As If It Was Your Last

[Dglgmut]

"Live each day as if it was your last." We've all heard the saying.

What would you do if it were your last day alive? This is a very interesting ethical question because it agitates one's empathetic and selfish desires.

We are faced with two fundamental questions regarding the purpose of our lives: How do I want to affect otherness (reality--excluding myself)? How do I want to be affected?

Some people will want to do things like skydiving... to absorb as many experiences as they can. Some people will want to make a desperate effort to change the world, they may get on stage somewhere and cry, and let out all their feelings...

Empathetic desires may seem selfish, in a way, especially something like what dictators do... I've heard this sort of desire to leave one's mark on the world termed "legacy drive", and it is evolutionarily something that separates humans from other animals.

Empathy is a tool that can help us actualize our selfish desires, but it comes with its own emotional effect as it informs us that is not really our world at all.

The desire to affect reality is empathetic because it depends on the idea that you are not alone, unless of course you are affecting reality solely as a means of affecting your own experience.

But that's where the last day alive question comes in, because it takes away any incentive to affect reality for your own experience... Now you have the choice to experience anything you have access to, or affect the world the way you want to for those that will still be around...

Is morality as black and white as Rand claimed? What is a moral purpose when one has no option to act as a means of supporting one's life?

[Reidy]

I'd start smoking again.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Is morality as black and white as Rand claimed? What is a moral purpose when one has no option to act as a means of supporting one's life?

What do you mean by the first sentence? If there is morality, there is the good and there is the evil.

As to the second sentence, morality doesn't apply when one doesn't have a choice, or if one lacks the ability to choose.

[Dglgmut]

Well if you have one day left to live you cannot take pride in the moral activities that would typical contribute to one's selfish need for self-preservation.

But I also feel like self-preservation is the motive behind empathetic pursuits. Leaving your mark on the world is an attempt to affect reality, rather than yourself, but on a deeper level it is to give yourself a sense of permanence.

If morality is black and white, then empathy as an end in itself is evil. Empathy can be used for selfish reasons; self-awareness, for example. But when empathy creates the desire to affect the world in ways one will never benefit from oneself, it is in altruism territory. It's sacrificing one's sense of self (the line one draws between self and otherness), not for the sake of others, but as an attempt to extend that sense. It doesn't always work out the way we hope, though.

[Reidy]

We all face the fact of mortality - the fact that some day we won't be here to act on our values or to care about the outcome - every day. It doesn't suddenly arise on our last day. The closer we are to death, the better the chances that we won't see the outcomes of our actions. The further out in time we project our ambitions, the better the chances that we won't be around for the outcomes. If you take part in some medical or scientific enterprise you may not live to see it succeed. If you raise a family, you'll probably live to see your children reach adulthood and maybe your grandchildren do this, but probably no further.

Even in these cases, the ability to pursue our values and the knowledge that we have done so is itself important to us, and that is why we make the effort at any stage of life.

I think the problem you raise stems from an identification of life with physical survival. In extreme circumstances - you're at war for a cause you support, you're trying to rescue a loved one or you know you're going to die tomorrow - they can diverge. The life that Rand talks about is not just survival but a life in which we are free to act and gain, and this is possible to on our last day as on our first.

Finally, I have no idea what morality's being black and white or purple or transparent has to do with the question at hand.

[BaalChatzaf]

Live each day as though it were your last is sentiment against procrastination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[zantonavitch]

"Live each day as if it was your last." You'll probably be exhausted after a few days. It doesn't seem stategically wise. Still, that classic quote from Horace (65 BC - 8 BC) seems apt: “Sieze the day! Rejoice while you are alive; enjoy the day; live life to the fullest; make the most of what you have. It is later than you think.”

[Jonathan]

Hey Kyrel,

I just saw your name pop up after clicking the new content button, and after having seen your recent comment on SOLO:

"Scherk says Objectivism is: '1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction.' I'd love to hear what his reasons for these claims are. Mere assertions aren't persuasive. We need some sort of evidence or argumentation here."

I thought that you might like to know that Bill Scherk has been conveniently banned from SOLO for posting "in bad faith" (which really means that he has been effective at criticizing SOLOpsists opinions and behavior), so he won't be allowed to answer your questions there, but, fortunately, he's a member here at OL, so, if you wanted to, you could ask your questions of him here where Pigero can't interfere or prevent evidence and argumentation that he doesn't like.

Just a thought.

J

[william.scherk]

Thanks to Jonathan and Ninth for their concern. I am sure I can manage this banning, as I managed the previous three bannings.

I sent a note backstage to Kyrel. I am not certain that discussion of questions demanded at SOLO (but prevented from appearing at SOLO) should be continued at OL. I am of two minds, but could be convinced, I suppose. I somehow don't think that MSK would appreciate that kind of thing.

One point sticks out in my mind, though: I think Lindsay Perigo is wise not to proclaim his website as the most free and open Objectivish place on the internets.

Oddly, the discussion such as it is continues at SOLO. Here is the man of the month, Doug Bandler agreeing with me ...

Scherk's objections

Submitted by Doug Bandler on Tue, 2012-12-18 22:48.

"1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction."

I dislike Scherk intensely. But I think he is partially right here. I do think that Rand's views on emotions are partially wrong; not all human emotions are the product of freely chosen values. I also think she was wrong regarding language acquisition. Regarding correction, well her philosophy is what it is but future versions will correct her errors.

But none of this justifies Scherk's (and OLY's) nihilism. Further, I don't see that any of Rand's errors were fatal to the core of her philosophy. (Well, I do often wonder if the NIOF is as rock solid as Objectivistm makes it out to be but put that aside).

I think most philosophers in human history got far more wrong than they did right. Rand got far more right then she did wrong. That was an achievement in and of itself given how hard philosophy is.

Edited December 19, 2012 by william.scherk

[Dglgmut]

Finally, I have no idea what morality's being black and white or purple or transparent has to do with the question at hand.

Well, Rand's ethics did not revolve around the question of whether or not man should pursue his values, but also what values are proper to man. The options we are presented with on a daily basis are not black and white, but as Rand said, it is our job to untangle the black and the white that constitute the gray.

The reason I say this last day alive question makes morality seem even more complex is because it nullifies the Objectivist principles of which values are proper to man. Survival is the metaphysical foundation for Objectivist ethics...

Why not pursue any "whim" on our last day alive? Why save a loved one if the motivation does not stem from avoiding a life without them?

What the one day left question does is focuses on the purpose of our existence as a whole, rather than the purpose of specific actions. Rand could say an action should be motivated by the benefit it will have to oneself, but her answer to the question, "What benefits man?" revolved around mans necessities. Her answer to the spiritual needs of man were derived from his physical needs... A man benefits in spirit by proving to himself that he is independent, and by admiring the virtues of other's--also gained by dealing with their physical needs.

Morality is black and white as long as you have the option of sustaining your life. Once that option is taken away, you are faced with the question of what the purpose of that life was in the first place. And she did not answer that question well... Her answer to the purpose of life was, "To live and enjoy your life."

Now, if it is still black and white, then man should pursue any value he happens to have, because he is enjoying his life.

Making this argument would demand some serious intellectual honesty... If our moral purpose is to enjoy our life as much as possible, then with one day left to live, anything goes.

[syrakusos]

The fact is that each day is not your last. If you spend your last day saying good-bye, tying up loose ends, etc., what do you do when the new day dawns? You would never plan for the future, take on a long-term project, complete a complicated task, achieve anything requiring more than a day.

[zantonavitch]

William Scherk -- If you were really banned there, I don't agree with that. But I've been banned repeatedly at the Objectivist religious/cult sites like 4aynrandfans.com and objectivismonline.net, and repeatedly censored at solopassion.com, rebirthofreason.com, and objectivistliving.com. This invariably reflects the weakness and failure of the sites -- not of myself.

You say that Objectivism is 1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction. How so? Can you explain this or point me to a link for a previous discussion?

[zantonavitch]

Michael Marotta writes:

"The fact is that each day is not your last. If you spend your last day saying good-bye, tying up loose ends, etc., what do you do when the new day dawns? You would never plan for the future, take on a long-term project, complete a complicated task, achieve anything requiring more than a day."

This is basically right, but the general sentiment of "Live each day as if it was your last," still seems mostly true and helpful. One variant of this theme I've heard is: "Treat every person you meet as if you knew it was his last day on earth."

[Dglgmut]

It's not the sentiment of the statement that I am questioning, it is how the scenario of knowing you have only one last day to live affects one's morality.

I think an answer more consistent with Objectivism, to the question, "What is the purpose of life?" would be: Life has no purpose, only actions can have purposes.

So what reasoning motivates one's actions in this scenario? What does rational selfishness look like without the option of furthering one's life and development?

The only way to answer this that fits in with Objectivism, that I can think of, is to say it's a silly scenario because one can never know when one is going to die, and one always has the option to fight.

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael Marotta writes:

"The fact is that each day is not your last. If you spend your last day saying good-bye, tying up loose ends, etc., what do you do when the new day dawns? You would never plan for the future, take on a long-term project, complete a complicated task, achieve anything requiring more than a day."

This is basically right, but the general sentiment of "Live each day as if it was your last," still seems mostly true and helpful. One variant of this theme I've heard is: "Treat every person you meet as if you knew it was his last day on earth."

Or, as R. Hillel wrote: If not now, then when.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

It's not the sentiment of the statement that I am questioning, it is how the scenario of knowing you have only one last day to live affects one's morality.

As Rand would say, "All bets are off." If you have no options and you know that you are going to die, then morality does not apply to you. But that is facile, as even your last day has 24 hours, and you can maximize your life or not by choices you make. I have given this maxim some thought over the years. Basically, I would do nothing different from what I do already. Maybe I would spend more time alone, rather than at work Hard to say.

[Reidy]

The objections you outline in #10 seem to me to proceed from a misunderstanding of abstraction. Abstract principles, if they are sound, will hold differently in different cases ("contexts" would have been Rand's word) but will still be true. "You need to be loyal in practice to your values" works out in one way if you expect to die tomorrow and in another if you expect another fifty years. "You ought to dress to look your best" has applications for a heavy, red-headed male and that don't hold for a small, dark-complexioned woman. And so on with, e.g. "you ought to exercise" or "you ought to handle your money prudently" and indefinitely many others. The individual cases subsumed do not contradict each other, and Rand was not simplistic or inadequate to state the general principle; she was simply speaking at a higher level of abstraction than the one at which the particular differences come into play.

[Dglgmut]

"You need to be loyal in practice to your values"

That part applies to every situation, but what about a moral basis for choosing values?

[Dglgmut]

even your last day has 24 hours, and you can maximize your life or not by choices you make.

And what does "maximizing" one's life entail? Is that question outside the realm of ethics?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I've been ... repeatedly censored at ... objectivistliving.com. This invariably reflects the weakness and failure of the sites -- not of myself.

This is incorrect. The "repeatedly" is just whining and playing the victim.

Kyrel has a good mind, but I took ONE article he posted down for preaching. I don't remember the article, but I do remember my objection to the preaching. This was back when we used a front page that highlighted articles and his articles had been featured (more than once, if I remember correctly).

The fact is this is a discussion forum, not a place to preach dogma or doctrine. It is a private site with posting guidelines that is open to the public. And this is not his property or a government hangout. So the idea of censorship has no bearing.

Kyrel and I disagree over the psychology of hatred. I believe it is a bad emotion to cultivate as a component of happiness (and neuroscience is bearing me out). You deal with it when it surges, you do not cultivate it.

Kyrel believes one should feel glee--as an expression of hatred--when an enemy is killed or dismembered or suffers. There's a post around here somewhere with this in his own words, with emphasis on the glee.

I don't like preaching. My epistemological process is to use critical thinking to identify correctly, then evaluate. Then act. So I especially don't like preaching hatred. It shortcuts cognitive precision.

Still, I probably would not have taken his article down had it occurred as a post or thread. As a front page article, I simply didn't want the kind of people who are attracted to hatred to start showing up and mouthing off all the time. (Notice that when we get them, they don't stick around for long. Incidentally, this happens almost always without banning.)

The odd thing is that I don't believe Kyrel is that kind of person. He just provides dead rotting carcasses for the vultures to show up and dig in.

I do not apologize for my position. I do not have haters around me in my private life. Why should I want them on my forum? They stifle the discussion of everyone else. Hell, working through ideas is hard work to do it right. It's near impossible if someone is constantly yapping about how all the evils of life are due to THEM. So let us rejoice in the destruction of THEM.

Kyrel says my position is OL's "weakness and failure."

I'll let the reader decide whose it really is.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

I think hatred is a result of empathy, rather than selfishness. We hate when we compare someone else's feelings, actions, and experiences to our own. If it weren't for empathy we wouldn't have that imagined information to base our judgments.

Whether or not hatred is rational or not is another question. I guess you could argue that hatred has its benefits, or that it's completely useless.

Anyway, still anxious to hear responses to my last two posts.

[william.scherk]

William Scherk -- If you were really banned there, I don't agree with that. But I've been banned repeatedly at the Objectivist religious/cult sites like 4aynrandfans.com and objectivismonline.net, and repeatedly censored at solopassion.com, rebirthofreason.com, and objectivistliving.com. This invariably reflects the weakness and failure of the sites -- not of myself.

Yah, banning is neither here nor there. Michael our host here rarely bans. You are not banned here. I am banned at SOLO. I cannot answer whatever yap followed me there. I don't think Michael is going to picnic on our remains should we have a discussion.

You say that Objectivism is 1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction. How so? Can you explain this or point me to a link for a previous discussion?

Start here for one of my more recent yawpings on emotion, from the thread: "What is Consciousness." See also this comment from "The Limitations of Reason."

Try taking the Emotion Quiz!

And maybe let me know of your studies or interest in emotion, what you know (or think you know) about Emotions, and how you might justify the claim "Emotions are not tools of cognition."

Or not. I have been writing on this angle since my first Objectivish list post, which I might dig up for you.

We have had some real fun discussing emotion on OL over the years, including postings of those hairy little balloon-hobbits illustrating the Scientology Tone Scale ...

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to correctly identify those eight 'basic' emotions ...

[anthony]

I think hatred is a result of empathy, rather than selfishness. We hate when we compare someone else's feelings, actions, and experiences to our own. If it weren't for empathy we wouldn't have that imagined information to base our judgments.

Whether or not hatred is rational or not is another question. I guess you could argue that hatred has its benefits, or that it's completely useless.

Anyway, still anxious to hear responses to my last two posts.

Calvin, The distinction I must make is that hatred would certainly be the result of *forced* 'empathy'. Not of empathy alone.

Attack our selfish 'fellow-feeling' by entrenching it as a paramount duty, and you threaten one's personal volition - thereby displacing one's mind-independence, and so one's sense of self.

Empathy is intimate recognition of the humanity we share in common, imo.

As Paul Mowdsley took pains to explain, seeing things from the viewpoint of another person is a valuable tool to an understanding of people, and ultimately of one's own life. Therefore, it has a self-interested aspect. Then, where one acts for another (motivated by empathy) is entirely one's own choice at any given time.

There is an enormous gap between this and altruism.

Here, I must add that I take a broad view of altruism, one not only of living FOR others (giving to) - but through them, and by them, (taking from, and existing by others' licence and standards) too.

This psychological element of altruism is implicitly central to Rand's diverse writing I believe, as her physical one is explicitly so.

[anthony]

William, Whatever I've learned in Objectivism points to a total integration

of mind and emotion. It can't be said too often that when we separate and analyze (in order to identify) one or other part of man's abstractive being, we should stay aware of the necessity to re-assemble those "parts".

Consciousness is one, single package.

Self-evidently, emotion works in tandem with cognition. (Although one may lag behind the other).

An 'emotional judgment' is an instantaneous one - but always based upon what one has observed, induced and thought (yes, and felt) prior to it. No output, without input, simply.

Rand's "automatic guardian of the organism's life", the "pleasure-pain mechanism" has a two-fold utility, I think: as response to one's thoughts and action - and as a nudge toward thought and action. Emotions then are invaluable for alerting conscious judgment and self-assessment, though not the instruments of cognition per se.

Crudely, an emotion can tell us What? - cognition responds with Why? and How? - the way I see it.

[Dglgmut]

True or false: nothing matters in the end?

Do we represent our answer to this question with the actions we choose--or our lack of an answer?

Isn't this the question at the core of ethics?