Leaderboard

Where you write 'deduces' is where I disagree with your identification. Noticing a common element and focusing on it, omitting every other characteristic of every existent having that common element is an act of abstraction. Abstraction is not deduction. Integration and abstraction are two components of thought that are more fundamental than logic. Logic is demonstrated, its referents are shown. In the Objectivist jargon, logic is validated. Logic cannot be used to derive or prove logic itself without falling into the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, A.K.A. "begging the question" or assuming itself. As deduction is the use of logic, the phrase "deduces the laws of logic" is fallacious.

As Ayn Rand observed, “There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter . . . that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters.” Joshua Lipana was one of the few. He held this conviction from the core of his soul, and it radiated on the world with his every deed. In this portrait of Joshua, which was commissioned for me by Linda and Quent Cordair, Bryan Larsen captures this aspect of Joshua’s character—and, consequently, his independence, his confidence, his love of life. This is Joshua. Thank you, Bryan, Linda, and Quent. I will cherish this portrait forever. —Craig Biddle Link to Original

Nicky, I agree that the way you describe is ideal and is how it should be. However, that way is currently illegal and these two men are not hypotheticals. Under the current flaws and immoral laws that we have I would be willing to donate to someone because I would want the same available should a loved one of mine require it. And I would understand why someone would choose otherwise. We all react as rationally as we can within our characters to this unjust situation (government controlled bodyparts) I agree the current state of the laws forces us into impossible and immoral situations.

Your emphasis is pretty selective though. Looking at the entire quote: (I have underlined what I consider to be the most important parts) Lyle of Plaistow, N.H., said he had been told there was a one in five million chance for a non-family match. "It was kind of a no-brainer for a decent human," Lyle said. "I couldn't imagine just waiting. He could have been waiting for years for a match. I'd hope that someone would donate to me if I needed it." I see no problem with his choice. His use of "I" statements are correct. He wouldn't want to wait, knowing he would die for lack of a donor. Because he would not want that to happen to him it is rational self interest to go through with the donation. And lets really look at it... it isn't as though he is giving up a career. Unless something went terribly wrong he will get back to normal and could eventually compete again. Perhaps he would give more pause if he were staring down the barrel of losing a multi-million dollar football position. I don't consider myself an altruist and I would likely make the same choice, under the same conditions.