[Am-info] Ayn Rand Institute?

[Erick Andrews]

On 18 Mar 2002 17:58:17 -0600, Eric M. Hopper wrote:

>On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 16:29, 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?
>
>To a strict Objectivist, the case is clear cut.  Of course you can fire
>a gun in a crowded room if you don't hit anybody.
>
>But, to an Objectivist who's willing to conceded that perhaps
>Objectivism doesn't correctly cover every possible situation, the
>scenario has some definite problems.  It's very hard to fire a gun in a
>crowded room without hitting anybody.  It's really best if nobody ever
>fires a gun in a crowded room.  Then there's the question of the harm
>the ensuing panic (which is all totally due to people's fearful
>reaction, and not at all to the actual act of firing the gun) causes,
>and whether you ought to have laws that take this quite understandable
>effect into account.
>
>It's actually a pretty good test.  Much like asking a Libertarian what a
>corporation actually is.
>

More like asking a Pragmatist what Objectivists and Libertarians
actually are.

I'm losing this...where's MS's relationships here?

-- 
Erick Andrews