Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!well!l5!laura From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's definitions of force and reason Message-ID: <309@l5.uucp> Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 16:32:30 EST Article-I.D.: l5.309 Posted: Tue Dec 3 16:32:30 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 15:23:52 EST References: <1482@hound.UUCP> <1910@psuvax1.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 44 Piotr is right is noticing that the common denomination of robber actions is to view other people as things. Rand's claim is that this is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because it does not acknowledge that there is something about a human being which makes one unworthy of treatment as a thing. If the robber is persuing Ethical Egoism as a basis for his actions then he has already accepted that there is something about himself which makes him his own standard of value, and by not understanding that everyone else is as well, the robber is acting unreasonably, not only by Rand's standard, but also by his own. Admitedly, Erich Mach makes this point a lot better than Rand did. From there Piotr falls quickly into a rejection of reason. I don't see how this can be justified. The argument that the rich will claim to be reasonable in order to put the squeeze on the poor is rather weak -- people rationalise all the time but it this is the first time that I have been told that I should give up reason on their behalf. Rather there is all the more reason to work harrd at being reasonable, in order that you may refute the claims of the apparantly rational who are in fact irrational. And, if it is the case that the poor and less well educated would be worse off in a more liberatarian society than in the one we have now, then those libertarians, (including me) who deny this are being fundamentally irrational since they have some how lost touch with reality. You had better keep your reason, because I for one don't see why I should listen to anything other than reasoned argument designed to demonstrate that I have made a mistake. What else is there? Ethics by general consensus? Historically, there have been far too many instances when the general consensus was that it was moral to treat some subset of humanity as things for me to be comfortable with this one. Ethics by divine insight? And how are we going to get the Ayatollah to admit that his insight is not the only correcct one, and that all others are heresy? Looking at all other ethical systems is a great idea. After all, wise men have been investigating the problem for centuries. And I would expect to find a lot in common in all theories of ethics, because of the common power of reason used by these men and the common problem they have of determining what behaviour is in keeping with human nature and the common desire to live well. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa