Human Action is Undeniable

The fundamental axioms of metaphysics, such as existence, consciousness, and identity, are examples of undeniable propositions—propositions whose validity must be accepted in the course of any attack upon their validity. Leonard Peikoff illustrates this as follows: people often argue that disagreement about axioms suggests that they may not be objectively true. However, in any attempt to deny these axioms, one inherently affirms them. Similarly, the action axiom— the proposition that human action is purposeful behavior—can be defended using the same method of argument from denial. By engaging in the act of denying purposeful action, one is, in fact, performing an action aimed at achieving the specific goal of negating the action axiom, thus validating the axiom itself.

A (Defender of the Action Axiom): "Your objection to the concept of human action lacks validity. After all, human beings do not behave purposefully."

B (Objector): "That's not true. Human behavior is just a series of reflexes and conditioned responses. There's no purposeful behavior involved."

A: "So, you're saying people don't consciously set goals or make choices to achieve them?"

B: "Exactly. People simply react to their environment based on stimuli."

A: "But even in denying purposeful action, aren't you engaging in an activity to convince me? You're using your body the space it takes up as a means to achieve the end of proving your point."

B: "Well, yes, but that's just because we've been conditioned to argue and discuss things."

A: "If that's the case, how do you explain someone planning their day, setting goals, and working to achieve them?"

B: "Those are just complex responses to stimuli, not truly purposeful actions."

A: "So you're saying that when someone decides to study for an exam or save money for a vacation, it's just a reflex with no purpose?"

B: "Yes, they may think they're acting with purpose, but it's really just conditioned behavior."

A: "Let's consider this: If it’s all just conditioned behavior, then there would be no need for individuals to allocate resources or make choices based on their goals. Correct?"

B: "Sure, because if it's all reflex, there's no real choice involved."

A: "But in reality, people do allocate resources, like time and money, and they do make choices. How do you explain someone budgeting their finances if there's no purposeful action involved?"

B: "They budget because they've been taught to do so, not because it's a conscious, purposeful choice."

A: "But why would they be taught to behave that way, to plan for future needs and desires, if there was no underlying purpose or goal? This learned response involves setting priorities and making trade-offs based on individual goals. Doesn't this imply an action with the purpose to achieve preferred outcomes?"

B: "It's just a social construct, not real purposeful behavior."

A: "Let's break this down. When someone saves money, they are choosing to forgo current spending for future benefit. Isn't that an action taken toward a chosen goal?"

B: "I suppose you could see it that way, but it's still just a conditioned response."

A: "Conditioned response or not, the fact remains that they are consciously choosing to save money for a future purpose. That implies goal-directed behavior. Now, if resources were not scarce, would there be any need to save money?"

B: "No, if resources were unlimited, there'd be no need to save."

A: "So, by acknowledging that people save because resources are scarce, you're conceding that their actions are purposeful responses to scarcity. What about when someone chooses to study for a degree? Are they not acting with the goal of gaining knowledge or improving their future prospects?"

B: "They might think they are, but it's just societal pressure driving them."

A: "Even if societal pressure influences them, they are still making a conscious decision to study, believing it will lead to a better future state of affairs. This decision-making process is purposeful as they could have chosen to not consider it. If people didn’t believe their actions could change their future, would they still act in this way?"

B: "Probably not. They act because they believe it will make a difference."

A: "Exactly. Action presupposes we live in a world of a not fully certain future where individuals act to achieve preferred outcomes. If people had perfect knowledge of the future, would there still be a need for action?"

B: "No, because there would be no uncertainty to act against."

A: "So, you agree that action implies incomplete certainty about the future. If individuals did not value their time and did not prefer certain outcomes over others, would they act at all?"

B: "No, they wouldn't. But that still doesn't prove that actions are inherently purposeful."

A: "But you just admitted that people act because they value certain outcomes and their time, which is the essence of purposeful action. If people acted without any awareness of future consequences, would they take deliberate steps to achieve their goals?"

B: "No, they would just react in the moment."

A: "Then why do people plan, set goals, and choose means to achieve those goals? Isn't that evidence of purposeful action?"

B: "I suppose when you put it that way, it does seem like they are acting purposefully."

A: "In every attempt to deny the action axiom, you have actually reaffirmed it by acknowledging that people act to achieve goals, deal with scarcity, and face incomplete certainty about the future. These are all implications of purposeful, goal-directed behavior, guided by reason."

The action axiom, like the fundamental axioms of metaphysics, is presupposed by every active process involving reasoning, including the act of denial itself. By engaging in any argument or discussion, individuals are employing means to achieve an end, thereby affirming the purposeful nature of their actions. In this sense, the action axiom is invulnerable to refutation, as its denial would require the very behavior it seeks to disprove.

The opponents of the action axiom may pose as defenders of truth, challenging the self-evident nature of purposeful human action. However, their very arguments rely on the axioms they seek to undermine. By acknowledging the structured, end-oriented nature of their own arguments, they inadvertently validate the premise that human action is purposeful, reaffirming the foundational principles of praxeology and the logical deductions that follow from it.