What does A's being an end-in-himself mean to B

[StrictlyLogical]

I have a set of follow-up questions for a portion of an answer posted March 12, 2007 Dr. Piekoff gave to a question regarding values as agent-relative vs. absolutist. Dr. Piekoff pointed out Objectivism rejects both approaches in favor of Objective values. The questioner in the question pondered:

"So John’s life is an end-in-itself for John, but since John’s life is not an end-in-itself for Mike, why couldn’t Mike sacrifice John’s life for Mike’s benefit? It would seem that John’s life could only have a value as a means to something else for Mike because John’s, and only John’s life, is of value for John."

Dr. Piekoff answered this pondering with the following:

"If he is rational, Mike must recognize that the very facts of reality which make one human being an end-in-himself apply equally to others and make them also ends-in-themselves. No one, Mike included, can justify ignoring or acting against any fact of reality, including this one. No, John is not Mike’s ultimate end but, by the grace of reality, he is, objectively, his own end, and others must act accordingly."

I have the following questions regarding the answer:

1. If Mike recognizes that John is an end-in-himself, he accepts a fact of reality, and hence is not ignoring said fact of reality. Esentialy, Mike rationally recognizes John is John's end. If Mike, as the questioner put it "sacrifices John's life for Mike's benefit" has Mike ignored a fact of reality? If so how?

2. If Mike's dialogue while taking John's life is "John, I know you are an "end-in-yourself" and that you are your end, but I shall destroy you for my benefit" is Mike acting against a fact of reality? What does it mean to act against a fact of reality?

3. If Mike rationally possesses the knowledge that by the grace of reality, John is John's own end, what does it mean to act accordingly? How does that knowledge form the basis of a decision regarding action? John must act according to what?

The original questioner's quesion may have other possible anwers regarding some actual benefit to Mike gained by his not taking John's life or perhaps Mike suffers some loss to self or loss to the means of obtaining value by his taking John's life. I am not interested at the moment with these alternative answers to the questioner's question.

I am interested in understanding Dr. Piekoff's answer.

[brian0918]

I am also interested in responses to each of these questions. Is Piekoff simply saying that, if Mike lives as John lives, Mike could have no possible benefit from killing John, and so would not want to kill John? It seems like he is side-stepping the question. Maybe Mike is hungry and John is the only source of food

Edited July 30, 2008 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

Come on guys. This is rationalism. What does it mean in reality to "be an end in yourself"?

Your objection is essentially a "so what." e.g. "I recognize that John is A. So why can't I kill him?" Well, what does A mean? What does it imply?

[brian0918]

Come on guys. This is rationalism. What does it mean in reality to "be an end in yourself"?

Your objection is essentially a "so what." e.g. "I recognize that John is A. So why can't I kill him?" Well, what does A mean? What does it imply?

Again I fall for the rationalization. For Mike to accept that "man is an end himself" would also require Mike not to force John to be a means to Mike's ends. I retract my post.

Also: I was looking up that phrase and found an interesting statement in Time Magazine from 1963 from Adlai Stevenson. Here's an excerpt:

The enemies of freedom, whatever the magnificent ends they propose—the brotherhood of man, the kingdom of saints, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'—miss just this essential point: that man is greater than the social purposes to which he can be put. He must not be kicked about even with the most high-minded objectives. He is not a means or an instrument. He is an end in himself.

Edited July 30, 2008 by brian0918

[Marc K.]

Come on guys. This is rationalism. What does it mean in reality to "be an end in yourself"?

Yes. And then is there some moral principle that could be derived from this? And then is there some political principle that can be derived from that?

And in reality is there any possible benefit one could derive from murdering another?

Let us even say that by murdering someone you could acquire $40 million. Considering how you acquired that money, would it be of any value to you?

[KurtColville]

Yes. And then is there some moral principle that could be derived from this? And then is there some political principle that can be derived from that?

And in reality is there any possible benefit one could derive from murdering another?

Let us even say that by murdering someone you could acquire $40 million. Considering how you acquired that money, would it be of any value to you?

If you are rational, nothing can be a value to you if you obtain it by immoral means.

[Greebo]

I have a set of follow-up questions for a portion of an answer posted March 12, 2007 Dr. Piekoff gave to a question regarding values as agent-relative vs. absolutist. Dr. Piekoff pointed out Objectivism rejects both approaches in favor of Objective values. The questioner in the question pondered:

"So John’s life is an end-in-itself for John, but since John’s life is not an end-in-itself for Mike, why couldn’t Mike sacrifice John’s life for Mike’s benefit? It would seem that John’s life could only have a value as a means to something else for Mike because John’s, and only John’s life, is of value for John."

Dr. Piekoff answered this pondering with the following:

"If he is rational, Mike must recognize that the very facts of reality which make one human being an end-in-himself apply equally to others and make them also ends-in-themselves. No one, Mike included, can justify ignoring or acting against any fact of reality, including this one. No, John is not Mike’s ultimate end but, by the grace of reality, he is, objectively, his own end, and others must act accordingly."

I have the following questions regarding the answer:

1. If Mike recognizes that John is an end-in-himself, he accepts a fact of reality, and hence is not ignoring said fact of reality. Esentialy, Mike rationally recognizes John is John's end. If Mike, as the questioner put it "sacrifices John's life for Mike's benefit" has Mike ignored a fact of reality? If so how?

No, Mike hasn't ignored a fact of reality. Instead, Mike has chosen to give up his own right not to be sacrificed. Rights are two way streets - you must extend to others the same rights you require for yourself.

2. If Mike's dialogue while taking John's life is "John, I know you are an "end-in-yourself" and that you are your end, but I shall destroy you for my benefit" is Mike acting against a fact of reality? What does it mean to act against a fact of reality?

To act against a fact of reality is to act irrationally, which man has the volitional ability to do. However, those who are rational will see that Mike is irrational, and if Mike is willing to kill John, Mike could be willing to kill them, and is therefore a threat to their own lives. Conclusion by the rational? Mike has lost the right to live by sacrificing others to himself.

3. If Mike rationally possesses the knowledge that by the grace of reality, John is John's own end, what does it mean to act accordingly? How does that knowledge form the basis of a decision regarding action? John must act according to what?

John and Mike must both act neither for anyone else's sake, nor in any way that requires that another live for theirs. To do otherwise is to deny the sanctity of the individual, and if one denies the sanctity of another's individuality, one denies their own sanctity as well.

[StrictlyLogical]

KendallJ, brian0918

Thank you for responding to my questions. If you have any more thoughts on any of the original questions I have posed please don't hesitate to let me in on your detailed reasons/analysis, this is where I am trying to find solid ground. I ponder below in response to your answers.

KendallJ: What is "A" (the fact of reality Mike must not ignore)? Good question. A: "John is John's end, he is an end-in-himself." What does that mean? I interpret Dr. Piekoff to mean that as a man qua man John's end, is not the universe, the world, life on earth, mammals, mankind, it is himself, alone as a man. His purpose/goal is benefitting himself only and not to act for any other reason than for his own "self-interest". In essence, this fact of reality simply states in laypersons terms, "John acts for John and for nothing and no one else." This is to be strongly distinguished from a purported "purpose" for John mandated by reality itself (which would raise the preposterous spectre of a purposeful universe). What does the "fact of reality" imply? Certainly it logically implies an imense host of considerations for John in determining his actions, the kind of which are considered and analyzed on this forum every day. If the meaning of the "fact of reality" is as I propose above, then logically it does not imply anything for Mike without bringing some additional fact into consideration. Perhaps there are other implicit/unspoken facts of reality Mike must not ignore. This is getting away from my original question but I would like to know your thoughts.

brian0918: I haven't heard of the saying "I fall to the rationalization" before. It's reminiscent of "touche!". I like it, but I digress. You have reasoned for Mike to accept "man is an end himself" he must not force John to be a means to Mike's ends. Firstly, I notice you have, and to misquote Armstrong, made a small step for "mankind". The "fact of reality" Dr. Piekoff says Mike must not ignore is that one human being is an end-in-himself (and that applies to others individually being ends-in-themselves). This "fact" applies to each individual in respect of that individual. What you have said: "man is an end himself" is a small step beyond what Dr. Piekoff said in his answer, and makes reference to communal "man" or "mankind" not a single man. Your fact is slightly different from Dr. Piekoff's and I agree that it could lead Mike to various conclusions and various actions. I do not think that Dr. Piekoff is identifying any floating "fact of reality" pertaining to a collective "Mankind".

I hesitate to get too far from my original questions as they are very important for my full understanding of Dr. Piekoff's answer. I am still very interested in hearing anything anyone can provide by way of answer. If my original questions create any interest, or thought in any reader I encourage him/her to please contribute!!

[StrictlyLogical]

KendallJ, brian0918

Thank you for responding to my questions. If you have any more thoughts on any of the original questions I have posed please don't hesitate to let me in on your detailed reasons/analysis, this is where I am trying to find solid ground. I ponder below in response to your answers.

KendallJ: What is "A" (the fact of reality Mike must not ignore)? Good question. A: "John is John's end, he is an end-in-himself." What does that mean? I interpret Dr. Piekoff to mean that as a man qua man John's end, is not the universe, the world, life on earth, mammals, mankind, it is himself, alone as a man. His purpose/goal is benefitting himself only and not to act for any other reason than for his own "self-interest". In essence, this fact of reality simply states in laypersons terms, "John acts for John and for nothing and no one else." This is to be strongly distinguished from a purported "purpose" for John mandated by reality itself (which would raise the preposterous spectre of a purposeful universe). What does the "fact of reality" imply? Certainly it logically implies an imense host of considerations for John in determining his actions, the kind of which are considered and analyzed on this forum every day. If the meaning of the "fact of reality" is as I propose above, then logically it does not imply anything for Mike without bringing some additional fact into consideration. Perhaps there are other implicit/unspoken facts of reality Mike must not ignore. This is getting away from my original question but I would like to know your thoughts.

brian0918: I haven't heard of the saying "I fall to the rationalization" before. It's reminiscent of "touche!". I like it, but I digress. You have reasoned for Mike to accept "man is an end himself" he must not force John to be a means to Mike's ends. Firstly, I notice you have, and to misquote Armstrong, made a small step for "mankind". The "fact of reality" Dr. Piekoff says Mike must not ignore is that one human being is an end-in-himself (and that applies to others individually being ends-in-themselves). This "fact" applies to each individual in respect of that individual. What you have said: "man is an end himself" is a small step beyond what Dr. Piekoff said in his answer, and makes reference to communal "man" or "mankind" not a single man. Your fact is slightly different from Dr. Piekoff's and I agree that it could lead Mike to various conclusions and various actions. I do not think that Dr. Piekoff is identifying any floating "fact of reality" pertaining to a collective "Mankind".

I hesitate to get too far from my original questions as they are very important for my full understanding of Dr. Piekoff's answer. I am still very interested in hearing anything anyone can provide by way of answer. If my original questions create any interest, or thought in any reader I encourage him/her to please contribute!!

[Tenure]

'What does it mean to act against a fact of reality?'

Ultimately, death. You can choose not to read the warnings on the side of a bottle of pipe-cleaner, but you still have to face the consequences of your actions.

Applied to the issue here:

Politically - Jail (Or if there is no organised government - retribution or the refusal of men to want to co-operate with you)

Ethically -

ii. Values: Spending your time trying to escape from death, as opposed to creating life-sustaining values

i. Psychologically* - The kind of pseudo self-esteem that arises when you have to live your life every day by the threat of force, where you can only claim yourself worthy if you have the biggest gun

Epistemologically - The destruction of principles, if you wish to hold that the source of good is man's mind, but that you have the right to nullify it

Metaphysically - Consciousness>Existence; I want it, and I have the guns, so it must be true.

Essentially, try to apply that last bit, the metaphysics, consistently to life, as your epistemological method, and you'll see why it cripples you psychologically and leaves you either in prison, or deserted from men, yelling at the elements because they won't conform to your will.

*Because I think psychological/emotional concerns are inextricably linked to one's moral welfare

[StrictlyLogical]

No, Mike hasn't ignored a fact of reality. Instead, Mike has chosen to give up his own right not to be sacrificed. Rights are two way streets - you must extend to others the same rights you require for yourself.

My question was restricted to implication for Mike of the "fact of reality" of "John being an end-in-himself". I am no where near any concept of "Rights", who has authority to "grant" them and what it means to "have" them or "give them up", in my logical progression. I will get there one day please be patient!

To act against a fact of reality is to act irrationally, which man has the volitional ability to do. However, those who are rational will see that Mike is irrational, and if Mike is willing to kill John, Mike could be willing to kill them, and is therefore a threat to their own lives. Conclusion by the rational? Mike has lost the right to live by sacrificing others to himself.

If Mike hasn't ignored a fact of reality how can he act against reality? Similarly, how is Mike being irrational by that act?

John and Mike must both act neither for anyone else's sake, nor in any way that requires that another live for theirs. To do otherwise is to deny the sanctity of the individual, and if one denies the sanctity of another's individuality, one denies their own sanctity as well.

OK I'm nowhere near the concept of "sanctity", nor am I anywhere near conclusions regarding what one "must" or "must not" do in respect of another.

Again my logical progression is still at the "John is John's end" "fact of reality" and I need to logically, and rationally proceed from there.

[KurtColville]

No, Mike hasn't ignored a fact of reality. Instead, Mike has chosen to give up his own right not to be sacrificed. Rights are two way streets - you must extend to others the same rights you require for yourself.

You may have meant it this way, but just a clarification: rights must be uniform. All men have the same rights, except for those men who have violated them. If you "require" fewer rights than others, that does not make it moral to violate certain rights of others that you regard as dispensible; likewise with you "requiring" more "rights" for yourself than you are entitled, like a job, healthcare, etc. Rights are objective, not subjective.

To act against a fact of reality is to act irrationally, which man has the volitional ability to do.

Well, not exactly. Because man is not omniscient, he may unwittingly act against a fact of reality, yet still act rationally. He may act on his best possible judgment and end up contradicting reality (such as a failed experiment, eating unhealthy food that you had every reason to believe was healthy, etc.). To act against one's reason is to act irrationally. Reality will tell you if need to add more data to your reason.

[KevinDW78]

Wow Tenure - that was as good as Rand's standing on one foot description! I need to write that down.

[Chops]

Wow Tenure - that was as good as Rand's standing on one foot description! I need to write that down.

Agreed. That was a phenomenal summary of the consequences of prudent predation.

[StrictlyLogical]

BUMP

Anyone have any answer regarding my original questions specifically directed to the answer/logical reasoning offered by Dr. Piekoff?

[TheEgoist]

Tenure did a good job.

[StrictlyLogical]

Yes.  Tenure did a good job actually answering the question (which somewhat different from the original) I pose as follows:

 

"Why should Mike, in general and in most normal contexts, not sacrifice John for Mike's identified immediately apparent benefit(s)"

 

I have arrived at similar conclusions myself.  Essentially the reason is that there are an innumerable number of, some direct and some indirect, some readily apparent and some obscure, some short term and some long term consequences of any single or repeated act of sacrificing others that makes it generally, in reality, a non-beneficial thing for Mike to do and in particular application it is non-beneficial to Mike, for Mike to sacrifice John.

 

Of course this is context dependent and incredibly complex.  This is PRECISELY what I found lacking in Dr. Peikoff's answer.  I heard reasons but did not see where they came from or how they lead to the conclusions.

 

 

I restate my question as this: 

 

To what extent (or how) does Dr. Peikoff's answer, actually answer the original questions? i.e. how do the REASONS (which he purports "lead to" the conclusion he reaches) actually SUPPORT that conclusion? 

 

 

Perhaps my best answer is this:

 

Although it is incredibly complex and context dependent it is almost certainly always the case that sacrificing John is in fact NOT to Mike's benefit, in the long-range, all consequences in their totality taken into account.  There is an implicit error in the form of the question in that the purported "benefit to Mike" in almost all contexts will be short-sighted, based on incomplete information and not take into account some far-reaching long-range consequences.  Adopting a principle of sacrificing others to oneself on a day-to-day basis for ad hoc in the moment identified "benefit" is with certitude a disastrous policy for Mike to adopt for himself.  There are extremely rare situations/contexts (during an emergency, a war, etc.) in which, everything taken into account, John's sacrifice, even his very life, will be beneficial to Mike, and in those cases Mike, although he may or may not know it, should sacrifice John.

[Hairnet]

   I have always found that the Objectivist ethics are profound because they view man correctly, as a rational actors moving in the face of an uncertain future. 

 

   The factor of time is rarely mentioned in typical ethical conversations. Neither is the fact that men and women must make decisions while considering not just their current intent, but any other possible values or desires they have. 

 

   Acting as though the only requirement for an action to be rational be that the intent be satisfied by the action leads people to an absurdly short sighted world view, or one where ethics are not based in rationality. Ignoring uncertainty and time leads to an ethics that uses hindsight as though it were foresight.