Phil Elmore: Individual Authoring Services

"Always grab the reader by the throat in the first paragraph, sink your thumbs into his windpipe in the second, and hold him against the wall until the tag line."
- Paul O'Neil

All Original Site Content
Copyright © 2003-2004
Phil Elmore, all rights reserved.

Ronald Merrill on the Choice to Exist
Material reproduced and paraphrased from his The Ideas of Ayn Rand

In discussing Objectivist ethics, and thus a philosophy whose standard of value is the promotion of rational, individual human life, I am sometimes asked how the system applies to those who do not see life as an end in itself. Boiled down, this becomes the classic query: To be, or not to be?

That's the choice we all must make in life: existence or non-existence. I make no judgment about whether it's a logical choice. Rather, I assert that the choice is comprised of the only fundamental set of alternatives. Those who choose not to continue existing have no grounds on which to argue anything else -- because they don't exist.

The argument for life as an end in itself -- in its classic Randian form -- goes like this, as described by Ronald Merrill:

Living beings, and only living beings, have values (goals).
Humans, being volitional, must choose their values.
Values -- goals -- may be means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would be meaningless and impossible.
Life is an ultimate end, and furthermore, it is the only possible ultimate end, the only "end in itself."

Therefore, the only meaningful or justifiable values a human being can hold are those which serve to sustain that human being's life.

Now, where the dispute most often occurs is with "4" above: Is life an "end in itself?" And if so, is it the only possible end in itself?

Consider a goal, Z. Attaining this goal is dependent on another goal, Y, which is a means to Z. Y in turn is dependent on another means, X, and so on. Is there some ultimate means, A, which is a means for all other goals? There is indeed: Life is a prerequisite for pursuing any other goal, for only living beings can pursue goals.

Humans must choose what values to pursue. But can something be a value if its attainment would be such as to eliminate or reduce one's ability to pursue values? To seek an end while rejecting an essential means to that end, is to act (means) to gain and/or keep a value (end) while not so acting -- which is a contradiction. So whatever ultimate ends there may be, one can seek them only if, and to the extent that, one values that which serves one's own life. Regardless of whether life is the only ultimate end, it is an end which is a necessary means to any and all other ends.