mustang19

I can come up with situations where Objectivism does not advise self-interested behavior. For instance tyrants (let's say Francisco Franco) greatly improved their well being by forcing themselves to the top of the social hierarchy.

Often though only other people's initiation of force is detrimental to my life. The ideal morality for me is usually to maintain my freedom to initiate force while denying that right to others. Maybe not usually. But most dictators and emperors lived quite well, or at least better than the plebes.

I don't see how it's unusual at all. Some, not all, forms of moral relativism can work this way. People are willing to change their principles when conditions change drastically. I'd even argue that most people approach morals this way. From this I get the impression that Rand's philosophy is meant primarily not to promote one individual's well being but as a moral code that a society of people follow to maximize their collective well being. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because you need food to survive, perhaps? Okay, I've pretty much gotten the answer I was looking for. Namely that Objectivism doesn't have any one absolute value and that morally right action depends on the circumstances. The issue of military service as an Objectivist and whether this can hinder self-preservation is another thread. But thanks for the responses.

Now that would make sense, but that doesn't prove that these values never require contradictory actions to uphold them. From that, I'd have to assume that my friend who I was having a debate with wasn't speaking for most Objectivists, or at least the ones on this site, when he argued that an Objectivist will never sacrifice themselves. My question is, if I have to steal bread to survive, should I instead starve to death to respect someone else's property? I don't care about the practical likelihood of this scenario. This is purely hypothetical and I'm looking for a yes or no answer.

Thanks for the quick and very detailed replies. This seems like a nice place; I think I'll like it here. I'm looking through SN's link now. So this is basically the prudent predator argument. My issue is that there are only specific situations where predation harms your survival; this isn't true all the time. I'm sure that this has been talked about often enough before. It's just that there are specific situations (like the person who has to steal food to survive mentioned in the first post) where Objectivist ethics run contrary to personal survival. In these situations refusing to be a predator can be detrimental to your survival. I'm not concerned with whether Objectivism is "good" or not; I'm merely curious as to whether Objectivists really think that respecting property rights always increases your chances of personal survival. Otherwise, the other conclusions that stem from Objectivist ethics (eg the political prescriptions) cannot apply in all cases without adopting values in addition to personal survival.

Hello, this is my first time posting and I'd like some information on how Rand derives an objectively necessary moral system (as far as I understand it). Anyone is free to reply. Anyway, a self-described Objectivist told me that Objectivism is necessary for survival because one must value one's own life in order to keep living. Okay, I can understand how that might hold for practical purposes. However I don't see how selfishness obliges one to respect the rights of others and not sacrifice them to benefit yourself. When I told him this he replied, "Sacrificing others while refusing to sacrifice yourself is a contradiction and therefore irrational." This is however a contradiction because there are situations where one might benefit one's own chances of survival at the expense of others. Let's study the quote semantically. Logical contradiction (as opposed to DIALECTICAL CONTRADICTION) is a matter of simultaneously saying, putting forward, or defending both some specific and definite statement and the denial of that self-same statement. >Sacrificing others while refusing to sacrifice yourself is a contradiction and therefore irrational. "Sacrificing others" is one statement. "Refusing to sacrifice yourself" is the second statement. I assume that "promoting your life" means "aiding your survival" in Objectivism. If your goal is promote your value, your own life, it is possible to promote your life by sacrificing others. Example: the guy stealing medicine to survive as mentioned below. So sacrificing others can promote your life. "Refusing to sacrifice yourself" does not interfere with the goal of promoting your life. Rather, this is consistent with promoting your life. Therefore, if your value is to promote your own life, then the consistent and rational thing to do is to sacrifice others if doing so promotes this value. For instance, say there is a person who needs to steal medicine or food to survive. If the person refuse to steal, they die, and following Objectivism would reduce their chances of survival. Therefore I don't see how Objectivism can be derived solely from the necessity of valuing one's own survival. Thanks for reading. Please set me straight.