From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:35:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec14.164903.17224@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>  [Peter creates a scenario in which he commits the perfect murder so he can
>   guarantee a healthy inheritance.]
>
>pn> Other than abstract ethical considerations, why shouldn't I carry it out?
>
>gs> Easy answer: You might get caught. I've yet to hear (or read) of a "per-
>    fect" murder.
>
>pn> Everything we do in life requires some assessment of the risks but in my
>    story I have assessed the risks and decided that they are small.  
>
>  So, go for it. I have no way to tell you that murdering your aunt is wrong.

  I know.  But Rand claims that it IS wrong by virtue of my aunt and I
  both being human.


>  Now, can *you* tell us why I shouldn't murder *you*, if I think I can get
>  away with it? Even if there's no benefit to me?

  I don't claim that here IS a reason.  Or to be more precise, I don't claim
  that here is A reason.   Or to be even more precise, *to the extent that
  there ARE reasons*, they vary from person to person.   Some people have
  internalized the cultural values of their family/religion/society, etc.
  Others have reached the same conclusions through various philosophical
  musings, no doubt including randianism.  Others still may be detered
  by practical issues such as fear of retribution or uncertainty about
  methods.  Others still may be put off by anxieties about how they would
  react emotionally to either the blood and guts of homicide or any guilt 
  they might experience afterward.

  And of course, some people DO commit homicide.

  But the bottom line is that I have no problem with the concept that
  there may not be an over-riding, transcendent force or reason why
  we don't all commit mayhem, rape, and pillage.  Most of the time we 
  don't, but sometimes we do.

  But the bottom line is that I have no problem with the concept that
  there may not be an over-riding, transcendent force or reason why
  we don't all commit mayhem, rape, and pillage.  Most of the time we 
  don't, but sometimes we do.

                  
>  it's rule against initiation of force, and eliminate pragmatism (since I
>  cannot be caught), and upon what grounds do you use to object to being kil-
>  led?

  I don't do it on any "grounds".  I have a desire for self-preservation.
  But given the absence of any real science of psychology, the reasons for
  this are speculative, and probably vary from one person to the next, just
  as the reasons I suggested above.


>  Trust me, you can't toss out every ethical theory that has a flaw and expect
>  others to take you seriously. So far, I don't see how your postivistically
>  logical pragmatism keeps you from killing people. Perhaps we do need abstract
>  ethical considerations, hmmmm?

  Whether we "need" them or not, we still HAVE them, and they influence or
  affect people's behavior.   But this does not answer the question of
  whether any particular one of them is in any reasonable sense "correct".
  I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the good charitable works done by 
  followers of this or that religion while arguing that there is no basis
  for their beliefs.


---peter


PS  It's actually sort of an interesting philosophical question:
    Suppose there WAS a solid science of psychology and suppose it
    discovered that it was only the belief in nonsense systems of
    knowledge (religion or various philosophic ethical systems) that
    prevented society from degenerating into mayhem.   In other
    words, that people NEED to believe in something absurd in order
    to function civilly.   Should the goal of speaking the truth
    cause us to point out the absurdity of such belief systems?
    If we had a science of ethics we could answer such questions.

    Another way of asking this question is: if the thinking man
    comes to the conclusion that, on the whole, religion is beneficial 
    to having a happy and harmonious society, if this is his goal 
    should he support religion even if he personally thinks it
    is intellectually groundless?  
    



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc