From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Objectivism and "good" emotionalism?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:31:47 GMT

dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley) writes:
>In article <lewchuk.726690261@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
> writes:
>True, you could always get another wife and perhaps have similar feeling for 
>her that you do for the first one.  However, the value you place in the person 
>who is your first wife may allow you to rationally risk your life.  Consider 

Consider that the (rational) admittance that you can have another fulfilling
relationship with someone else (which I can't really contest at this moment)
is equivalent to saying "I am unnecessarily risking my life since by the law
of selfishness I can replace this person with someone else, and have a 100%
chance of surviving and being happy with someone else".  In my opinion this
argument is quite objective, rational, and correct.  I'm sure even Ayn would
have a big problem taking a whack at it without claiming personal irrational
action (sentimentality) is an inherent personal good.

What I'm saying is combine the "virtue of selfishness" and "rational thought
weighing more than (irrational) feelings".  What I'm essentially wondering
about is how many people could easily rationalize letting their wives die,
but do not do so because they accept that irrational action (self-sacrifice)
is of greater value than rational action sometimes.  That is, personal
preferences are not determined rationally, and sometimes what "feels right"
and what people act upon are irrational whims which seem to be more "right"
than rational thought, at least for humans.

>Again, it is a question of which is more important to you.  I hope you 
>wouldn't jump into a case of near-certain death to try to save a total 
>stranger.  The benefit and risk should always be weighed.

Benefits of risking myself to save my wife:  one wife which I could probably
replace by remarriage.

Benefits of risking myself to save an unknown person:  probably gratitude
on that person's part, at least in some sense, provided the person is not
trying to commit suicide in a very strange fashion (in which case you could
probably earn his gratitude by drowning him).

Thus, the second case is more preferable to the first.  Or where is my logic
off?  Remember, we are talking rational objective selfishness here, not
irrational selfishness.

>Your definitions of society and chaos are neither necessary nor sufficient.
>Rand made a mistake when she chose the word "selfishness" rather than a more 
>neutral term such as "rational self-interest."  A lot of argument against her 
>seems to be based on the definitions of words as commonly accepted rather than 
>as she defined them.  Her mistake.  However, it is certainly possible to build 
>a society based on rational self-interest.  (Please argue that point in another
>thread if you so desire.  This one would get too cluttered.)

Probably.  But any guesses as to what a rational self-interested society
would be like and why it wouldn't degenerate into a bunch of selfish,
self-preoccupied people acting rationally to preserve their own skins at the
expense of everyone else?  To put it simply, why should people value each
other in a rational, self-interested world?

>Dan  ***  dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA