Reproductivness as means to one's life?

[Ifat Glassman 0]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life. I can see how it's mean to the life of a baby (the next generation), but not of oneself.

I can tell from experience that menstruation, for example, is not means to my life. It hurts, weakens, and not helping my survival in any way that I can see.

Having a baby can be a great pleasure, but such a pleasure does not serve MY life - it serves the life of someone else (a baby). (unlike a spouse or a friend which do help one's survival)

Even emotions have a purpose in survival. So an invalid answer would be "sexuality/reproductiveness serves one's life by bringing pleasure" since even pleasure, existentially (not psychologically) is means to an end (the organism's life) according to Objectivism.

I would really appreciate help on this. I'm quoting below the relevant paragraph from the article "The Objectivist Ethics".

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.

Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

P.S. apparently "reproductiveness" is not really a word according to Google, but I could not find any other word to describe what I meant, so used this one anyway.

[PhilO 0]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life.

It is, if you understand that a child can (on net) bring joy and be a source of values to one's self. If it only seems like a sacrifice it would be unwise to have children.

[Thales 0]

Phil has part of the answer, but ...

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life. I can see how it's mean to the life of a baby (the next generation), but not of oneself.

Where did you come from?

[Ifat Glassman 0]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life.

It is, if you understand that a child can (on net) bring joy and be a source of values to one's self. If it only seems like a sacrifice it would be unwise to have children.

How is the joy that a child can bring, existentially, means to one's survival? Joy is not an end in itself, correct? And not just anything that brings joy is means to one's life. So showing that it brings joy is not enough as a philosophical answer to this question.

I think you are looking at my question from more of a practical point of view, like giving someone advice on a personal level. But my question is philosophical. In other words I am not asking what are the conditions under which it is a value for me to bring a child, what are the benefits etc'. I am asking for a general demonstration of how one's reproductive aspects are (or can be) means to one's own life.

Maybe I am missing something in your answer, but if I do I cannot identify what I'm missing at this point.

Where did you come from?

Avoiding being a dummy and answering the obvious... Can you explain further what you are trying to point me at?

[Paul's Here 0]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life.

It is, if you understand that a child can (on net) bring joy and be a source of values to one's self. If it only seems like a sacrifice it would be unwise to have children.

How is the joy that a child can bring, existentially, means to one's survival? Joy is not an end in itself, correct? And not just anything that brings joy is means to one's life. So showing that it brings joy is not enough as a philosophical answer to this question.

------------------

How is any value a means to one's survival? Are you confusing the concept of life, the value that is an end in itself, with particular values? Specific values are means to ends. So I'm not sure what else you mean. Instead of reproductiveness, which you've not defined, do you mean reproduction or the ability to reproduce? If so, reproduction is a value that one has the ability to choose to value or not.

[bborg 0]

How is the joy that a child can bring, existentially, means to one's survival? Joy is not an end in itself, correct? And not just anything that brings joy is means to one's life. So showing that it brings joy is not enough as a philosophical answer to this question.

Joy does have a survival value. It keeps you wanting to live, a motivation without which life is impossible. Also I don’t think I could name a single personal value that is completely nonproductive. Any exercise of the mind or body helps you to live.

[Thales 0]

Where did you come from?

Avoiding being a dummy and answering the obvious... Can you explain further what you are trying to point me at?

The survival value of reproductiveness is what gave rise to you, so it's already had great value to you. Without it there would be no you.

[jwoodswce 0]

I am asking for a general demonstration of how one's reproductive aspects are (or can be) means to one's own life.

Having selfishly raised two kids (ages 17 and 21), let me try to respond to the specific context that you are asking. The below isn’t exhaustive but to see if I am hitting the right target.

In the time of a lifespan, children can “pay off as a long term investment” by providing support for their aged parents. Not in the sense of an unearned obligation; for example, I do plan that I may be supporting my mother when she is older, but not my father.

In some societies or times, children are productive contributors to the family. For example, my grandmother left school after 8th grade to work to support my great-grandparents and her siblings during the Depression.

Personally, I have found that having children has made me more thoughtful about managing risks (which can be life threatening), because I judged the long term value to me of raising them to be more important than the value associated with the risk.

The process of raising a child is intellectually challenging providing valuable new insights and corrections to previous conceptual errors.

As a productive and creative task, raising children provides opportunities for achievements and demonstrations of personal efficaciousness early in life. Although I have been a leading expert in my professional field, my most satisfying achievements to date have been as a parent.

At this point, I am adjusting to the idea of having an empty nest so I am very aware of how central a value my children are in how I define what is my life.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life.

It is, if you understand that a child can (on net) bring joy and be a source of values to one's self. If it only seems like a sacrifice it would be unwise to have children.

How is the joy that a child can bring, existentially, means to one's survival? Joy is not an end in itself, correct? And not just anything that brings joy is means to one's life. So showing that it brings joy is not enough as a philosophical answer to this question.

------------------

How is any value a means to one's survival?

Any fundamental aspect of human beings serves a higher goal - the goal of survival. In this sense, those aspects are values. To give a few examples:

Our lungs, blood circulation, brain, etc' - all systems that serve our life.

Our cognitive ability - particularly concepts - allows us to gather broad knowledge about the world and thus deal with it to our advantage.

Our emotions and physical sensations signal us quickly how something in the world is in relation to us (for or against us).

All those fundamental things serve the goal of survival. Metaphysically, these are all values serving the ultimate value of life. Did I answer your question?

Are you confusing the concept of life, the value that is an end in itself, with particular values? Specific values are means to ends. So I'm not sure what else you mean. Instead of reproductiveness, which you've not defined, do you mean reproduction or the ability to reproduce? If so, reproduction is a value that one has the ability to choose to value or not.

By "reproductiveness" I mean the entire sexual/reproductive side in human beings. That includes all the bodily functions related to reproduction (like the existence of reproductive organs, menstruation and hormonal cycle in women), the mechanism of sexual physical sensations and emotions that are built into us, the hormonal changes a woman goes through when she takes care of a baby that help her take care of it.

So to sum it up by "reproductiveness" I mean all the variety of things about human beings that metaphysically support and encourage reproduction.

In this case, I do not look at values that a particular human being may choose. I am looking at the reproductive aspect of man and asking how that aspect serves the goal of the organism's own survival.

I think I made my intention clearer now. Please ask me more if you see a need to, so we can get the concepts and answer I am seeking "synchronized".

jwoodswce actually partially answered my question (Thanks) - though it raises more questions for me. I'll ask in a separate post.

[~Sophia~ 0]

How is the joy that a child can bring, existentially, means to one's survival? Joy is not an end in itself, correct? And not just anything that brings joy is means to one's life. So showing that it brings joy is not enough as a philosophical answer to this question.

Joy does have a survival value. It keeps you wanting to live,

I agree with bborg's answer.

Furthermore, I find that the challenge of raising a child is a source of growth (on multiple levels and spanning many areas), unmatched by any other learning experience (at least for me). I am living with a much better expertise as a result.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Our lungs, blood circulation, brain, etc' - all systems that serve our life.

Our cognitive ability - particularly concepts - allows us to gather broad knowledge about the world and thus deal with it to our advantage.

Our emotions and physical sensations signal us quickly how something in the world is in relation to us (for or against us).

Living is not just avoiding death. Think of it as flourishing life for a human being (and not just life).

[Betsy Speicher 0]

By "reproductiveness" I mean the entire sexual/reproductive side in human beings. That includes all the bodily functions related to reproduction (like the existence of reproductive organs, menstruation and hormonal cycle in women), the mechanism of sexual physical sensations and emotions that are built into us, the hormonal changes a woman goes through when she takes care of a baby that help her take care of it.

So to sum it up by "reproductiveness" I mean all the variety of things about human beings that metaphysically support and encourage reproduction.

In this case, I do not look at values that a particular human being may choose. I am looking at the reproductive aspect of man and asking how that aspect serves the goal of the organism's own survival.

I don't think it does. I think reproduction is an optional function. The fact is, however, that there is natural selection involved.

In man's past, some people enjoyed sexual activity and as often as possible. They had more offspring that those who engaged in sex rarely. Some people reproduced and some did not. As a result, we are all the descendants only of those who did reproduce with a definite bias toward those who enjoyed it.

Human reproduction evolved just as animal reproduction did but because man is a thinking animal, he recently (in human history) developed reliable means of birth control. That allows him to enjoy the pleasures of sex while making the reproductive consequences more optional than ever.

[RayK 0]

In this case, I do not look at values that a particular human being may choose. I am looking at the reproductive aspect of man and asking how that aspect serves the goal of the organism's own survival.

I think you need to look deeper into that organism which has (to a certain extent) created you, that being your genes.

[Paul's Here 0]

I've been struggling with this question for a while. I cannot see how reproductiveness is means to one's own life.

It is, if you understand that a child can (on net) bring joy and be a source of values to one's self. If it only seems like a sacrifice it would be unwise to have children.

How is the joy that a child can bring, existentially, means to one's survival? Joy is not an end in itself, correct? And not just anything that brings joy is means to one's life. So showing that it brings joy is not enough as a philosophical answer to this question.

------------------

How is any value a means to one's survival?

Any fundamental aspect of human beings serves a higher goal - the goal of survival. In this sense, those aspects are values. To give a few examples:

Our lungs, blood circulation, brain, etc' - all systems that serve our life.

Our cognitive ability - particularly concepts - allows us to gather broad knowledge about the world and thus deal with it to our advantage.

Our emotions and physical sensations signal us quickly how something in the world is in relation to us (for or against us).

All those fundamental things serve the goal of survival. Metaphysically, these are all values serving the ultimate value of life. Did I answer your question?

You gave examples of values that are not chosen values. True, lungs serve our life, as long as they are healthy, not if they are cancerous. Cognitive ability serves our lives, provided we use it properly. Use it irrationally, and it serves to harm us. Reproduction, on the other hand, is not an entity, like a lung, or an attribute, like a cognitive ability. Reproduction is a potential action. It is there to serve your life if you choose to exercise it: if you value and want children, then reproduction provides the mechanism. You state than "any fundamental aspect of human beings serves a higher goal." I would challenge your evaluation that such aspects are always positive goals or needs. Some aspects have to be chosen, but the potential is present whether you want it or not, such as having a period. Most people have 2 legs, but many survive well without them.

[System Builder 0]

By "reproductiveness" I mean the entire sexual/reproductive side in human beings. That includes all the bodily functions related to reproduction (like the existence of reproductive organs, menstruation and hormonal cycle in women), the mechanism of sexual physical sensations and emotions that are built into us, the hormonal changes a woman goes through when she takes care of a baby that help her take care of it.

So to sum it up by "reproductiveness" I mean all the variety of things about human beings that metaphysically support and encourage reproduction.

In this case, I do not look at values that a particular human being may choose. I am looking at the reproductive aspect of man and asking how that aspect serves the goal of the organism's own survival.

I see two different issues here, which call for different answers.

1. All living things have the capacity to reproduce. How does that capacity serve to further the lives of the organisms possessing it and exercising it, since it is claimed that all automatic living action is goal-directed, with life as the implicit goal?

2. Man can *choose* whether or not to have children. How might having children serve to further the parents' lives?

Others have already answered the second point, and some response has also been given to the first point. Ifat, can you clarify which point (or both) you would like to see elaborated further?

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Seeing the replies, I realize a better way to phrase my question, to zoom in on the essence of my question. Talking about reproductiveness in man introduces too much complication. My question is actually about reproduction in animals, in general. For the purpose of answering my question, we can discuss reproduction of mice or of butterflies. I want to know how reproduction serves the organism's life metaphysically (in the same way that say, a brain serves the life of an organism).

I realize this is a lot of effort spent here by people just to understand what it is I am asking. So thanks for the patience and I hope from now on it will be clear enough to allow a productive discussion.

am looking at the reproductive aspect of man and asking how that aspect serves the goal of the organism's own survival.

I don't think it does. I think reproduction is an optional function. The fact is, however, that there is natural selection involved.

If it does not, and we both understand my question in the same way, then Ayn Rand was wrong when she observed the following:

On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex - from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man - are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life.

Not that I think she was wrong, but still need to answer the question about reproductiveness serving the organism's survival.

1. All living things have the capacity to reproduce. How does that capacity serve to further the lives of the organisms possessing it and exercising it, since it is claimed that all automatic living action is goal-directed, with life as the implicit goal?

2. Man can *choose* whether or not to have children. How might having children serve to further the parents' lives?

Others have already answered the second point, and some response has also been given to the first point. Ifat, can you clarify which point (or both) you would like to see elaborated further?

The first. Your question was a bullseye here.

Paul: Frankly, I don't understand the meaning of your challenge. I'm not sure you understand my question or the context for it (which is Ayn Rand's observation that I quoted).

The survival value of reproductiveness is what gave rise to you, so it's already had great value to you. Without it there would be no you.

After thinking about this some more, I think you have the key to the answer here.

However, the problem is that I cannot prove that reproductiveness serves the survival of every organism and not that the life of an organism serves the goal of reproductiveness (continuation of the specie). To rephrase the two options more simply: Is an animal alive to give birth to the next generation, or is its reproductive aspect serve its life?

Here is my problem: Suppose I'm looking at a certain organism (imagine a baby deer, for example). When judging if, say, blood circulation serves the goal of its survival, I just need to look at its timespan. That context is enough for me to judge if blood circulation serves its survival. Same for all other processes that are going on in its body and mind - except for reproductiveness. When I think of how reproductiveness serves its survival, I need to step one generation back. My context, all of a sudden, is wider than just the baby deer's lifespan. It expands to the life of its parents too. So I find myself with the following argument: "Reproductiveness serves an organism's survival because such is the method that it came to exist by the grace of the species having such capacity".

[Arnold 0]

After thinking about this some more, I think you have the key to the answer here.

However, the problem is that I cannot prove that reproductiveness serves the survival of every organism and not that the life of an organism serves the goal of reproductiveness (continuation of the specie). To rephrase the two options more simply: Is an animal alive to give birth to the next generation, or is its reproductive aspect serve its life?

Not every feature or faculty of an animal is there to enhance it's life at every particular time. Think of an appendix, something we once had a use for, but now has no function in our bodies. There are functional 'additions' that have evolved, such as reproduction. By 'addition', I mean not directly involved in it's immediate survival. This reproduction has no "Intended" purpose, it just is the result of evolution. Every living thing is the result of reproduction. So, while reproduction isn't a value to the specific animal engaging in it, it is to it's offspring. Reproduction IS a benefit, but not necessarily for the animal doing it. However, I know of no rule that this goes against, including your quote from Ayn Rand. Are you having difficulty in accepting that a function such as reproduction is not a direct benefit to the specific animal involved (leaving aside the satisfaction received)?

[RayK 0]

Ifat, you seem to be overlooking the gene as the organism that benefits from reproduction as it is not any specific species. Or, in other words, evolution does not happen for the benefit of the speicies, but for the benefit of the gene. Your genes were here long before you and they will most likely be here long after you are gone.

[B. Royce 0]

Ifat, the fact that animals reproduce does not mean that reproduction has a goal. However, in man the beginning act of reproduction (sex) has become so highly integrated with extreme pleasure that a man is able to experience himself as an end in himself. He is the first animal which can choose to engage in sex with total disregard for the biological effects. Or, he can do both---have self-fulfilling sex and have a reproduction of himself. (He can bake his cake and have it, too.)

[Paul's Here 0]

Seeing the replies, I realize a better way to phrase my question, to zoom in on the essence of my question. Talking about reproductiveness in man introduces too much complication. My question is actually about reproduction in animals, in general. For the purpose of answering my question, we can discuss reproduction of mice or of butterflies. I want to know how reproduction serves the organism's life metaphysically (in the same way that say, a brain serves the life of an organism).

I realize this is a lot of effort spent here by people just to understand what it is I am asking. So thanks for the patience and I hope from now on it will be clear enough to allow a productive discussion.

am looking at the reproductive aspect of man and asking how that aspect serves the goal of the organism's own survival.

I don't think it does. I think reproduction is an optional function. The fact is, however, that there is natural selection involved.

If it does not, and we both understand my question in the same way, then Ayn Rand was wrong when she observed the following:

On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex - from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man - are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life.

Not that I think she was wrong, but still need to answer the question about reproductiveness serving the organism's survival.

1. All living things have the capacity to reproduce. How does that capacity serve to further the lives of the organisms possessing it and exercising it, since it is claimed that all automatic living action is goal-directed, with life as the implicit goal?

2. Man can *choose* whether or not to have children. How might having children serve to further the parents' lives?

Others have already answered the second point, and some response has also been given to the first point. Ifat, can you clarify which point (or both) you would like to see elaborated further?

The first. Your question was a bullseye here.

Paul: Frankly, I don't understand the meaning of your challenge. I'm not sure you understand my question or the context for it (which is Ayn Rand's observation that I quoted).

--------------

OK. I see your point now: How does the ability to reproduce serve the life of the individual organism? (I take "the ability to reproduce" to be what you mean by "reproductiveness" which is not a word in my dictionary.) My comment would be this. You seem to restricting your concept and your question solely on the animal's ability to produce an offspring. Yet reproduction is necessary for the life of an organism: each cell within the body of the organism reproduces to produce other cells which replace the old cell. So reproduction "on the physical level" does function to maintain the organism's life, i.e., it is an action "generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life". So nothing in that concept of reproduction goes agains Rand's quote.

So, the question is how does reproducing another total organism to continue the species serve the life of the organism it is replacing and how do the bodily functions which support such reproduction serve the life of the organism? I think for the answer to that, we have to look at the correct organism. The organism in question, in my opinion, is not the entire organism, but the individual sex cells containing the DNA that gets transmited to the next generation. But that process varies greatly thoughout life and the various organisms. The details for its development require a study of evolution and biology.

This is how I'd address your original comment, "I can tell from experience that menstruation, for example, is not means to my life. It hurts, weakens, and not helping my survival in any way that I can see." Menstration is a means to perpetuate the life of the sex cells containing your DNA.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Not every feature or faculty of an animal is there to enhance it's life at every particular time. Think of an appendix, something we once had a use for, but now has no function in our bodies.

An appendix is not a good example. Because it is a residue, something incidental. Reproduction, however, is not incidental, it is not a temporary phenomenon which is not essential to life. It is a huge part of animal's nature in physical and mental levels.

There are functional 'additions' that have evolved, such as reproduction. By 'addition', I mean not directly involved in it's immediate survival.

I'll "settle" for long-term survival, it doesn't have to be immediate.

This reproduction has no "Intended" purpose, it just is the result of evolution.

Not a purpose, but it serves a goal in the same way Ayn Rand called the phenomenon of life in plants "goal directed action".

Every living thing is the result of reproduction. So, while reproduction isn't a value to the specific animal engaging in it, it is to it's offspring. Reproduction IS a benefit, but not necessarily for the animal doing it. However, I know of no rule that this goes against, including your quote from Ayn Rand.

How is this not going against Ayn Rand's observation?

She observed that the nature of living things is such that it serves the goal of maintaining the organism's life. So if such a big part of the organism is not here to serve its life, it cannot be said that life is the ultimate value for living things.

Are you having difficulty in accepting that a function such as reproduction is not a direct benefit to the specific animal involved (leaving aside the satisfaction received)?

Yes, but I would phrase it differently: I am having difficulty accepting that a function such as reproduction does not serve the organism's own survival. (I actually don't think this is something to accept. I think reproduction does benefit an animal's survival, that it is means to an end, that end being survival.)

Brian: The fact that animals have a brain does not mean that their brain has a goal either. But when you observe the function of a brain, what it achieves, you can see that there is some ultimate end that it serves. Same goes for reproduction. To me it is obvious that it is not a coincidental phenomenon.

Ray: I think genes are part of the method that makes life happen, but when you look at actual animals and plants, their bodily functions and actions serve their survival (and reproduction), not the existence of a gene. Good genes create survival, which keeps in existence good genes, but still I think life is the essential phenomenon here, not genes. Genes are the method, not the "goal" (or ultimate end).

[bborg 0]

After thinking about this some more, I think you have the key to the answer here.

However, the problem is that I cannot prove that reproductiveness serves the survival of every organism and not that the life of an organism serves the goal of reproductiveness (continuation of the specie). To rephrase the two options more simply: Is an animal alive to give birth to the next generation, or is its reproductive aspect serve its life?

It's funny because I realized after reading your post that I was annoyed at your question. I had to ask myself whether I was annoyed because there was something wrong with the question, or because I couldn't think of a good answer to it.

There is at least one good reason for an animal to reproduce, and that is to make it safer from predators. Many species travel in packs, which lowers the chance that any one of them will be killed. Also, reproduction gives the parent help in the hunt for food.

As far as the issue of evolution I think Dr. Binswanger had something to say about that, but I'll have to search later to remember what it was. I know it was his argument that the goal of evolution is to benefit the individual organism, not to perpetuate the species. Obviously reproduction does not provide this benefit to the one doing the reproducing, but I don't really see why this is such a problem. It is still an ability that serves the organism, even retroactively.

[B. Royce 0]

I don't see how reproduction can be a value to offspring. That is, the sexual act cannot benefit the offspring which do not yet exist. Milk may be of value to a baby; the sexual act of me and a woman, which may or may not result in a baby, does not benefit anyone but her and me.

[bborg 0]

I don't see how reproduction can be a value to offspring. That is, the sexual act cannot benefit the offspring which do not yet exist. Milk may be of value to a baby; the sexual act of me and a woman, which may or may not result in a baby, does not benefit anyone but her and me.

Well, there is the fact that without reproduction the offspring wouldn't ever exist. Do you need a benefit besides that?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Not every feature or faculty of an animal is there to enhance it's life at every particular time. [...] By 'addition', I mean not directly involved in it's immediate survival. This reproduction has no "Intended" purpose, it just is the result of evolution.

I agree.

However, I know of no rule that this goes against, including your quote from Ayn Rand. Are you having difficulty in accepting that a function such as reproduction is not a direct benefit to the specific animal involved (leaving aside the satisfaction received)?

Thst's quite a "leaving aside." Most animals have inherited physical apparatus that makes reproductive activity extremely pleasurable and pleasure is the main motivation for engaging in life-sustaining activities.