| | Daniel O'Connor wrote:
"Life" is supposed to be the standard of value that guides all our moral decisions--and yet, I don't even know what Objectivists mean by "life". Sometimes it sounds like they mean literal, physiological survival. Often they seem to mean something else, and it's really not clear what they mean. How could there be such vagueness and confusion about such a critical and basic part of Objectivism? I think there's a serious problem here.
Speaking as a new student of Objectivism myself, I would agree there is an important point here, but maybe not so much a serious problem as it might be just a confusion of wording. As far as my understanding, the term 'survival' is used pretty consistently, indeed meaning literal biological, physiological survival; the fundamental choice between existence and non-existence as well as the actions necessary to carry out that choice (food, water, air, shelter etc.). I recall survival being used figuratively in some social contexts also, but if you can show me where Objectivists do not use the word in these ways I'd love to take a look.
'Life', I agree, is used more liberally in a sense. Rand describes life as "a process of self-sustaining, and self-generated action." This definition is used for all living entities and serves to bridge the facts of reality with the values and purposes of morality. Life is established as the standard of value, and actions taken to sustain and further life therefore are moral. I took some logical jumps there but it's pretty cut-and-dry.
Thanks to our penchant for volition, mankind then gets it's own version of life, i.e. life qua man and "the kind of life appropriate to man." Then we get into discussions on egoism and self-esteem and social scenarios, and now 'life' entails moral perfection and actualization and happiness; living consciously and utilizing resources and ability... no longer mere survival.
The idea I think we're missing here is that all of these 'higher' concepts of life are derivations of that one fundamental view of life as the ultimate value. If we apply this morality to our daily routine, and choose consistently to act in a 'life'-promoting manner, then we should achieve the 'higher' life that is consonant with the requirements of life-as-survival. Barring any disasters, being good is logically good for you.
I apologize if I put words in your mouth, I was speaking more for myself. If you see fallacies in my roundabout reasoning, it would help me grow if you can point them out.
Maybe we should create a code... use a capital L for that certain state of life pertaining to moral consistency and genuine happiness. Strive to achieve Life, and Life will be good. :)
|
|
