Because it is in striving and overcoming that people find satisfaction

Whether by creation, conquest etc

Thats a false dichotomy

In what way?

As man doesnt produce anything

Actually im not totally sure

Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness — to value the failure of your values — is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man — every man — is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose

But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

Could mountain climbing be a irrational whim maybe?

But I guess it more of a personal level so im not sure

One can be happy in the society of A Brave New World

Not if it doesnt correspond with his values

And if it does? Is it then the highest good?

No because life is the ultimate standard

Everyone lives. Crime is low, food is taken care of

Okay well now man pursues his happiness

That is the moral thing to do

How he achieves it is through values which are the means

This is, fwiw, one reason why Rand is forced into an objective standard of morality, because otherwise the content automaton achieves her goal

What do you mean?

@Beemann

If your only goal is achievement of your own values then your values have to be sufficiently aspirational. Nietzsche does a similar thing

Like maybe I find true happiness in working at McDonalds and using the money to buy anime figurines. This isn't especially hard to achieve and will inevitably lead to stagnation if done en masse

Sure

I dont know if this can be defined as a actual value but it will lead to stagnation

Well you could value privacy, nonintervention and social seclusion

Or maybe the way in which you fight for higher values is to remove your contribution from society

A sort of NEET Galt

I get skeptical of anyone who values society or status

Because of the incoherent morality its hard to separate those from their actual values

@Beemann Howard Roark was a neet in the Fountainhead

I think there's a lot of people who small v value society and status

But either way you cant control people so this is a irrational value from what ive seen

Also I dont understand the want for status and most people want the underlying things that come from it

But if we're talking about Values I think you're mostly left with collectivists

Its confusing to separate them and the post modern morality

That's the thing, status is utility

It has its uses but for what is that utility for?

Achieving larger goals

On a personal level that is

Like say you want to get rid of an unjust law