Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cholula.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!cholula!tna
From: tna@cholula.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Message-ID: <101@cholula.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 12:32:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: cholula.101
Posted: Mon Oct  7 12:32:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 09:42:00 EDT
Reply-To: tna@cholula.UUCP (Tom Anderson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 67
Xref: tektronix net.philosophy:02901 


>I raise then this issue: 
>Assuming a continuum of moral reasoning (not behavior
>just reasoning), where in relation to other moral
>belief systems does Objectivism stand?
>
>darren Kall


I am new to the news and was just perusing things when
I saw your comments about objectivism.  This caught my
interest because I, too, am a student of objectivism
but have never encountered anyone else admitting to having 
any knowledge of it (although a few people have admitted
to reading Ayn Rand novels).

As to your question:   Where does Objectivism stand in the
realm of moral belief systems?

I think it stands alone.  Here is why:

All other systems of ethics (that I know of) make an arbitrary
appeal to authority as the basis of their system (argumentum ad
verecundiam).  Either they appeal to:

	1.  the authority of God (e.g. 'God has revealed to us
		what is right and wrong - what more can be said').

	2.  or the authority of man (singularly or collectively,
		e.g. 'What is right or wrong can only be determined
		by the norms of the applicable society').

Ayn Rand, however, has attempted to base the Objectivist ethics
on the nature of the objective reality that we are all a part of.
She writes in "The Virtue of Selfishness" (speaking about altruism):

	Since nature does not provide man with an automatic
	form of survival, since he has to support his life by
	his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's 
	own interests is evil means that man's desire to 
	live is evil - that man's life, as such, is evil.
	No doctrine could be more evil than that.

She is arguing here that survival is fundamental.  Assuming
we make the choice to exist (live), the most important thing
is to keep on living.  One's life then becomes a thing of
'ultimate value' and that which advances one's life is good and
that which detracts from it is bad.  The Objectivist ethics is
based on a hierarchy of values with one's life at the top of
the heap.  (Some of you out there will object to the apparently
hedonistic, materialistic nature of Objectivism.  It really isn't.
Even love for another human being is selfish (I am using the
word 'selfish' in the same sense that Ayn Rand does).  But
that is not the question at hand, so I will say no more on that).

I find the concept of a 'hierarchy of values' as the basis
for ethical decisions very useful in my own life.  This concept
can be used regardless of whether you agree with Ayn Rand as to
the 'ultimate value' or not.  You don't even have to know for sure
what you believe is the 'ultimate value'.  If you can prioritize
your values  that relate the ethical question at hand well enough,
you have made great progress towards reaching a decision.

-- 

Thomas N. Anderson      ...uw-beaver!teltone!tna 
Teltone Corporation, 10801 120th Ave NE, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 827-9626