logical fallacies in the virtue of selfishness?

[audiognostic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHqEPN-J_d0

The entire foundation here starts with the assumption that an organisms ONLY purpose to action is to sustain his own life, and that everything which goes for that is the good, and anything which goes against it is evil.. and the entire basis of ethics and guidance for how one should live his life and epistimology and all else revolves arond the concept that what one should do is determined by whether or not one sustains his own life with it.. and that all else .. or things "without a such a purpose" is an epistimilogical impossibility.. as I understand Rand says it...

the question is WHO SAID that is the value which all standards of action lay upon???

so what about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ1UgDg5OU

so is that all evil and irrational as it does not directly work to promote life-affirming values? Is it wrong to make those actions part of our lives?

It seems to me things are only right or wrong, or only good or evil by the STANDARD of value by which we judge them..

and that only brings us back to subjectivism..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pope,

You keep repeating the same quotes and videos.

That's a sure-fire way to turn off engagement.

Give people time to read them or view them and trust them to use their own minds.

Michael

[audiognostic]

ok.. I guess I just keep doing that because I believe I have come to a foundational question which im trying to get people to thoroughly understand that which I am asking..

But you are right.. I will lay off and give it some time.. I think I already clarified my points sufficiently

[Matt Faherty]

"the question is WHO SAID that is the value which all standards of action lay upon???"

It is a metaphysical fact. By nature, human beings are concious entities with free will who take action. When a man acts, he is implicitly or explictly seeking to attain value, ie. the goal of his action. A man cannot litterally NOT take action or NOT value anything. He is metaphysically bound to pursue value. The question then becomes, "what values should men pursue?"

Life is the fundamental value because it is the value which enables the existence of all other values. Non-living entities do not have and cannot pursue values. This is because, by definition, value requires a valuer.

Thus the fundamental choice comes down to "existence or non-existence." Should I choose to continue living or should I cease to live? As alredy stated, there is no value in death, there is only value in life. Therefore, the question can accurately be rephrased as "should I value (live) or should I not value (not live)." Logically, to "value nonvalue" is a contradiction. Thus the objectively correct choice is to pursue life. This is the basis of objectivist ethics.

[Dglgmut]

Very concise, Matt.

There can be rare instances when life does not carry any (apparent) potential for value... in this case it is clear that the real question is, "To value, or not to value?"

After choosing to value comes the problem of identifying values... then how to pursue them... and that's pretty much it, isn't it?