpose. She then argues that the decision of whether or not to live is the decision of whether to adopt any purposes AT ALL. I'm wondering however, would it not be a rational purpose for a person who did NOT want to live to minimize the suffering that they would experience. I mean, for example, that a physician might offer them a way of ending their life which would allow for the least ammount of misery for the patients life on earth. The goal, in other words, which should set the standard by which actions should be taken in such a scenario would be to make the misery that the individual would experience on earth as minimal as possible.
Thanks.

Post 1

Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - 9:07pm

Christopher,

The goal, in other words, which should set the standard by which actions should be taken in such a scenario would be to make the misery that the individual would experience on earth as minimal as possible.

This might be the correct standard in those few cases where living is unbearable. The opposite standard -- of maximizing joy rather than minimizing pain -- would be the correct standard in all other cases (where lasting, noncontradictory joy is possible).

... would it not be a rational purpose for a person who did NOT want to live to minimize the suffering that they would experience[?]

Yes.

Ed

Post 2

Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - 10:28pm

Anyone for Tennis?

No one, absolutely NO ONE, ever simply chooses life as his highest purpose, and then somehow acquires subsidiary values which are compatible with living. This is patently absurd.

People, by their nature, develop more and more complex and long-term values as they mature. Usually these values will come to include such activities as a productive career, a love life, a family, the enjoyment of certain types of hobbies and entertainments and so forth. Now, in order to pursue those values, one must be alive. And if one's highest values include such things as suicide bombing or eating broken glass then one may find that happiness is not obtainable. In so far as one's highest values are consistent with each other and with life, then one may live a happy life. Other highest values turn out to be immediately self-destructive or incompatible with the needs of long-term existence. People do have such values - they just don't usually live to long in open societies.

Someone might even say that playing tennis is his highest value. He would have to be alive. He would have to have some health, some means of obtaining the use of a tennis court. The need to be productive to some extent and, yes, alive would follow. All of the standard virtues are conducive to living a life of tennis and all the standard vices make it that much harder, but no tennis fanatic need say he cares more for life than tennis. Nevertheless, the tennis fanatic may turn out to be what we conventionally call a good man.

Babies aren't born wanting to play tennis, but neither are they born "wanting to live." And no baby ever grows up with "wanting to live" as his be all and end all.

Post 3

Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 12:38am

"And no baby ever grows up with "wanting to live" as his be all and end all."

Umm, some young kids have nasty forms of cancer or other horrendous diseases that make just staying alive a little longer pretty much their top priority. And kids in concentration camps during WWII might have had similarly focused goals.

For the overwhelming majority of people, though, I'd agree with your statement.

Post 4

Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 6:57am

Those kids don't want to live a little longer for the sake of living, they want to enjoy themselves as much as they can. None of them says, oh, yeah, I really hope my metabolism continues. I really value the Krebs cycle and oxidative respiration, and I hope to continue undergoing mitosis as long as I can. They want the love of family and friends, the joy of a sunny day, the fun of picking nits on an internet forum - not merely to avoid the cessation of brain function.

Post 5

Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 8:46am

Ted,

No one, absolutely NO ONE, ever simply chooses life as his highest purpose, and then somehow acquires subsidiary values which are compatible with living. This is patently absurd.

I agree. It's not like there is some pre-moral choice to live (though smart people like to say there is). The smart people who think that there has to be this pre-moral choice -- where you make an aimless decision to live -- are "instrumentalists" who think that morality is grounded only in one's promulgated aims. They say things like:

"IF you want to live in society, THEN you had better not murder innocent people."

It's basically utilitarian ethics in Objectivist garb.

Ed

Post 6

Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 12:56pm

Ted -- I was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma about three years ago. During the horrifying interferon treatment that followed, while I was lying in bed nauseated, alternating between bouts of uncontrollable shivering and sweating, and other really nasty things, about all I wanted at that moment was to survive and get through the aftershocks of treatment. Now, afterwards, I value these other things you mention, but back then I was a little too busy to ponder the joys of petting fuzzy bunnys under a rainbow.

These other, higher goals only kick in when the core value of physical survival has been met.

If your point is that, once basic survival has been assured, people pretty much universally treasure greater happiness of the sort you describe, then sure, I agree with that.

Post 7

Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 8:01pm

Actually, the fact that people follow whatever value structure happens to fall into their path for the most part does not invalidate the top-down approach in the least. One picks up all kinds of knowledge and skill happenstance or in the process of doing something else, and, yes, of course in order to do much of anything, you first have to be alive, which sets certain ground rules.

However, we (human beings collectively) didn't put someone on the moon by happenstance. It took overarching theories of physics and engineering sophistication the likes of which noone had ever approached before, resulting in millions of correct decisions, any one of which, made incorrectly, could have doomed the mission.

Unfortunately, Snow's two cultures still applies. Our soaring capabilities in the hard sciences are put to the task of serving a happenstance jumble of conflicting values. People today work on developing nuclear bombs in order to get 70 virgins in a cloud cukoo land in the sky run by a guy who reads your thoughts. Only a comedic genius like George Carlin could do justice to the absurdities we witness every day in the news.

The great practical value of objectivism is that of bringing values and normative statements under the rubric of objective analysis. Recognizing that all value is traceable to life and can be judged and can only be consistently weighted against other potential values by using life as the standard is the critical element that our culture is missing.

Sure, someone who happens to stumble across art or tennis or street-sweeping as their live's passion will also have to be rational enough in their other choices to survive, but starting from the get-go to analyze what things are worth doing from a life standard is a whole lot more certain way of acquiring values that maximize one's general satisfaction.

Post 8

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 5:44pm

I think minimizing pain is a viable motive in a situation where a person decided not only moral, but probably the only rational choice. If a person saw so little value in their world that they believe there was no point in continuing, the only real value left is the prevention of more pain I think.

Post 9

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:24am

"Sick men have no morale." Lt. Col. Charles Hunter, Merril's Marauders, WW II, Burma.

Even the strongest will needs a body of some health to command, and some reason to hope.

Post 10

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 8:59pm

Is it not possible for someone to value the life of another person (for example their child) such that they would rather die than see that other person suffer (notice I did not say die) such that their highest value actually involved sacrificing their life for that person? Thereby making another life their highest value?

Post 11

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 2:35pm

Amos Knows, yea, a person can make pretty much anything their highest value. They can even make something impossible like going to heaven their highest value!

Post 12

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 10:59pm