Lukas

I have only read some basic things about Ayn Rand and her moral views. I would appreciate if you would give me a small summary of the views she has that applies to this thread.

Lets assume a hypothetical situation where a person ends up in a situation where there are only two alternatives to be chosen among. The first alternative is a state of permanent happiness and the second alternative is at state of permanent unhappiness. After the choice has been made there is no return and the state will be everlasting. I will try to clarify the states below: 1. The state of permanent happiness is associated with complete satisfaction and permanent happiness for everyone. It’s a optimal state for everyone. Everything is perfect and it can not be better. 2. The state of permanent unhappiness is associated with complete unsatisfaction and permanent unhappiness for everyone. It’s the worst state for everyone. Everything is imperfect and it can not be worse. Is it possible in a rational way to justify one of these states more than the other? I think it is very hard or even impossible to justify a choice of the second alternative, and I have never heard any arguments for such state. If it’s true that is impossible to justify a choice of the second alternative then one conclusion is that the objective moral right choice is the first alternative and the objective moral wrong choice is the second alternative. If this conclusion is correct then the mystery of the objective moral is solved. But I assume I have made some kind of mistake in my conclusion. If you find it speak out So my purpose with this thread is to find the objective core of the moral.

1. Is it possible to justify a state of permanent unhappiness? If yes, how can this done? If no, why not? 2. Is it possible to justify a state of permanent happiness? If yes, how can this done? If no, why not? Regards Lukas