| | When we arrange our values into a hierarchy, with Life as our highest value, what does 'Life' mean?
I know there has been disagreement in the past as to whether 'Life' means survival or eudemonia. If we accept that 'Life', in this regard, means 'survival', then the argument appears to be strengthened in two ways:
1) The value becomes easily identifiable, leaving little room for misidentification.
2) The value has a factual aspect, in that no other value is possible without 'survival'.
However, placing 'survival' as one's highest value seems to seriously limit the potential of the human animal, and seems to conflict with some of life's basic human needs. If one places 'survival' as one's highest value, then why take a path which leads to greater achievement, over one which leads to greater probability of an extended life? The astronauts put themselves at great risk, as do soldiers, coal miners, and numerous other people who work away from their desk, in the field, in sometimes dangerous environments. Moreover, I would venture to guess that a large majority of parents would knowingly give their lives to save their children, which would contradict survival as the highest value. Also note that placing survival as one's highest value leaves no room for any type of recreation and pleasure, especially recreational activities like 'thrill-seeking'.
It seems to me that the concept of 'Life as a Human' must be the ultimate value that we each must seek, even though we can't identify in concrete terms all the human activity that this would encompass. Nevertheless, this amiguous term would allow us to align ourselves with our human nature, though we may never be able to completely define the concept. 'Life as a Human' would allow each of us to experience eudemonia and eliminate the constraints placed upon us when we choose survival as the ultimate value. We would be free to achieve our dreams even though such achievement might come at great risk. We could experience pleasure through 'thrill-seeking', and we could give our lives for those we love.
If a rational ethics requires us to act in accordance with our nature, then we bridge the Is/Ought problem. We ACT because we ARE. Such a bridge requires us to align our highest value, with our human nature, which is what we ARE, whatever that might be.
Craig Haynie (Houston)
|
|
