Leaderboard

The question wasn't about value-judgments that you've made, it was about what you “don't get” with regard to self-interest and respecting the rights of others in Rand's ethics. I assume you just wanted to figure out what her reasoning was, we can leave the judgments of value to you. Now obviously, it is a straw man to say someone suffers instant panic attacks and psychosis from exploitation. Criminals often get adrenaline rushes, even getting addicted to the high of acts of crime and depredation. The point is here, only that there is more than just “I prefer having more over less stuff” and that well-being or eudaimonia is more than just seeing yourself as great through the eyes of other people via the social pecking order. Psychology is an actual science, not just a jumble of hard-to-prove empirical statements or subjective value-judgments. You don't automatically go insame upon exploiting others, but you set up conditions which will hamper your long-term well-being. To claim it benefits one to exploit others is to drop all context of what “well-being” means, and to use a narrow meaning of “benefit.” Rand's egoism is grounded in man's objective need for certain kinds of values, for which we must abide by rational principles, as these offer the only effective means of advancing his interest, long range. A mistake would be just looking at range-of-the-moment consequences (“whim-worshiping” as Rand calls it) such as “I can get more money today if I steal” or “I can be seen as cool in the eyes of this person if I lie.” Rational egoism is about making one's life as self-rewarding as possible, not about having everyone around you think you're awesome by deceit or submission. The egoists' end of self-actualization or flourishing or “eudaimonia” is not a “thing” or a state one reaches after getting a certain amount of money or a position in society. It is a process, a manner of living that emanates from one's own relationship to one's self and reality, and thus not something that can be seized from others second-hand. It requires a “first-hander” kind of existence. It shouldn't be too hard to see then, that such a goal can't be obtained by exploitation. Take a value like friendship. Can friendship be obtained by being a dictator over the lives of others? By forcing them to submit or die? By having people run to you in the hopes of getting favors from you? By lying to them or by deceit and flattery? Is this going to gain you long-term genuine close relationships? Obviously not. And if you tried to live your life in such a way, you would find yourself surrounded by the kinds of people you deserve. Now take the value of money or wealth. A person who resorts to theft or robbery faces the constant threat of apprehension, has to avoid authority, has to hide, be on the run in some cases, and cannot even enjoy the money or the wealth out in the open for risk of raising suspicion as to where he got it when those around him know he is a parasite that couldn't have obtained it on his own merits. He makes an enemy of honest men, who produce and trade openly, and he will also surround himself by other parasites who he cannot be sure will steal from him any second he turns his back. Is this the way to long-term rational self-interest, or is honest production and trade, where one can “stand naked in the sunlight” so to speak? Now what about the psychological effects? There is the thief who is a parasite in matter, but a social climber also becomes a “parasite in consciousnesses,” meaning he seeks the live through the effects of other consciousnesses than his own. Alone, he is at the mercy of his own mind and reality, he needs others to help him choose and reinforce him because he lacks self-esteem. A healthy psychology requires independence and efficacy at dealing with reality, but this is a man of dependence. He lives not in a universe of facts, but in a universe of other people, whom he must cater to, manipulate, placate, and deceive. Approval of others is his assurance that he is worthy of living, since he has no self-esteem. This is not mental health, which is a necessary component of well-being, but a neurosis, a defense mechanism. This comes with varying forms of anxiety depending on the degree one experiences this. A truly selfish person, by contrast, is independent. He knows he is worthy of living, and worthy of the values he achieves by his own effort. He feels no guilt because he knows he is not a parasite, and thus surrounds himself with others who are of mutual esteem. So you can see some of the reasoning that leads Rand to conclude that not only is exploitation of others a logical contradiction (if one grants one's right to life, one has to grant it to everyone else on the same grounds, or one revokes one's own grounds to claim a moral right to live), but it is not a practical way to life selfishly and achieve objective life-affirming values that lead to flourishing human life.

According to some interpretations, yes. This is ibn Warraq's view. There are many Muslim clerics, however, who would disagree. Neither you nor I are in a position to call them wrong. Once again, we are left with the conclusion that Islam is as Islam does, according to the interpretation of each person practicing it.

According to Islamic doctrine, the later Suras in the Quran abrogate the earlier, peaceful ones. This has been established from early in Islam's history.

I realize I am late to this discussion but, Trebor, the burden of proof is on you in this one. If you want to claim that bin Laden and his ilk were following the "true" version of Islam, it's up to you to use the Quran and various other Islamic sources to show why. Softwarnerd's point is not one that is easily ignored. It is impossible to be a fully consistent Christian, because faithfully following (or at least believing in) parts of the Christian religion necessarily mean that you ignore or fail to follow others. The same is true of Islam. If you choose to follow the violent parts of the Quran, you are ignoring other parts that preach peace. When bin Laden points to "slay them wherever ye find them," a whirling Dervish in Turkey might point to "there is no compulsion in religion." There is a theory, advocated by famed anti-Islamic activist ibn Warraq, that the violence of the different parts of the Quran depend on whether Muhammad was in Mecca or Medina when they were "revealed" to him. In Mecca, where he did not have much of a following and was at the mercy of the authorities, the suras are largely peaceful. In Medina, where he developed a following, they are more violent. I admit to not having studied this matter in detail myself, but I suspect you haven't either. The statement "Islam is a total state religion" is true, only insofar as it has been practiced as such in certain parts of the Islamic world in certain parts of its history. As it is with Christianity. In other times and other places, both religions have coexisted peacefully with other religions in a pluralistic society--as in modern Turkey. Even with the "Islamist" party in power, there are no government-sanctioned massacres or increased taxes against religious minorities. It's also worth noting that even with a large number of Muslims nominally supporting religious government, it is not practiced in most of the Middle East with anything approaching consistency. Islam unambiguously bans the consumption of alcohol and yet, to my knowledge, the only countries that completely ban it are (I think) Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya (for now), and Sudan.

The radicals are the movers, the moderates follow. Islam is a total-state religion and does not recognize the propriety of a separation between church and state. If I understand your question, I'd say, again, that the moderates or the inconsistent majority give a "bad name" to the consistent ones. I know that Dr. Peikoff gave an answer to a similar question in one of his podcasts, but I cannot find it right off. If I remember, he said that it's the radicals that set the course of history. Once they do, once they act, the moderates are irrelevant.