Objectivist MetaEthics: Six
By Jimmy Wales
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 18:51:55 -0400
From: Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales email@example.com
To: ASP-Disc firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Dead is dead.
Bryan caplan writes:
> To begin with, what exactly does it mean to say: "Fundamentally, living
> entities face a single alternative: existence or non-existence."?
It means that dead is dead. This is a fact about certain entities, the living ones. Life is a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action, and it is contingent upon the pursuit of a certain course of action. Failure to take the appropriate actions ends life. At that point, the _living entity_ no longer exists. The life is gone. Dead is dead.
> If the second, then it is clearly true, but so what? It only shows that
> every value system is going to have to endorse life as a _means_; as
> Ron Merrill explains in his _The Ideas of Ayn Rand_ this argument
> shows that life is an ultimate _means_. But it hardly shows that life
> is an end-in-itself, much less the only end-in-itself.
I suggest that you stick to primary sources. In my opinion, Merrill does not understand Rand's argument or its implications.
The phrase "end-in-itself" has at least two meanings, and I hesitate to get involved in an in-depth discussion of it until we have sorted out some more basic issues. Suffice to say that in the sense of an _ultimate_ value, life is the only possible end-in-itself. As Rand puts it: "Metaphysically, _life_ is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself:
a value gained and kept by a constant process of action." The word _metaphysically_ is important, and serves to distinguish what she is talking about from various other senses of "end-in-itself" (for example, emotional experience of value achievement).
_Metaphysically_, life is the only plausible candidate for an ultimate value.
> ...she (perhaps unwittingly) counciled using life as a _means_ to _ending > pain_; and hence the latter goal would appear more fundamental.
A word of advice on interpreting Rand: never assume that she wrote _anything_ unwittingly. She asked to be interpreted as a person who chose every word very carefully, to express her precise meaning. So if you see the word "metaphysically" as a preface to a claim, always suppose that the word is there for a _reason_. And if you find yourself supposing that in one part of her writings Rand just suddenly forgot her entire meta-ethical theory, then check your premises. Chances are, you just haven't grasped all the implications and interconnections of her theory.
> For Jimbo to be right, it would have to be the case that somehow,
> everyone using the word "ought" is covertly saying that it is necessary
> for survival.
If you can show me where I claimed anything that would require this, then I would appreciate your pointing it out to me so that I can correct my sloppiness. Otherwise, leave the strawman bashing to the students in your classes, o.k.?
> Perhaps Jimbo will say that ordinary English is philosophically unsound;
> and that the vast majority of ought-statements are arbitrary claims
> about nothing.
Perhaps you ought to stop the rhetorical flourish of putting claims into my mouth, and instead focus on what I *do* in fact say. That way, we can progress to a state of mutual understanding. That is the goal, isn't it? I mean, as opposed to the goal of showing off your (admittedly impressive) rhetorical skills. Instead of supposing all over the map what I might say, you could just ask a brief question; I think I've been very good about answering questions, haven't I?
this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
this page was downloaded to your computer