From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:35:52 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.



In article <1992Dec22.052243.21372@maths.tcd.ie> mpl@maths.tcd.ie (Micheal Lunny) writes:
>jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>>[del]

>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.

Here again you misunderstand Rand's definition of selfishness. "Selfish-
ness", according to Rand, is defined as "doing right by yourself in all
things." If you pass by the stranger and do not help him, you would
be violating your own moral code.

>>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.

Not necessarily, although I don't think she would word it that way.
If helping someone is right for you (and it is for just about everyone),
you should by all means do so.

>>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.

Certainly, but you don't understand her definition.


>>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).

??? What this means is that every individual should strive to be 
responsible for himself as well as to be independant (i.e., earn what you
get) How terrible.

>>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.

What do you mean? Who is forced to serve these people?

>>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.

Mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory car insurance, things designed to 
protect you from yourself because by hurting yourself you hurt "society."



>>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.

*Sigh* This is not what it means. You really don't seem to understand
what Rand is talking about. From my point of view, I believe that the
individualistic philosophy is what is best for mankind. The notion of
obligation to others, i.e., lack of a right to live your life by your
own judgement, is extremely dangerous to mankind and is responsible in 
part for the problems of today's society. I advocate this philosophy 
because I think it is the only philosophy which will allow civilization
to continue. Is this a condemnation of charity? *No* Is this a condemnation
of helping others? *No* Is this a condemnation of being nice? *No*. It
is an advocation of a society based on mutual cooperation, a condemnation
of a society based on force. People are still free to be kind and 
considerate, but charity is not to be given at gunpoint. (Taxes).

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



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory