While working on and studying ethics, the following praxeological law occurred to me:
Given that end Z = death
Given that ends A, B, … = everything not death
For as long as the ex ante gain from A, B, … is greater than the ex ante gain from Z, a man will choose the former.
Stated differently: up to a given point, men will choose life over death, on the basis of its greater ex ante satisfaction.
The weaker statement based on the above: chances are that, or in most cases, continuing to live results (whether directly or indirectly is irrelevant) in greater satisfaction than dying.
It should be apparent that the first two laws are only restating what we already know from the action axiom, so this is hardly a revelation in the field of praxeology. I can’t help but wonder, though, if full conscious awareness of a law such as this could have important ramifications on debates over libertarian social and political theory.
Well, as an example, if we can praxeologically prove that men tend to prefer life over death, it lends more support to propositions like the non-aggression principle. Although the end itself is not analyzable (within praxeology), it’s incredibly prevalent. Maybe opponents to libertarianism would never suggest otherwise; however, it’s testament to the power of praxeology when we can logically deduce stuff like this.
What is “men”? Me? You? Since the value an individual gives to life over death is subjective, I don’t understand how one could praxeologically prove that “men” value life over death.
I suppose this is personal preference, but I don’t consider even a vast majority convincing enough proof to establish an “ought” as relevant.
Seems to me all it’s saying is that since nobody alive has committed suicide, they value whatever it is they’re doing over death. Which is praxeologically true. I don’t see what’s the big deal about it, though.
“I do not value life over death, yet my fear of the unknown prevents me from killing myself.”
Now, would fear of the unknown be considered a means to the end of “life”?
On a seperate note,what if an individual wanted to commit suicide, but lacked the means to do so, say, was quadriplegic, would that be considered an example of someone who valued death over life, yet was still alive?
They do so praxeologically, via their actions. If they preferred death to life they would kill themselves.
But this would be contradictory. Man’s actions prove’s his preferences. He weighs the pros and cons, if he chooses not to die than he praxeologically proves that he prefers life to death, regardless of the details of his subjective opinions.
It’s an interesting point Justin brings up. Man does not act simply because he feels uneasy. He acts because he thinks the outcome of acting will improve that uneasyness. If he sees no options he may choose not to act.
Now my question to Justin is, what about people who do kill themselves via scuicide?
That would require someone else taking action to force them to stay alive against their will, because one can kill oneself just by not eating, not drinking, etc. May not be particularly painless (and I’m not advocating suicide), but someone who really wants to kill himself has the means to do it unless others intervene.
Men tend to prefer life over death. Aggression, even when successful (e.g., murdering your neighbor), tends to draw the ire and eventually retaliatory violence of others. In the interest of one’s own life, it is therefore more beneficial to refrain from aggression.
None of these are praxeological laws, but we can consider them as being based on other praxeological conclusions.
There are several prerequisites before human action can take place. One of which is where man has options which he believes will relieve his uneasiness.
In the situation you descrived man simply does not act. Since we cannot analyze his phsyche it’s safe to assume presently he chooses life to death.
Equally I would like to fly, but the only options I have available to me are extremely expensive or impossible. Other men would like to blink wealth into existence but they are incapable of acting on these desires. So the situation you described is one where man has analyzed his options and finds nothing suitable to justify acting.
Interesting concept, for humans even inaction is an action, a choice taken. It could be that when the actor stops being an actor(is dead) he looses his rights? shrug
