From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Illogical Logic ( Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand )
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:12:15 GMT

In article <184629@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
}In article <1992Dec11.050859.3867@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}|> In article <184573@pyramid.pyramid.com>
}pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
}|> }What great kinds of aggression might we engage in just because we
}thought our
}|> }wonderful systems were "most" logical and should be propagated?
}|> 
}|> This is a straw man.  The Objectivist position is the same as that of
}|> liberalism (in the correct, classical sense of the term): the initiation of
}|> force or fraud is not justified if its purpose is to "propagate" ethics,
}|> even if the actor thinks that her ethical beliefs are correct.
}|>
}
}It is a straw man, or, as you point out, not a knock which applies
}uniquely to "Objectivism".  The point is simply that any Ethical system
}could be
}practiced in such a way that adherence to the system becomes a source of
}corruption to the system.  It would seem to suggest that Ethical
}systems are in themselves insufficient for gauranteeing ethical behavior.
}
}If one can behave unethically under the "jurisdiction" of an ethical system,
}then doesn't it suggest that the system itself is superfluous?

Not to me.  I'd agree that knowing ethics is an insufficient condition for
conducting oneself ethically; each must choose their own course of action.
However, I'd argue that such knowledge remains a necessary condition; how
can anyone act ethically if ignorant of ethics?

The same goes for free markets, by the way.  Many like to point out what
they call "market failures," missing the point that free markets are merely
necessary conditions for production, trade, etc., and not sufficient ones.

}I'm not sure what "liberalism" is, but I would guess that our society 
}is in the top ten among killers.

On a per-capita basis?  And I defined liberalism above - free minds and
free markets.

We dispatched about 125,000 in Iraq
}without even knowing it.  You know.  If "liberalism" is meant to label
}the general social ease that we experience, and I agree that it seems to
}be a big improvement over what I imagine an 8th century serf might get,
}the answer is "yes" for US citizens, and "no" for anybody else.  We've
}wreaked great havoc on the world in the name of goodness.  We may be
}fooled by our image of goodness, our intent may be sincere, but if there
}is a God, I suspect that He is indiscriminate with his love,
}and his grief. 

This seems a bit rash to me.  Socialism has murdered one person every
minute since the Reds took over Russia.  How do we compare?  USA's State
capitalism has its faults, and it's regressing, but it still comes out
above what alternatives I'm aware of.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5479 talk.politics.misc:64380