I was struck by the idea of life, particularly human life not having intrinsic value when reading some of Ayn Rand's thoughts on the subject. The idea that human life doesn't have intrinsic value hit me like a ton of bricks, probably due to the Judeo-Christian culture in which I was raised, and the evolutionary reasons for thinking it does. I found a summary of her thoughts from a page on environmentalism:
"“The intrinsic theory,” charges Ayn Rand, “divorces the concept of ‘good’ from beneficiaries, and the concept of ‘value’ from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 21). But, in fact, she observes, “The concept ‘value’ is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 16)
Values exist in a hierarchy, some being pursued only because they are means to other, higher ends. This implies the existence of an ultimate end that grounds the hierarchy. “Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means. . . . It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 17). Things qualify as good or evil, valuable or detrimental, only insofar as they serve or frustrate the ultimate value; and the ultimate value is one’s life. “Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 27)."
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_environmentalism
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think human life has intrinsic value? What would Mises say on the subject, just that value is subjective and up to the individual doing the valuing?
Human life has as much value as the owner of said life gives it. Some people like to risk their lives for thrills. Others take every precaution they can think of. Still others kill themselves.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
I would strongly disvalue the life of someone who murdered a loved one. So, no, life - even human life - is not "intrinsically" valuable.
Clayton -
William Frankena's list of intrinsic goods: "life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength; pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds; happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc.; truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom; beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated; aesthetic experience; morally good dispositions or virtues; mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation; just distribution of goods and evils; harmony and proportion in one's own life; power and experiences of achievement; self-expression; freedom; peace, security; adventure and novelty; and good reputation, honor, esteem, etc."
Rand was of the position that morals and values are derived from a volutional mind rather than a set list handed down to the individual from society, family, god, or any other external entity. While these externals can influence the individual, they are not primary sources for value.
Value is subjective. End of story.
Hell no. Rand's emotion-appealing is backed by pure fluff alone.
There must necessarily be an evaluator to whom life has value.
I think it was Nietzsche who noted how the word 'man' (or mensch or whatever in German) had the same etymology as 'evaluate.' Furthermore, I don't know why I had to mention the last sentence. I guess I'm trying to sound well-read.