Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics.theory Subject: Ayn Rand's derivation of her ethics Message-ID: <787@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 19:24:25 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.787 Posted: Tue Jul 9 19:24:25 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Jul-85 19:15:19 EDT Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 63 I still haven't gotten (and would like) a copy of the article that asked me what I found wrong with Rand's argument. I also don't have my copy of *Atlas Shrugged* with me (I seem to have left it in my future residence at U of MI), but here goes anyway. Rand's arguments seemed to me to have more holes than swiss cheese, but since an argument is only as strong as its weakest step, I'll concentrate on one point. Rand states (not an exact quote) that her ethics follows from the law of non-contradiction plus a choice: the choice of life over death. Apparently she thinks that the rest, including the non-initiation of force/fraud principle (NIFFP for short), follows logically from the choice of life. The problem right away is that this represents as binary a choice that in truth is multiple: there are many ways to live and many ways to die. It is true that AT ANY ONE TIME one is either alive or not, but there are many possible futures open to a person. Unless we are given some reason to suppose that one should always strive to stay alive no matter what, there is no reason to take staying alive as the be-all and end-all. Indeed, the fact that one must be alive to enjoy any benefits whatsoever says NOTHING about the relative merits of, for example, living by force or fraud. A person could reply, without logical error, to Rand's argument: "I choose to live for now, but only as long as it takes to kill 743 people at random, because I like the number 743, so much so that any other goal is meaningless to me." I am not saying that such a person would be rational -- he wouldn't -- or that he is in touch with reality -- he isn't -- BUT NOTHING IN RAND'S ARGUMENT shows what is wrong with such logic. The only argument against his screwed up values is experience, which shows that life is or can be worth very much and that killing people deprives them of that as well as inspiring them to deprive you... More to the point of arguing against so-called "Objectivist" ethics, a person might rationally say "my brother's life is worth enhancing independently of the effect on myself, and there is some level of benefit for him such that, to achieve it, I would forgo all future benefits to myself". Call it altruism (def.?) or humanitarianism or whatever, when this kind of thinking is applied to all people (not just one's relations) it seems to bother Rand et. al. a great deal. (Actually, Rand's villains (try to?) care ONLY about others and NOT about themselves; she never considers the possibility that one might care about both -- again Rand represents as binary a choice that is multiple.) Rand gives no solid reason for following the non-initiation of force/ fraud principle. She claims that initiating force will cause others to retaliate, but that's not always true, nor is it always impossible to tell when one could "get away with it". Nor does she demonstrate that people have an absolute right to be free from such initiation of force or fraud, since this is just the other side of the coin of an obligation not to initiate force/fraud, and from whence comes this obligation? Not from an agreement, because such an agreement binds only if there is ALREADY an obligation not to initiate fraud. And if the word "obligation" is DEFINED by fiat to be implied by agreements, then it remains to be shown that people have a REASON TO CARE about their obligations. By the way, I don't disagree with Rand's contention that there is an objective fact of the matter about ethical questions; it's just that she hasn't demonstrated the correctness of HER views. Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink