Leaderboard

Your question seems to be based on a HUGE misconception about Objectivists ethics: Objectivism does NOT say that the theft is immoral because it prevents the millionaire from living qua man. It is immoral for the thief to steal because it is incompatible with the thief's life qua man. The reason for that is that stealing is antithetical to life qua man--because life qua man means surviving by means of your own rational faculty. The millionaire's life is solely the millionaire's business; it has no direct relevance as far as the morality of my actions is concerned. Objectivist ethics is not altruistic; it does not make it my responsibility to worry about some other guy's life. If I cancel some contract with the millionaire and thereby reduce his bottom line by one dollar, the effect on him is still the same--he has lost $1--but such an action may well be moral on my part. It is not the effect on the millionaire that matters, but the effect on me.