From: mpl@maths.tcd.ie (Micheal Lunny)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:22:43 GMT

jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>In article <MERRITT.92Dec14175418@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>>I would resist and object to any person or goverment telling me
>>I must be altruistic however. Still being logical, or thinking
>>logically is a subprocess of rationality and not an equivalent posture.
>> 
>>
>>-sjm
>>--
>>Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
>>Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
>>merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel

>I'm not sure you understand Rand's definiton of altruism. Altruism,
>according to Rand doesn't consist of simply being nice or helping those
>in need, Rand's altruism consists of *sacrifice*. In other words, one
>should not sacrifice one's own life for the sake of others. This doesn't
>necessarily rule out giving up your life to save someone you love, if that
>person is that important to you (i.e., you would be sacrificing yourself
>if you didn't try and save them or put your life on the line for them).

If I am in a rush to keep an appointment and I pass a complete
stranger on the street having a heart attack/seizure what reason do
I have to help them?  Rands philosophy would seem to suggest that
since
	a) This strangers well being will not benefit me
	b) by helping them I will also harm myself (be late for a
	date or whatever)
so I guess I leave them dying on the pavement.

>What Rand rejects is giving up your own pursuit of happiness for others.

What Rand rejects is the will to do good simply for the reason it is
the right thing to do.

>This is equivalent to saying that you do not have the right to live for
>your own happiness, as long as there is sufferring in the world.

No.  What Rand says is that the right way to behave is to always act
selfishly.

>Even more objectionable (and this is the one of the underlying bases for
>socialism and welfare statism) is the idea that one group of more 
>fortunate individuals should be forced by another to give up their pursuit
>of happiness for others. 

Ah, you'ld seem to have read one the rare copies of Marx's "I'm a
grim bastard, why shouldn't you be?".  God has indeed smiled upon
you (but probably not with you).

>The more this situation occurs, the more blurred
>becomes the concept of individuality. More and more people are called on
>not to think of themselves, but to serve others.

I can think of a few prominent others like the heads of Sony and
Lockhead who lots of people are called upon to serve.

>One of the stranger (and more insidious) concepts floating around is the
>concept of social costs. Now, it seems the government more and more
>wants to step in and prevent you from hurting yourself, as this is a cost
>to "society." Of course, without government funded programs, the costs
>would be incurred by *individuals* themselves. Unfortunately, controls
>breed controls, and as the government steps in and screws things up more,
>the government is then called upon to fix the problem it has created by
>doing the same kind of thing.

Give an example, why dont you?  I'm honestly curious what you're
talking about.

>Back to altruism, I think Rand should have come up with clear, unambiguous
>words to frame the concepts she came up with. Instead, it seems to me, she
>went about redefining current words ("selfish", "altruism"). However,
>once one understands exactly what she means, the philosophy begins to make
>much more sense.

If you just dont give a shit for your fellow human being.
-- 

| mpl@maths.tcd.ie    |  Today you achieved nothing.
|      ,              |  So today you achieved as much as most people do
| Micheal Lunny       |  in their entire lives.  Satisfied?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy