[Am-info] Ayn Rand Institute?

[Felmon Davis]

On Monday 18 March 2002 06:58 pm, 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.
>
> *grin*,

so Objectivism can't have a theory of 'side-effects' or, in this 
case, 'indirect causation'? the gun-shooter _directly_ causes a shot 
to go off and _indirectly_ causes a harmful panic. we usually assign 
blame when indirect harmful consequences of an action are 
foreseeable. 

I guess the point is, Objectivists don't like being tangled up in 
subtleties.

I've sometimes have had arguments with people who think the only 
motive is self-interest. they get obsessive and consider it 
axiomatic. 

looking for one big truth, I guess.

F.