From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:31:12 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <MERRITT.92Dec14175418@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.055039.1798@hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk> chiwingkwok@cuhk.hk (Kwok Chi Wing) writes:
>
>What I am finding distasteful in all of this is that people are 
>equating "Logicality" simpliciter with "Rationality". 
>
>Getting back to Ayn Rand, she feels it is rational to be concerned with
>ones own welfare/happiness. Agreed. However it is also rational(I believe)
>to be concerned with the welfare of others. I do not wish to be
>compelled or coerced into being altruistic but I find it rational
>to feel altruistic. Ayn Rand accepts the self interest part and then resorts
>to logic to reach conclusions based on this. This is a correct use
>of logic.
>
>Logic provides algorithims to reach a conclusion only after you have
>framed the problem and established the axioms. Goedel tells us
>we can never prove the axioms but rather we must accept them and
>continue from there. Ayn Rand frames the problem incorrectly I
>feel by rejecting the value of altruism.(if I am altruistic
>and others are likewise this does benefit me.)
>
>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).

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian