Ethics

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Objectivist In your opinion Morality Games, why does man need ethics in the first place?

Psychologically, individual beings will evaluate the worth of objective features of reality on basis of how well such things work for them. These valuations become our 'values'. Since it is a norm for human beings to be born and raised in communities, we typically find ourselves evaluating our relations with others, which are beneficial and which are not, and harmonizing our views of these with that of others effectively enough to allow productive relationships to continue (or end). 'Ethics' is basically a practical discipline for doing just this -- if everyone accepts the same general standards of conduct and follows through with them, then desired outcomes will (possibly, most of the time, enough of the time to be worth it, etc) be more readily accessible to all persons involved.

Your justification doesn't mention an actor, however, just an action, so I'll focus on that. Whose reasoning supports this action in being consistent with promoting a positive feeling in general?

There is a complicated play involved here. The reasoning would be undertaken by a theoretical being who adheres to the highest scientific standards of judgment imaginable. In absence of such a being, individuals and communities are left to decide for themselves, and even disagree with each other if they want -- however, they should at least humor the notion of such a being's opinion in their reasoning, or else their reasoning does not deserve to be called fully sound. I'm not looking for ultimate metaphysical validation. Just usefulness. Hence, disagreements and occasional contradictions are acceptable.

Bear in mind my ethical theory intends to give people a useful tool (idea) to work with in maintaining good relations with others while still pursuing their own wants. This is based on the observation that maintaining good relations with others is usually going to be one of those wants and that it is easily conflicts with what other people want. As long as it fulfills this function, I consider its existence worthwhile.

As an added note, your justification sounds Utilitarian to me. There is no problem with that, Utilitarianism is pretty solid as far as I am concerned.

Quite similar to Utilitarianism, but with a difference. Utilitarianism is entirely consequence-based, while my ethics, though consequence-driven, are reason-based. In Utilitarianism, a person is moral if-and-only-if they produce a favorable outcome and if it is the best outcome possible.

Aside from condemning people who achieved the second or less best outcome as non-moral beings, it also makes moral conduct unknowable because it is far too uncertain if an outcome, though seemingly positive, will produce favorable consequences in the longterm. In my pragmatic ethics, a person deserves the apellation 'moral' if they acted with reference to what appeared, on basis of sound reasoning (or analysis as close to it as possible depending on time constraints, like during a disaster), to be the best option available at the time.

Thus, in my pragmatic ethics, a person who disabled a nuclear bomb in the middle of New York City deserves to be called 'moral', whereas in Utilitarianism, this person would be 'evil' if some psychopath who ultimately will destroy the world was born in New York and the only thing which could have stopped him was that bomb blowing up.

Utilitarianism focuses too closely on actuality when deciding if a being deserves to be called moral, while pragmatism (at least my kind) is more concerned with what appears to be actual and what agents should be expected to think is actual given the situation (aka, sound reasoning ... ideas of what would produce could positive outcomes in general on basis of the best analysis humanly possible at the time qualify as 'good reasons')

We are talking about Standard Utilitarianism, however. Different kinds of Utilitarianism are more compatible.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Morality Games There are many different approaches to moral matters in both religion and philosophy. My personal approach is a commonsensical / realist / pragmatist's view; you can single out ethical propositions and determine which ones are senseless and which ones are reasonable, but you cannot manufacture theoretical approaches which algorithmically detect and extract undesirable features while inserting desirable features in the concepts of bad or good conduct. Human psychology / society is too irreducibly complex / variant for that, and there is nothing in natural science which suggests the world or a God is going to provide the appropriate mandate. This is why I reject any of the popular approaches to ethics in philosophy (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, etc) and the absolutism of religion (usually some kind of virtue ethics). Moreover, I feel systems like Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism are flawed, because each incorporates some facts of humanity or the world, but then starts incorporating fallacies or has only partially complete views of the facts.

So, what makes you think that your "personal approach is a commonsensical / realist / pragmatist's view"?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: chancellor So, what makes you think that your "personal approach is a commonsensical / realist / pragmatist's view"?

I'm taking your side on this, yet also taking morality game's (and you know how that drives me crazy).
There is such a variety of morality and approaches to life, etc that there isn't a language on the face of the earth that can perfectly describe each one in a few words. X to you is Y to someone else.

Since were doing this, my sense of Ethics are broad and complicated (and I'm sure they conflict at certain points making me a hypocrite). However the major part of my Ethics is focused on the golden rule. Do to others what you want them to do to you. The eternal sympathy.

Quote by: Objectivist In your opinion Morality Games, why does man need ethics in the first place?

Well, I'm not Morality Games, but I'll bite.
Cause man needs each other to survive. So they need to find a method of symbiosis that works. Ethics is the symbiosis.

[Morality Games]

So, what makes you think that your "personal approach is a commonsensical / realist / pragmatist's view"?

It is pragmatic because it proposes that sound reasoning with an aim to contributing positively to experience is the characteristic which should be considered the defining attribute of moral activity. This is realistic because it avoids the metaphysical backgrounds and logical pitfalls relied upon by other theories while giving people something useful to work toward. Hence, an analytical mind can hone in on specific moral propositions and determine which ones (as valuations) are likely to contribute positively to the experience of beings in general on basis of the available information. Or simply put:

1. Moral activity depends on sound reasoning.

2. Reasoning is sound (as opposed to fallacious) if it appears very likely to have pay out (positive outcomes).

3. Something can only be said to appear 'very likely' in an objective sense if it is put through a rigorous process of experience-centered verification.

4. Since a rigorous process of verification is not always possible, like in situations where time is short or resources are limited, the next best degree of analysis can be substituted in its place. In this case, the activity still counts as a moral even if the verification process was not rigorous.



In retrospect, commonsensical was a poor choice of word. I think it is, but I would have to go on a tangent concerning common sense to demonstrate it.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games Psychologically, individual beings will evaluate the worth of objective features of reality on basis of how well such things work for them. These valuations become our 'values'...

I'm not asking how we evaluate or the products of evaluations (our values)... I'm asking why we need to evaluate something in the first place.

Here's my answer (and the essentials of my view on ethics):

A man needs an ethical code because his survival requires it. A man must act to gain/keep a value in order to survive. The highest value is one's own life and one must act to keep it, in other words, man eats food, drinks water, finds medical care, etc. because he wants to stay alive. Man must pursue some sort of value in order to stay alive.

How does man discover what values are proper for his survival? How does man define what values further his life? The science that deals with those questions is ethics.

Since man requires a code of ethics, or a code of values to survive he evaluates a particular action with his life as the standard of value. It is improper for a man to pursue a value that harms his life; it is only proper for a man to pursue a value that furthers his life.

Now, I also hold the view of objective morality. Why? Because I hold that values are objective.

Values are objective because the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man. In other words, anything that is good for man can be validated by a fact of reality. For example:

1. Fact: In order to survive a man needs food.
2. A man evaluates this fact by using his life as the standard of value.
3. Man realizes that eating food is good.

Of course, this isn't an issue that has a morally complex issue, but that is the essential view I have on ethics.

[Morality Games]

I'm not asking how we evaluate or the products of evaluations (our values)... I'm asking why we need to evaluate something in the first place.

Here's my answer (and the essentials of my view on ethics):

A man needs an ethical code because his survival requires it.

That's a common consideration and outcome, but valuation is not limited to personal survival.

A man must act to gain/keep a value in order to survive.

Definitely.

The highest value is one's own life and one must act to keep it, in other words, man eats food, drinks water, finds medical care, etc. because he wants to stay alive. Man must pursue some sort of value in order to stay alive.

The highest value is whatever each individual decides it is, although the kind of value they will have depends on the constitution of their nature and the world around them, meaning only a finite (though very large) number of values are possible for any being to adopt.

Anyway, it's possible my brother's life is more valuable to me than my own. If I derive my joy from that, then power to me, it is a perfectly authentic expression of my existence. I don't condemn those people who think their lives are more valuable than their brother's though. More power to them. Both my reasoning and theirs are based on sound logic.

How does man discover what values are proper for his survival? How does man define what values further his life? The science that deals with those questions is ethics.

Ethics should not be considered a science. It falls short of the criteria (does not fulfill the logical conditions in the same way physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology do). It is a practical discipline, like engineering, which while giving nod to scientific research, is not science itself.

Put simply, the logical form of ethics does not fall coincide with the abstract logical form we designate as 'science' in the same way the study we call 'chemistry' does. Calling ethics a 'science' is a nominal gesture (nothing but empty words).

Since man requires a code of ethics, or a code of values to survive he evaluates a particular action with his life as the standard of value.

Sounds religious enough to be a dogma. A man does not require any kind of code (most people don't have codes) even to survive. They also don't really require values any more or less than they require sight -- they simply have it because that was how things turned out, and they make use of it because it is an immediate part of what they are.

A value is a necessary consequence of being an evaluator (ability intrinistic to humans), in the same way sight is a necessary consequence of functional eyes (an ability intrinistic to functional eyes). However, there is no quality intrinistic to all evaluators which nessitates they must value their life (survival, as you put it) above all else.

It is improper for a man to pursue a value that harms his life; it is only proper for a man to pursue a value that furthers his life.

And who is the judge that decides that is the case? From whence comes the authority to judge for everyone what shall be right and wrong? Why does their greater than mine? I should value my life more than a loved one because they say so?

Now, I also hold the view of objective morality. Why? Because I hold that values are objective.

Everything is 'objective' in the sense it exists in-itself, with its own actual features, abilities, and potentiality to change (in effect, all of its own powers).

Values are objective because the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man. In other words, anything that is good for man can be validated by a fact of reality. For example:

Pretty much point for point, 'In relation to man' is synonymous with 'subjective determination'. It is only objective in so far as it is a subjective (personal) determination.

1. Fact: In order to survive a man needs food. 2. A man evaluates this fact by using his life as the standard of value. 3. Man realizes that eating food is good.

Until Man realizes that, because he was sating his hunger, he was late to meet his wife, and consequently she was raped and murdered by some other guy. So, from there on out, food tastes bitter to him. I'm not saying that eventually he shouldn't get over it, but the valuables of his existence can certainly transcend his own life.

Of course, this isn't an issue that has a morally complex issue, but that is the essential view I have on ethics.

Well, I'll wait to see your next explanation before casting judgment then.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Morality Games I'm not asking how we evaluate or the products of evaluations (our values)... I'm asking why we need to evaluate something in the first place. Here's my answer (and the essentials of my view on ethics): That's a common consideration and outcome, but valuation is not limited to personal survival. Definitely. The highest value is whatever each individual decides it is, although the kind of value they will have depends on the constitution of their nature and the world around them, meaning only a finite (though very large) number of values are possible for any being to adopt. Anyway, it's possible my brother's life is more valuable to me than my own. If I derive my joy from that, then power to me, it is a perfectly authentic expression of my existence. I don't condemn those people who think their lives are more valuable than their brother's though. More power to them. Both my reasoning and theirs are based on sound logic. Ethics should not be considered a science. It falls short of the criteria (does not fulfill the logical conditions in the same way physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology do). It is a practical discipline, like engineering, which while giving nod to scientific research, is not science itself. Put simply, the logical form of ethics does not fall coincide with the abstract logical form we designate as 'science' in the same way the study we call 'chemistry' does. Calling ethics a 'science' is a nominal gesture (nothing but empty words). Sounds religious enough to be a dogma. A man does not require any kind of code (most people don't have codes) even to survive. They also don't really require values any more or less than they require sight -- they simply have it because that was how things turned out, and they make use of it because it is an immediate part of what they are. A value is a necessary consequence of being an evaluator (ability intrinistic to humans), in the same way sight is a necessary consequence of functional eyes (an ability intrinistic to functional eyes). However, there is no quality intrinistic to all evaluators which nessitates they must value their life (survival, as you put it) above all else. And who is the judge that decides that is the case? From whence comes the authority to judge for everyone what shall be right and wrong? Why does their greater than mine? I should value my life more than a loved one because they say so? Everything is 'objective' in the sense it exists in-itself, with its own actual features, abilities, and potentiality to change (in effect, all of its own powers). Pretty much point for point, 'In relation to man' is synonymous with 'subjective determination'. It is only objective in so far as it is a subjective (personal) determination. Until Man realizes that, because he was sating his hunger, he was late to meet his wife, and consequently she was raped and murdered by some other guy. So, from there on out, food tastes bitter to him. I'm not saying that eventually he shouldn't get over it, but the valuables of his existence can certainly transcend his own life. Well, I'll wait to see your next explanation before casting judgment then.

You are much closer to Nirvana than I am. This is not terribly on point, but I respect the respect you show. Good for you, shame on me. You have a chance of winning hearts and minds while I satisfy my urge to ridicule. Maybe we each have our place, but I believe I need more of the calm, patients you evidence.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games The highest value is whatever each individual decides it is, although the kind of value they will have depends on the constitution of their nature and the world around them, meaning only a finite (though very large) number of values are possible for any being to adopt. Anyway, it's possible my brother's life is more valuable to me than my own. If I derive my joy from that, then power to me, it is a perfectly authentic expression of my existence. I don't condemn those people who think their lives are more valuable than their brother's though. More power to them. Both my reasoning and theirs are based on sound logic.

I should have maybe changed terminology to "ultimate" value. The reason why I consider one's life to be the ultimate value is because life is a prerequisite of evaluation.

Ethics should not be considered a science. It falls short of the criteria (does not fulfill the logical conditions in the same way physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology do). It is a practical discipline, like engineering, which while giving nod to scientific research, is not science itself.

If a 'science' is considered to be a branch of knowledge dealing with facts and truths systematically arranged and presenting general principles... then I think "ethics" could be considered a science.

I think that ethics should be approached in a rational and logical manner and that any ethical code should be based on facts and reality—not the subjective whims of any person.

A man does not require any kind of code (most people don't have codes) even to survive.

Even if a person does not explicitly define a set code of values, a man must still discover and define the values he acts to gain or keep which will determine his entire outlook on life. Implicitly he will develop a crude ethical code.

A value is a necessary consequence of being an evaluator (ability intrinistic to humans), in the same way sight is a necessary consequence of functional eyes (an ability intrinistic to functional eyes). However, there is no quality intrinistic to all evaluators which nessitates they must value their life (survival, as you put it) above all else.

The fact that their lives are a prerequisite to any value they may hold, requires that their life be the ultimate value from which any other value is compared to. Without their life, no further evaluation, no further survival is possible.

And who is the judge that decides that is the case? From whence comes the authority to judge for everyone what shall be right and wrong? Why does their greater than mine?

Since life is a prerequisite of any evaluation and value, life is the standard of value from which you evaluate any action and define any further values. Since we are judging a value from the standard of life, anything which furthers life is good... anything that harms life is bad.

Pretty much point for point, 'In relation to man' is synonymous with 'subjective determination'. It is only objective in so far as it is a subjective (personal) determination.

Proper values are not subjective. The good does not exist somewhere within man's mind, independent of reality. The good is an aspect of reality.

Recalling past debates with you however... I don't exactly remember if you agreed that reality was objective. Do you? If you deny that reality is objective (or that our perception of it is objective) then it makes consistent sense that you believe that the good is subjective to every man.

[lsbskins1]

Subjectivity can effect objective reality. The two must be considered in congruence. If I am a paranoid schizophrenic and subjectively believe that Bush is trying to control my actions by putting electronic devices in my apple pie, my subjective reality effects the objective reality of the agents charged with protecting Bush, Bush if I attack him and the populace of the US by effecting the life and actions of their elected leader. One can not remove subjective effect from objective reality. What is in any given moment is, but what is imagined can effect what is in any given moment. There is, therefore, no such thing as an objective reality that is independent of subjective "reality".

[Morality Games]

I should have maybe changed terminology to "ultimate" value. The reason why I consider one's life to be the ultimate value is because life is a prerequisite of evaluation.

So "being precedes morality" or "an entity's existence must come before their estimations of right and wrong." An idea implicit to many philosophies, it helps clear up certain misunderstandings about the discipline. However, just because something comes before something else and is necessary for that 'something else' to exist does not confer more worth upon it.

After all, cavemen necessarily came before and were instrumental to the eventual coming into being of modern man, but that does not elevate them to a higher position than us. At least, not in any objective sense -- you can scan the whole universe up and down and not find any authority, in a god or in so-called human nature, which validates such a view. There is only ... you and what you allow to pass for validation.

If a 'science' is considered to be a branch of knowledge dealing with facts and truths systematically arranged and presenting general principles... then I think "ethics" could be considered a science.

You just described every study in known existence. Do you think each study conceives itself to deal with fallacies and lies, asystematically arranging and presenting them as abstract principles? What sets science apart is the scientific method, a particular kind of empirical reasoning not employed by every other study.

Neither ethics or engineering make standard use of the scientific method -- however, they rely on findings in science to help them along their own path, engineering from physics and chemistry and ethics from psychology and sociology, etc.

You can't really treat ethics like a science because it usually crosses a line established by some rule or law -- aka, it would run the risk of harming subjects, since benefit and harm are the dual subjects of ethics. Ethicists can't experiment (like scientists), they can only conjecture on basis of what sounds realistic.

I think that ethics should be approached in a rational and logical manner and that any ethical code should be based on facts and reality—not the subjective whims of any person

Well, we agree there. There is a high potentiality for whims to harm us. But everything must be subjective.

The fact that their lives are a prerequisite to any value they may hold, requires that their life be the ultimate value from which any other value is compared to. Without their life, no further evaluation, no further survival is possible.

It does not require anything like that. Otherwise it would invariably turn out that way, like gravity or the laws of motion.

Moreover, while it is a fact there is a chance a man who has lost everything he cared about, everything in the world, might grow to love life anew if he decides not to kill himself -- on the other hand, it is also a fact that there is a chance nothing but misery awaits him. I would contend it is best for the man to run through the options in his head on basis of all the information he can acquire before making any rash decisions (because that's always helped me get what I want and I have good reason to think the same holds true of other people), but there is certainly nothing absolutely necessary about it in his nature or in the world around him, nor is one fact more weighty than the other, since it is his existence to do with what he wants.

Since life is a prerequisite of any evaluation and value, life is the standard of value from which you evaluate any action and define any further values. Since we are judging a value from the standard of life, anything which furthers life is good... anything that harms life is bad.

I think I have been over this prerequisite thing enough, but here is a quote of mine which sums up some of the background of my thoughts on the subject.

Everything so long as it exists must express itself in some way consistant with its nature. Claiming that you ought not do something because it runs contrary to human nature is nonsense, not just because it is too vague to function as a valid objection, but also because it is already physically impossible for an entity of any type to contradict their nature. Nature is everything they are and can be on basis of they are and the world around them. So, everything from happiness to misery, selflessness to selfishness, living and dying, salvation and genocide, and all other possible activities are equally expressions of our nature.

No being can contradict their nature; specific utterances or actions, yes, but their being as a whole. Nature is simply 'everything as it is' or 'actuality'.

The good does not exist somewhere within man's mind, independent of reality. The good is an aspect of reality.

Uh ... well, fiction is an aspect of reality too. The good is not, however, an intrinstic property of objectives (objects). It is a circumstantial application of the mind -- considering the objective 'food' good is no different than intending the word 'sex' to mean an activity undertaken for procreation or pleasure. It is all convention.

Recalling past debates with you however... I don't exactly remember if you agreed that reality was objective. Do you? If you deny that reality is objective (or that our perception of it is objective) then it makes consistent sense that you believe that the good is subjective to every man.

Irregardless of what Ayn Rand says, the number of people who have held there is no reality in-itself, a nature just as real as the individual observor, with its own powers, borders on absolute zero -- almost none.

What I don't think is that the mind functions as nature's mirror. If I did, we would, even as we see our computers in front of us, perceive a bunch of whizzing atoms. We would see past, present, and future all at the same time. Our consciosness would expand to fill every corner of existence -- if there are other universes, we would perceive every universe at once.

Moreover, we would know every thought, emotion, feeling, memory, etc at the exact same time and be able to put them all in perspective -- we would comprehend every image (I mean this in the philosophy of mind's sense) possible in all of nature and instaneously realize which ones are true, which ones are false, and in what degrees and why.

Also, we would not think primarily in terms of senses (which are crude and rather indirect means of acquiring information about reality) but, even while perceiving reality in terms of senses, would think more like super computers at the same time (so, even if we saw in colors and heard in sounds, this would be a secondary and not a dominant mode of thought -- we would think much more in terms of data if we wanted an accurate reflection of nature, as opposed to a physiological response on basis of features our species have gotten used to during evolution).

But this god-like condition is obviously denied to human beings on account of our nature. Hence, the mind is not nature's mirror. It is nature's funny mirror, distorting images on such human terms that they can hardly be called accurate pictures of reality. Scientific reasoning can refine the pictures somewhat, but the authenticity of such pictures can always be put into question (hence, all knowledge is tinged with uncertainty ... aka, is fallibilistic).

[Got-Logic]

Sounds religious enough to be a dogma. A man does not require any kind of code (most people don't have codes) even to survive. They also don't really require values any more or less than they require sight -- they simply have it because that was how things turned out, and they make use of it because it is an immediate part of what they are.

Humans cannot avoid having a code of ethics anymore than they can avoid having a philosophy. If you were to say someone does not require any code of ethics, that in fact would be a code. Unfortunately, many people do attempt to live without a defined, conscious code of ethics. The results are all around us. If you want to live, if you care to feel joy and happiness, you will not achieve it by living your life as a floating abstraction - unaware of what is right and wrong, good or evil.

You say that people do not require values anymore than they do not require sight. Ultimately, you are saying people do not require their life. Is your sight of value to you? What is the value of living? The moral purpose of anyone's life as defined by Ayn Rand is happiness. Through a rational code of values people are able to enhance their lives. Even when you wrote that you might value someone else more than you value yourself. What do you actually mean? How can you avoid saying "I" when you say "I love you." If for some reason you were to say "I could not bear to live without this person in my life." You could not avoid saying "I." You could not avoid saying of value to "me."

[Morality Games]

[quote=Got-Logic;489602]

Humans cannot avoid having a code of ethics anymore than they can avoid having a philosophy.

You are distorting the conventional meanings of the terms code and philosophy if you think everyone has both of them. Conventionally, the term 'code' must be systematic, and people in general are not rigorous enough in thought or feeling to develop any as systematic as a code -- they simply develop habits (they are mostly unaware of -- aka, people do deeds, but they are too automatic in the doing to think much about the deed).

Most people don't have a philosophy on life either, that is, a consistant style of thinking about practical and existential dilemmas with a hope of making the world more comprehensible. The most common solution used by Joe Everyman is just to accept reality as it is presented (ready-made opinions, ready-made values, etc) and to ignore details that would require comprehensive analysis.

If you were to say someone does not require any code of ethics, that in fact would be a code.

No, the term 'require' is rooted in logic -- in philosophical conversations, it amounts to "it must" -- since I know people employ notions (vague impressions) when considering what's what, I know they lack something as concrete as a code. If humans had codes and followed through with them, then their behavior would be more orderly and less flaky.

Unfortunately, many people do attempt to live without a defined, conscious code of ethics. The results are all around us. If you want to live, if you care to feel joy and happiness, you will not achieve it by living your life as a floating abstraction - unaware of what is right and wrong, good or evil.

I think you have an unrealistic view of human psychology. Like all dogmas, a key stipulation of your ideology is that real happiness is not possible unless they leap over to your conception of right and wrong. 'Happiness' as an emotion is a response to a perceived success. Emotions depend on directly on appearances, and only indirectly on actualities.

If happiness were really the only drive there could be life, then why aren't we all choking down pills meant to produce a state of euphoria (such pills exist)? Would you give up a lifetime full of experiences about 50/50 happiness-sadness to hook yourself up to a machine that allowed you to feel happy one-hundred percent of the time?

You say that people do not require values anymore than they do not require sight.

I never said anything remotely like that. What I said was values are to human beings as seeing is to functional eyes. They just are. I don't see the point in inserting the word 'require' (as in must be) when something just is. It's basically like saying books are books because they are books and my book is still a book at 9:00 in the morning.

Ultimately, you are saying people do not require their life. Is your sight of value to you? What is the value of living?

Whatever a person thinks is fine and good -- aka, what they find worth their time.

The moral purpose of anyone's life as defined by Ayn Rand is happiness.

... most thinkers (philosophers, writers, artists, theologians) have maintained happiness is instrumental to existing in the world. I don't see why Rand deserves special attention for essentially copying Aristotle's views on eudemonia (individual well being, human flourishing).

Through a rational code of values people are able to enhance their lives.

Well, 'reason' can certainly help people get perspective on complex situations and thereby find the route most advantageous to them, but there are no authorities higher than themselves which decide they have to do that and it is certainly untrue they can't be happy if they don't.

Even when you wrote that you might value someone else more than you value yourself. What do you actually mean? How can you avoid saying "I" when you say "I love you." If for some reason you were to say "I could not bear to live without this person in my life." You could not avoid saying "I." You could not avoid saying of value to "me."

Are you paying attention and do you even have an argument? Take a look at the posts again. Specifically, the argument was about whether or not I have to value my life more than someone else's. Aka, I have to find my continued existence in this world more valuable than that of my children, my brother, my wife, etc. That is conventionally what the word 'life' refers to -- "ongoing existence within the world." Add the word 'my' to it and it becomes, "my ongoing existence within the world." So, I need to value my ongoing existence within the world more than that of any other person. I, effect, you claim it is logically necessary if I want to be a moral being.

... why should that be the case when it clearly isn't and doesn't need to be? If a person derives sufficient joy from living for others (possible to do, believe it or not) and inflicts no irrepable harm on themselves or the people around them in the process, then who am I to say they shouldn't?

[Objectivist]

Morality Games:

Here is the reason why one's life is the standard of value and the 'ultimate' value of a person.

The term 'value' presupposes the answer to the question: Value to whom and for what? "It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."

"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."

"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.' "

[Quotations from Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness]

[Morality Games]

Here is the reason why one's life is the standard of value and the 'ultimate' value of a person.

"grabs popcorn" Yay! Today I learn the meaning of life.

The term 'value' presupposes the answer to the question: Value to whom and for what? "It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."

So, individuals produce or adopt values to suit their desires, which as you phrase it amounts to accomplishing something nice and avoiding something unpleasant as a result.

"Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means:

Living organisms are not computers waiting for Objectivism (or any other particular style of thinking) to program the appropriate algorithms so that they can function in real life. They are animals with egos, instincts, appetities, and in humanity's particular case, intellects.

They typically don't have ultimate goals or ends in mind (most likely not even in the nonconscious -- any information there doesn't seem to be concrete enough for that). They have immediate goals and ends in mind. They work toward these as effectively as can be done under the constraints of habit and other obstacles.

"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.

So Ayn Rand noticed people can do just about anything with fallacious logic and language. Okay. But they generally don't need an ultimate goal or end to keep things down to a limit (aka, avoid the nonexistent end). Saying they need one to avoid infinite progression toward nothingness is itself fallacious.

This because they have their nature. The fact they are a finite being with limited means and immediate desires will motivate them to keep their imaginings, for the most part, down to a useful few. How they use their power (including evaluating) is inseperably tied to what they are. The 'idea of ideas' championed by Rand and others, whatever its guise, is not necessary at all for a meaningful life.

Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action.

"pounds head" There is no such thing as an end in-itself, not life or anything else. Life is something beings feel to be desirable so they typically work to keep it. On the other hand, a man who just lost his entirely family in a car accident might suddenly find himself reasoning along a different standard.

''End' and 'in-itself' are human ideas -- the first refers to the image that the limit of an objective is about to be reached and 'in-itself' refers to the idea that an objective has its own features independent of my perceptions and is real because of them.

Ayn Rand felt as though her life was valuable because it allowed her to do things she liked to do. Okay. Almost everyone feels that way. But there is nothing objective about it -- it is a subjective determination. The man who commits suicide because he lost his family isn't straying from the facts or breaking some metaphysical law. He has considered the facts and made a judgment call based on them, no different than my decision to stay alive because I still have something worth existing for (or yours).

'It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible.' "

I agree that you need to be alive to have values, but to act as though that magically makes it a metaphysical authority which supercedes human want is senseless. Even a logical suicidal man can acknowledge, "It is because I am alive I am able to value my death and the probability it will release me from my suffering." As he thinks this, at no point does the activity of life somehow appear more valuable than death, and there is nothing intrinistic to life which enforces such a value ... value is something given by humans. The suicidal man knows his desire and has made his value. Life here is not an end-itself, is just a means to an end (you must be alive to die, the man wants to die so he can escape his pain, so the man invests his life energies into acquiring the opposite of life, which is death).

[Got-Logic]

No, the term 'require' is rooted in logic -- in philosophical conversations, it amounts to "it must" -- since I know people employ notions (vague impressions) when considering what's what, I know they lack something as concrete as a code. If humans had codes and followed through with them, then their behavior would be more orderly and less flaky.

My point is that everyone must be able to judge what is good or bad for them in order to live. They cannot avoid this judgement. Reality, is what it is. If someone fails in regards to judgment, reality will not care.

Not everyone is successful at rationally integrating reason to support their ethical choices. You think that because people fail at reasoning that this renders reason and ethics impotent or non-existent? Most people do not use reason as the standard to support ethics. They do however, abide by a code of ethics non the less. Most religious people have accepted a code of morality by means of faith.

What does it mean to have a code in regard to ethics. This means to have a systematic and hierarchical method of thinking which one can and must apply in order to live. A person's life is the ultimate standard in this respect.

Let's take a non intellectual person which you think has no code of values if I understand you correctly. He is not religious? He is not non-religious. He does not want to use reason to identify why he should or should not act. What is left for such a person? Do you believe it is possible to exist without morality? Someone who lacks rational ethics, still has a code of values. A code of values does not have to be rationally developed to still be considered a code.