On pages 244-5 of OPAR Peikoff notes that the choice to live is not a moral choice but rather “it precedes morality; it is the decision of consciousness that underlies the need of morality.” When I first considered this I worried that someone deciding not to live could lie, cheat, steal, etc but then claim he could not be judged as immoral. But then I thought what would such a person do and the answer is that, if he was consistent with the decision not to live, he would do nothing at all. He would not eat, drink, seek shelter, try to stay warm, move out of the way of traffic, would not lie, steal or cheat to obtain goods since he would have no purpose whatsoever. His only actions would be automatic ones not under volitional control eg breathing. I’m not even sure he would commit suicide since that would only make sense if he thought his particular life was not worth living and such a person would not value at all. Does this make sense?