[Am-info] Ayn Rand Institute?

[Mitch Stone]

On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 02:29 PM, Felmon Davis wrote:

> On Monday 18 March 2002 11:53 am, Mitch Stone wrote:
>> Logical consistency is where you find it, I guess. Rand's rigid
>> self-interest dogma led to some fairly bizarre conclusions. For
>> example, the only kind of force seen as "objectively" unethical is
>> physical force -- you should not beat money out of someone. But if
>> you can swindle them out it, that's okay because it just indicates
>> that you're smarter then they, and therefore more deserving. Think
>> of it as social darwinism for nerds -- a human potential movement
>> for people without a conscience.
>>
>> I've developed a sort of acid test for people who claim to believe
>> in objectivism. I ask them if they should be allowed to fire a gun
>> into a crowded room, provided they don't hit anyone. This is
>> precisely the sort of moral and ethical question Rand's philosophy
>> can't resolve.
>
> I'm being a little dense, sorry, and I don't want to turn this into a
> seminar but could you briefly explain why Objectivism can't resolve
> this case? Is there some contradiction it gets caught in here?

This scenario is only paradoxical to those who believe it is their sacred 
right to be able to take any action they wish, provided it does not cause 
another individual physical harm. They are opposed to preemptive rules 
regulating behaviors that might cause harm.

   Mitch Stone
   mitch@accidentalexpert.com