[Am-info] Ayn Rand Institute?

[Erick Andrews]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:34:58 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>
>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.
>

It gets uncomfortably close to the pseudo-sciences of social darwinism
and eugenics, though.

-- 
Erick Andrews