[Self-interest versus rights]

However, if we're talking about individual moral decision-making, for Rand that is always focused on the well-being of the individual doing the choosing.

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.

[Self-interest versus rights]

That may be the case with Aristotle, but this is one of the areas where Rand departed with him. Since society as a whole is nothing more than a group of individual men, the individual is the primary moral unit. Rand's social virtues (the ones dealing only with interpersonal relations) and politics, e.g. the non-initiation of force principle, is for upholding individual morality in a social context. Rand's morality holds "man's life qua man" as the standard of value, but "man's life qua man" is an abstraction that applies to all men as a standard. Therefore the purpose of each man acting according to that standard is his own life and well-being. This is what a policy of "selfishness" means, each person's life and happiness is their primary moral responsibility. It just so happens that force is detrimental to each of our lives and values, so if you hold the individual's life as the primary moral unit, you must proscribe physical force in the realm of social interactions, which means you must hold man's rights as inviolable.

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.

That's a very poor rationalistic explanation, but hope it helps. The best thing to do is to look at what kinds of behavior involving other people truly in the long-term benefits your life. Is it being a criminal, is it living the life of Aladdin stealing bread in the market, or is it being honest, productive, and goal-oriented?

Maybe not usually. But most dictators and emperors lived quite well, or at least better than the plebes.

[Self-interest versus rights]

This view is certainly an unusual alternative to most common ways of thinking about morals and principles, and it takes some familiarizing, but I believe it is the correct view to take.

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.

Peaceful cooperation and the trader principle, on the other hand, enables long-term harmony of interests and mutually beneficial interpersonal relations.

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.

[Self-interest versus rights]

Why would you be starving?

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.

[Self-interest versus rights]

It's is not merely survival that is held as the highest value by Objectivism, but life, more specifically life as a man.

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.

[Self-interest versus rights]

Thanks for the quick and very detailed replies. This seems like a nice place; I think I'll like it here.

It is indeed not a literal contradiction to sacrifice others while refusing to sacrifice yourself, and that is not the correct reasoning to support the notion that we should not sacrifice others. The basis of that notion is the contention that no good can come from human sacrifices for anyone, that predation does not work to advance the predator's life in the long term. "Rational self-interest" is actually a much more complicated animal than most people suppose, and often the course of action which seems to be "obviously" self-interested is actually self-destructive. That is the case with taking advantage of other people. This principle is known as the "harmony of rational interests" in Objectivism. For more of the reasoning behind why predation is self-destructive and self-defeating, you should check out the threads that softwareNerd linked above.

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.

The basis of that notion is the contention that no good can come from human sacrifices for anyone, that predation does not work to advance the predator's life in the long term. "Rational self-interest" is actually a much more complicated animal than most people suppose, and often the course of action which seems to be "obviously" self-interested is actually self-destructive.

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.

[Self-interest versus rights]

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.