by Eric J. Lakits

February, 2001

In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand discusses the relationship between life and value in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics."  In the process of discussing why it is that Man needs a code of values, she defines "value" as that which one acts to gain or keep, and shows us that life is what makes values possible.  Life, according to Ayn Rand, is the ultimate value and it is what makes all other values possible¹.

It is important to recognize here that the purpose of her discussion is to explain what makes a code of values necessary and why one should pursue them.  The purpose of her essay is not to answer the question "why does one--or should one--choose to live."  The fact that one has already made this choice is treated as a given--and rightfully so since it would be futile to discuss the pursuit of values for any other audience.

However, the question of why one does and should choose life is still valid and has profound philosophical significance.  As Ayn Rand also points out, "the concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?"²  For the values for which life is the standard, the answer is always reducible to the organism in question and its pursuit of its own life.  But what about the value of "life" itself?  Wouldn't an attempt to reduce this value back to life result in a circular argument?

It is important to have an answer to this question, because without one we are at the mercy of the intrinsicists and the subjectivists who will gladly jump in to fill the void for us.  Consider the following statements: Man should choose life because life is inherently valuable (intrinsicism); and, life is valuable because Man chooses to live (subjectivism)*.

The first statement implies that life is valuable in and of itself and that choosing it is a moral imperative.  Look around and we can see what this idea leads to in practice: bans on assisted suicide, anti-abortion activists, proponents of animal rights, liberals who abhor capital punishment but insist on persecuting people who successfully use lethal force to defend themselves--just to name a few.   Where then is the origin of this value?  The subjectivist’s answer to this question is usually something “higher than ourselves” such as God.

The second statement implies that life's value is nothing more than a subjective whim, that the alternative would be just as valuable so long as it is the result of Man's choice.  If the choice to live is nothing more than a whim and not based in reality, then who is to say whose whim is correct?  Under this idea, life and death are both equally valuable (and therefore of no value whatsoever).  In practice, this has resulted in the group’s common values--as determined by consensus or an intellectual elite--being held as the standard of truth.  This has in turn lead to the worst slaughters in history: the death camps in Nazi Germany, the purges in the Soviet Union, and the human rights violations in China.  What ultimately decides which whims are valid and which are not?  The instrinsicists tell us the answer is something higher than the needs of any one individual, rather it is “the needs of society as a whole.”

How then do we answer the question of why does and should one choose to live?  How can life make values possible, give rise to their necessity and at the same time be a value itself?  Is this to say that life makes itself possible and gives rise to its own need?  Is this a circular argument that cannot be validated?

While it is true that life is a value in the sense that one acts to gain and keep it, we must distinguish it from values per se.  In the sense that a value has a purpose prior to itself, life is not a value but the standard by which one identifies values.  This statement does not differ, in principle, from Ayn Rand's assertion that life is the ultimate value.  It only differs in context.  For the purpose of this discussion such a distinction is necessary.  In metaphysics and epistemology we say that axioms cannot be proven because they are the foundation upon which all proofs rest.  The equivalent statement in ethics is that life is not a value, but rather the source of all values.  Life, therefore, properly construed is an axiomatic value.

How then do we validate this idea in reality?  What facts give rise to this assertion?  And still, why does and should one choose life based on this idea?  The answer lies in our identity--our identity as Man and as a life form in general.  Life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generating action.  It precedes the ability to make choices, and the very act of being alive gears one toward making them, otherwise survival would not be possible.

Let us consider for a moment an organism that does not choose to pursue life sustaining values, or worse yet, willfully acts toward its own destruction.  Life of this sort would be a process of self-negating action and acts in contradiction to the nature of life.  This is not to say that life forms can not or do not ever act in a self-destructive manner.  People can and do behave in such a manner quite often and the evidence is all around us.  But a living organism, by its identity as a living organism, does not and can not act this way on principle.  In this context, when I say principle I do not mean by conscious intent, but rather as part of the identity of that organism before it can even conceive of the alternatives at stake.  Such an organism is necessarily a self-negating aberration and cannot survive the evolutionary process.  To survive and propagate, it must be true that each living organism has the implicit primary choice to live as part of its identity.  Man is no exception.  (Do not confuse the primary choice to live with instinct.  Instinct is the means by which lower life forms pursue their values.  Man’s pursuit of values is purely volitional.  The choice to live, however, precedes any attempt to pursue values regardless of what form that pursuit should take.)

Once a life form comes into existence, it continues to exist because it pursues those values necessary to sustain it.  It does this prior to any knowledge of the alternative it faces should it not do so.  Therefore, one does not initially choose life explicitly.  One merely chooses the values that make it possible.  One chooses life implicitly.  The choice to live versus the choice not to is an implicit choice rather than an explicit one for almost all living entities.  Only for Man does this choice ever become explicit, and only after he learns of the alternative.  This usually happens during childhood when he first encounters death and an adult must explain the concept.  Even then the child has a hard time understanding this concept since it conflicts with his own developing sense of identity--which has the entire universe centered on himself.  By the time a man learns of the death alternative, the idea represents the rejection of values and he recoils at the thought because it goes against his very nature.  To reject values, to choose death, is to act contrary to the definition of life.

  Living entities cannot at first choose the alternative to life, because they do not even know such an alternative exists.  And only Man ever does learn this conceptually.  Each living creature pursues the values necessary to sustain its life based on the pleasure/pain survival mechanisms that it has at its disposal.  In other words, it chooses to live because it is alive and knows of no other way to act.  As long as it lives, it wants to experience pleasure and avoid pain.

So how is it that some men choose not to live?  What about suicide and its variants?  Keep in mind that pursuing the values necessary to sustain ones life consists of a constant act of choice.  One must always be able to choose in the face of an alternative that which will make life possible for him.  When no choices are possible for the successful pursuit of values, and life is unbearable, Man is still capable of choosing the alternative since he knows such an alternative exists.  It amounts to giving in to the notion that values are not possible and recognizing it in concrete terms.  But notice that in every case this alternative only becomes palpable due to the fact that essential choices are no longer open to him.  This is evident in cases such as a person suffering from cancer or being tortured in a concentration camp with no hope of escape.  Even in the case of someone who is suffering from depression, the driving factor is the absence of choice--in this case, not being able to choose a state of mental well-being.  Regardless, each instance has one thing in common.  That is, the only choice open the person is the avoidance of pain since the pursuit of pleasure is no longer possible.  Take note of the fact that a suicidal person will choke on his words and begin to cry the very moment he attempts to put into words what it is he intends to do.  This results from the mind-body integration of a being that is geared toward living.  His physiology takes over on the most basic level--i.e., the pleasure pain mechanism erects its automatic defense barrier.

However, this barrier primarily exists on the conscious level rather than the physical.  The physical manifestations are the result of an emotion, and like all emotions they are an automatic result of one's value judgments.  In this case, it is the suffering one feels from the failure to obtain one’s values and the implicit knowledge that such attainment is proper for a living being, but that one cannot attain these values (and most certainly will not attain them if one actually does commit suicide).  Only for a man who knows for certain that the achievement of values is not possible and/or that he cannot live life on his own terms is suicide a proper and feasible alternative.  For any other man, such a choice would be impossible.

What then is the proper answer to the question "why does one--or should one--choose to live?"  The answer is because he is alive and because life and the pursuit of values are possible.

*Note:  The logical error in both of these statements is that Man's choice is somehow linked with the direct relationship between two concepts without any indication of what that link is and how it relates back to Man.  (This error is made more obvious by simply substituting two completely different concepts: Man should choose a house because it is made of wood vs. a house is made of wood because Man chooses to have a house.)  

¹ Rand, Ayn  The Virtue of Selfishness.  Signet: 1964
² Ibid