New Thoughts of an Old Thinker

[l_chaim29]

I always had a somewhat hard time accepting what I envisioned the Objectivist ethics to be because of my stance on suicide and euthanasia. I have always believed that people have the right to take their own life or to be assisted in doing so, but even more fundamentally, that it is sometimes the moral thing to do. The way that I have seen the Objectivist ethics for a long time is that man's life as the standard of morality is the same thing as man's survivial being the standard of value. However, I have come to see that these things are different and lead to different results. If man's survival is the standard of value, for example, then any action that he takes which is against his survival is immoral ( and therefore suicide or asking for euthanasia are immoral). However, if man's life is the standard of value, then man may commit suicide in cases where he sees his values under attack if he hates seeing them under attack enough for it to make his life not worth living. For example, if man's life is your standard of value then seeing yourself be wasted away by some painful illness or watching good people die as the result of living in some horrible land ruled by a totalitarian government may be truly unnacceptable. Choosing to die under such circumstances may represent a stance that is for one's life, but not neccessarliy for one's survival. Just some thoughts that I have had lately that I thought might be able to help anybody else who was under the delusion that the Objectivist ethics represented any kind of survivalist system. ;) By the way, I'm not saying or implying by any of the above that any "survivalist Objectivists" actually believe that suicide or euthanasia are immoral; I'm just saying that it might lead to that conclusion and that there is an alternative to that stance which is Objectivist.

[BaalChatzaf]

I always had a somewhat hard time accepting what I envisioned the Objectivist ethics to be because of my stance on suicide and euthanasia. I have always believed that people have the right to take their own life or to be assisted in doing so, but even more fundamentally, that it is sometimes the moral thing to do. The way that I have seen the Objectivist ethics for a long time is that man's life as the standard of morality is the same thing as man's survivial being the standard of value. However, I have come to see that these things are different and lead to different results. If man's survival is the standard of value, for example, then any action that he takes which is against his survival is immoral ( and therefore suicide or asking for euthanasia are immoral). However, if man's life is the standard of value, then man may commit suicide in cases where he sees his values under attack if he hates seeing them under attack enough for it to make his life not worth living. For example, if man's life is your standard of value then seeing yourself be wasted away by some painful illness or watching good people die as the result of living in some horrible land ruled by a totalitarian government may be truly unnacceptable. Choosing to die under such circumstances may represent a stance that is for one's life, but not neccessarliy for one's survival. Just some thoughts that I have had lately that I thought might be able to help anybody else who was under the delusion that the Objectivist ethics represented any kind of survivalist system. ;) By the way, I'm not saying or implying by any of the above that any "survivalist Objectivists" actually believe that suicide or euthanasia are immoral; I'm just saying that it might lead to that conclusion and that there is an alternative to that stance which is Objectivist.

Suicide can be a mode of pain avoidance. When you get a tooth pulled you have the doctor give you a whiff of laughing gas or a local anesthetic. Or for more serious surgery you are made deeply unconscious (which is hardly distinguishable from death). If possible pain should be avoided. For some kinds of existential pain death or insanity may be the only effective anesthetic.

Every so often you hear about a soldier throwing himself on a hand grenade. I think that is more to save his buddies than to kill himself. If such a soldier thought it through he probably wouldn't do this "heroic" thing. But the situation is so sudden there is really no time for thought, so he acts on impulse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 10, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I always had a somewhat hard time accepting what I envisioned the Objectivist ethics to be because of my stance on suicide and euthanasia. I have always believed that people have the right to take their own life or to be assisted in doing so, but even more fundamentally, that it is sometimes the moral thing to do. The way that I have seen the Objectivist ethics for a long time is that man's life as the standard of morality is the same thing as man's survivial being the standard of value. However, I have come to see that these things are different and lead to different results. If man's survival is the standard of value, for example, then any action that he takes which is against his survival is immoral ( and therefore suicide or asking for euthanasia are immoral). However, if man's life is the standard of value, then man may commit suicide in cases where he sees his values under attack if he hates seeing them under attack enough for it to make his life not worth living. For example, if man's life is your standard of value then seeing yourself be wasted away by some painful illness or watching good people die as the result of living in some horrible land ruled by a totalitarian government may be truly unnacceptable. Choosing to die under such circumstances may represent a stance that is for one's life, but not neccessarliy for one's survival. Just some thoughts that I have had lately that I thought might be able to help anybody else who was under the delusion that the Objectivist ethics represented any kind of survivalist system. ;) By the way, I'm not saying or implying by any of the above that any "survivalist Objectivists" actually believe that suicide or euthanasia are immoral; I'm just saying that it might lead to that conclusion and that there is an alternative to that stance which is Objectivist.

Suicide can be a mode of pain avoidance. When you get a tooth pulled you have the doctor give you a whiff of laughing gas or a local anesthetic. Or for more serious surgery you are made deeply unconscious (which is hardly distinguishable from death). If possible pain should be avoided. For some kinds of existential pain death or insanity may be the only effective anesthetic.

Every so often you hear about a soldier throwing himself on a hand grenade. I think that is more to save his buddies than to kill himself. If such a soldier thought it through he probably wouldn't do this "heroic" thing. But the situation is so sudden there is really no time for thought, so he acts on impulse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I knew a kid in high school who threw himself on a grenade in 1967, earning the CMH.

--Brant

[UncleJim]

I always had a somewhat hard time accepting what I envisioned the Objectivist ethics to be because of my stance on suicide and euthanasia. I have always believed that people have the right to take their own life or to be assisted in doing so, but even more fundamentally, that it is sometimes the moral thing to do. The way that I have seen the Objectivist ethics for a long time is that man's life as the standard of morality is the same thing as man's survivial being the standard of value. However, I have come to see that these things are different and lead to different results. If man's survival is the standard of value, for example, then any action that he takes which is against his survival is immoral ( and therefore suicide or asking for euthanasia are immoral). However, if man's life is the standard of value, then man may commit suicide in cases where he sees his values under attack if he hates seeing them under attack enough for it to make his life not worth living. For example, if man's life is your standard of value then seeing yourself be wasted away by some painful illness or watching good people die as the result of living in some horrible land ruled by a totalitarian government may be truly unnacceptable. Choosing to die under such circumstances may represent a stance that is for one's life, but not neccessarliy for one's survival. Just some thoughts that I have had lately that I thought might be able to help anybody else who was under the delusion that the Objectivist ethics represented any kind of survivalist system. ;) By the way, I'm not saying or implying by any of the above that any "survivalist Objectivists" actually believe that suicide or euthanasia are immoral; I'm just saying that it might lead to that conclusion and that there is an alternative to that stance which is Objectivist.

Objectivist ethics is the recognition that ones life is ones standard of value. This is saying that one uses it to determine what next to do. When ones actions benefit ones life one is considered to be an ethical actor.

Under Objectivism it is never ethical to act against ones own life. Does this deny that suicide can be considered rational? No!

An ethical actor only performs rationally determined actions. When an ethical actor rationally looks at ones own existence and observes that ones own existence will eventually stop existing that person can properly decide to end it earlier than what natural circumstance might otherwise provide for. But WHY IN THE HELL would an otherwise rational actor decide to kill ones-self? When he is experiencing such in unnatural pain the cause of which has removed happiness from his proper living existence. This person can rationally decide to regain control over his happiness. It is the happiness he experiences when he begins to understand he has regained control of his existence. He will not be happy he is about to die but he can be happy that he has properly approached the issues and has made a rational decision based on all available data.

Are Muslim suicide bombers acting rationally? No! This is because the existence of their life is not being physically threatened. Well then why are they doing that? Because they believe their life is under the control of their God rather than their reality.

[mvir9]

Under Objectivism it is never ethical to act against ones own life. Does this deny that suicide can be considered rational? No!

Exactly right (and with pretty colors, even)!

[Matus1976]

It is not life as in the physical mechanical perpetuation of our existence which is our highest value, but in fact a particular kind of life, a good life or Aristotlean Eudaemonic life that is our highest value. To value your existence over everything else in life would quickly lead you down the path of sabatoge, manupulation, and general pejorative behavior toward everything and everyone. Of course the physical mechanical perpetuation of our existence is a requirement toward leading a good life, and as such is one of our highest values, but it is the good life that existence makes possible which should be your absolute highest value - as is explicitly demonstrated by Rand when she had Galt threaten to kill himself to keep Dagny from being tortured.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Matus1976

[Barbara Branden]

Christopher, Rand agreed with you. She said that there are circumstances in which suicide can be justified, circumstances outside of one's control, such as a painful terminal illness or the agony of a concentration camp, for instance, where a truly human life is impossible.

Barbara

[UncleJim]

It is not life as in the physical mechanical perpetuation of our existence which is our highest value, but in fact a particular kind of life, a good life or Aristotlean Eudaemonic life that is our highest value. To value your existence over everything else in life would quickly lead you down the path of sabatoge, manupulation, and general pejorative behavior toward everything and everyone. Of course the physical mechanical perpetuation of our existence is a requirement toward leading a good life, and as such is one of our highest values, but it is the good life that existence makes possible which should be your absolute highest value - as is explicitly demonstrated by Rand when she had Galt threaten to kill himself to keep Dagny from being tortured.

There is a distinction between what ones life is and what ones existence is. In this instance, Galt was acting emotionally - not rationally. In other words: He was acting religiously rather than intelligently.

To exterminate ones own life to the benefit of another's means to act altruistically. Rand's writings; in this regard, are contrary to the principles of Objectivism which she is singularly responsible for the development of.

[UncleJim]

Christopher, Rand agreed with you. She said that there are circumstances in which suicide can be justified, circumstances outside of one's control, such as a painful terminal illness or the agony of a concentration camp, for instance, where a truly human life is impossible.

Barbara

I prefer to refer to "human existence" rather than to "human life." This is because the concept denoted with the word 'life' applies to all living organisms.