To be or not to be...

[Nodrog 0]

Why do you need a 'reason' to live (and indeed, what would a reason to live look like?). I assume you want to live since you are here posting - what further kind of justification are you looking for? You obviously arent going to kill yourself just because you cannot come up with such a reason, so its unclear what its point would be even if it existed.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

So I still need to find some reason to choose to live.

←

But to seek a reason for an action implies a standard by which to judge the value of the action, i.e., the purpose or end which the action serves. That standard is man's life, and your own life is your ultimate value. This is the source of all values, and any reason itself depends upon this ultimate value to judge the purpose served by the action. So one's acceptance of life as an ultimate value -- the choice to live -- is a precondition for reason, and hence it makes no sense to place reason prior to the choice to live. In other words, the choice to live is a primary; there is nothing more fundamental underlying or justifying the choice.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

After all, if life is the standard of morality, and happiness is the ultimate purpose in life, than wouldn't it be more accurate to say that happiness is both the standard and ultimate purpose of life?

←

First, man's life is the standard, i.e., that which is proper to the nature of man, but your happiness is the moral purpose of your life.

Second, happiness is a consequence of the achievement of your values, so it cannot reasonably be considered a standard for values. The existence of happiness presupposes values to be achieved, and hence those values require a different standard.

[Charlie 0]

Why do you need a 'reason' to live (and indeed, what would a reason to live look like?). I assume you want to live since you are here posting - what further kind of justification are you looking for? You obviously arent going to kill yourself just because you cannot come up with such a reason, so its unclear what its point would be even if it existed.

←

I don't really need one, I suppose. I was just curious to see if it was possible to come up with a logical reason why we should live. Of course I'm not going to kill myself if I can't do so, but it would be nice to have better reason to live than "I've got no reason to kill myself."

[Charlie 0]

But to seek a reason for an action implies a standard by which to judge the value of the action, i.e., the purpose or end which the action serves. That standard is man's life, and your own life is your ultimate value. This is the source of all values, and any reason itself depends upon this ultimate value to judge the purpose served by the action. So one's acceptance of life as an ultimate value -- the choice to live -- is a precondition for reason, and hence it makes no sense to place reason prior to the choice to live. In other words, the choice to live is a primary; there is nothing more fundamental underlying or justifying the choice.

←

You're right to point out that choosing to live is a necessary prerequisite for reason and morality. However, the STANDARD of morality exists whether or not someone chooses to abide by it, no? In other words, choosing death is still immoral even though the person choosing it would have no means of knowing that it is immoral. It is only after choosing life that we can evaluate it as being immoral. I think that, even though someone must choose to live before we can be moral, the choice to live is itself moral. Here's what I came up with:

1) We judge something to be good by whether or not it benefits man's life.

2) Living, obviously, benefits man's life

3) Therefore, by 1 and 2, living is good because it benefits man's life.

This makes "life is good" a simple tautology.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

1)  We judge something to be good by whether or not it benefits man's life.

2)  Living, obviously, benefits man's life

3)  Therefore, by 1 and 2, living is good because it benefits man's life.

This makes "life is good" a simple tautology.

←

That is what happens when one looks for a deductive proof of something that is self-evident and perceptual. Such "arguments" are not only tautalogical, they are backwards and rationalistic.

For a better answer, a person should observe that he is alive and acts to continue living. Then he can introspect to find the reason HE wants to live.

[Charlie 0]

That is what happens when one looks for a deductive proof of something that is self-evident and perceptual.  Such "arguments" are not only tautalogical, they are backwards and rationalistic.

For a better answer, a person should observe that he is alive and acts to continue living.  Then he can introspect to find the reason HE wants to live.

←

So are you saying, bascially, that it's impossible to deduce that life is good, but rather that you have to simply perceive that is good? I agree with that. I'm just trying to figure the reason I want to live, and wondering if that reason is the same for everybody. As far as I can figure out, the only reason why I want to live is that it makes me happy. So the purpose of my life (and, I would assume, anyone's) is happiness.

What I don't understand is why, then, you'd judge an action according to the standard of man's life, rather than happiness. These things may be the same in practice, but the concepts are different. What's wrong with judging every action by asking "will this bring me more or less happiness during the course of my life?"

[RayK 0]

What I don't understand is why, then, you'd judge an action according to the standard of man's life, rather than happiness.  These things may be the same in practice, but the concepts are different.  What's wrong with judging every action by asking "will this bring me more or less happiness during the course of my life?"

←

Many people are in a state of so called "happiness" but that does not mean it is life enhancing. Happiness is something one has to work at to achieve. The only way to achieve happiness is to achieve goals, so happiness comes as a secondary consequence of achieving your values.

Many people tell me that they are happy eating a piece of cake, so why not eat the whole thing? The answer to the question must be applied through their individual goals/values. If their long-term goal is to stay lean and healthy, then the answer must be no. So even though a person can claim happiness while they are over-eating it is only because they have chosen to evade or not even set a long-term goal. Many whimsical seconds of happiness can be contradictory to your overall long-term happiness. To be truly happy takes and requires a lot of thought and planning to achieve, hence why most never reach it.

When one sets happiness as the standard of life, they lead a contradictory life. They will never even reach true happiness because every short term happiness comes with guilt afterwards, because of other values sacrificed. Such as the person from my earlier example who wants to be lean but keeps on over-eating, because it makes them "happy".

Now to answer your question from above. It is not a matter if it will bring you more happiness in the course of your life, but will the action bring you closer to your value/goal which in turn brings happiness as a secondary consequence.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What I don't understand is why, then, you'd judge an action according to the standard of man's life, rather than happiness.  These things may be the same in practice, but the concepts are different.  What's wrong with judging every action by asking "will this bring me more or less happiness during the course of my life?"

←

In this post ← I responded with "happiness is a consequence of the achievement of your values, so it cannot reasonably be considered a standard for values. The existence of happiness presupposes values to be achieved, and hence those values require a different standard." Did that not answer your question then, and now?

To amplify, we need an objective standard that is based on the nature of man and the nature of the world within which he lives. We need a fact-oriented standard, not a derivative like happiness which is based on chosen values. Though, of course, if your values stem from the proper standard, man's life, then the achievement of those values will result in a happiness that is in accord with the nature of man and the facts of reality.

[Charlie 0]

Many people tell me that they are happy eating a piece of cake, so why not eat the whole thing?  The answer to the question must be applied through their individual goals/values.  If their long-term goal is to stay lean and healthy, then the answer must be no.  So even though a person can claim happiness while they are over-eating it is only because they have chosen to evade or not even set a long-term goal.  Many whimsical seconds of happiness can be contradictory to your overall long-term happiness.  To be truly happy takes and requires a lot of thought and planning to achieve, hence why most never reach it.

Well, that's why I said "happiness over the course of your life. Eating a whole cake might bring you a little happiness now, but it'll cause you a lot of unhappiness later, so someone who's really trying to maximize their happiness won't go around eating whole cakes- they'll be forced to be rational.

When one sets happiness as the standard of life, they lead a contradictory life.  They will never even reach true happiness because every short term happiness comes with guilt afterwards, because of other values sacrificed.  Such as the person from my earlier example who wants to be lean but keeps on over-eating, because it makes them "happy".

So are you saying that someone who devotes their life to happiness can never be happy? That seems kind of contradictory. Remember, I'm not talking about living a hedonistic lifestyle devoted to short term happiness, I'm talking about rationally maximizing one's happiness over the course of a lifetime.

Now to answer your question from above.  It is not a matter if it will bring you more happiness in the course of your life, but will the action bring you closer to your value/goal which in turn brings happiness as a secondary consequence.

←

But why is anything a goal if it will not bring you happiness? Why would you want to enhance your life for any reason but to be happy?

[Charlie 0]

In this post ← I responded with "happiness is a consequence of the achievement of your values, so it cannot reasonably be considered a standard for values. The existence of happiness presupposes values to be achieved, and hence those values require a different standard." Did that not answer your question then, and now?

To amplify, we need an objective standard that is based on the nature of man and the nature of the world within which he lives. We need a fact-oriented standard, not a derivative like happiness which is based on chosen values. Though, of course, if your values stem from the proper standard, man's life, then the achievement of those values will result in a happiness that is in accord with the nature of man and the facts of reality.

←

I'm not sure I understand why it is that a consequence can't be a standard for values. Why is it impossible to evaluate every decision on the basis of whether or not it will bring you happiness? Isn't happiness, itself, a fact? Heck, isn't happiness both a value AND the consequence of the achievement of your values? If a value is something I act to gain or keep, and I act to gain and keep happiness, then doesn't that make it a value?

I keep thinking about something Aristotle wrote in Nichomachean Ethics. He said that there are two reasons we do things- either because the thing itself is good (being happy, for example), or because it leads to something good (we exercise because it leads to good health). We don't pursue the latter because we want the thing itself, only because we its consequence. He went on to conclude that we end up with only one thing that we are finally pursuing- the good- and his word for it is Eudaimonia, which is often translated as happiness.

[RayK 0]

Well, that's why I said "happiness over the course of your life.  Eating a whole cake might bring you a little happiness now, but it'll cause you a lot of unhappiness later, so someone who's really trying to maximize their happiness won't go around eating whole cakes- they'll be forced to be rational.

So are you saying that someone who devotes their life to happiness can never be happy?  That seems kind of contradictory.  Remember, I'm not talking about living a hedonistic lifestyle devoted to short term happiness, I'm talking about rationally maximizing one's happiness over the course of a lifetime.

But why is anything a goal if it will not bring you happiness?  Why would you want to enhance your life for any reason but to be happy?

←

On your last question about goals and happiness, you just stated what I have been trying to show you. That goals lead to happiness, it is not happiness that leads to happiness. Happiness is a secondary consequence of achieving values. So choosing life as a value and enhancing that life is what brings happiness.

When someone ask the question what is going to bring me the most happiness over my life-time? What is the person attaching the happiness to if not values, and life as the standard value?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'm not sure I understand why it is that a consequence can't be a standard for values.  Why is it impossible to evaluate every decision on the basis of whether or not it will bring you happiness?  Isn't happiness, itself, a fact?  Heck, isn't happiness both a value AND the consequence of the achievement of your values?  If a value is something I act to gain or keep, and I act to gain and keep happiness, then doesn't that make it a value?

As long as the values you seek and achieve are, in fact, in the service of your life, then your seeking of values and your pursuit of happiness are one and the same. But achievement of values is not necessarily good if the values you seek are not in the service of your life. You need an objective standard by which to define the moral good, and then the achievement of the values chosen by that standard will necessarily result in the happiness you seek.

Have you read Ayn Rand's essay The Objectivist Ethics? Here is a relevant section from that essay, reprinted on p. 32 of the book The Virtue of Selfishness.

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. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one's life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. 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.

But the relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed. It is only by accepting "man's life" as one's primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness—not by taking "happiness" as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance.  If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. To take "whatever makes one happy" as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one's emotional whims.

[Charlie 0]

Oops, I messed up the quotes in my last post. This is how it was supposed to look.

Ok, I think I understand this now. I haven't read VOS yet, but that passage helped a lot. I can't make every decision on the basis of "what makes me happy" without knowing what it is that makes me happy, and then pursuing that. Since a good life is what makes me happy, the only way to be happy is to lead a good life, and do everything possible to lead a good life.

When someone ask the question what is going to bring me the most happiness over my life-time? What is the person attaching the happiness to if not values, and life as the standard value?

This is a good point. I understand now that the only way to achieve happiness is to achieve values that are objective, rather than making decisions on the basis of emotions. Happiness is the proof that life is good, and the reward for leading a good life, but it is not the reason that life is good.

Many thanks for helping me understand this.