KurtColville

Fantastic.

That's correct. Political philosophy proceeds from ethical philosophy, and ethics deals fundamentally with man as an individual, not as members of groups (the poor, the sick, the needy, doctors, politicians, etc.). Questions relating to the "general welfare" of soceity ultimately redound to what is right for the individual man. Objectivism rejects the acceptance of conflicts between groups, as in it's okay if few doctors/taxpayers have to sacrifice for the general welfare. It's not okay, because morality is necessary for every man, not just those lucky enough not to be sacrificed. True enough. There are no societal arrangements that metaphysically guarantee every single person will get every single medical procedure that could possibly desire. That is a fantasy (and a malevolent one at that), but one which all too many collectivists think achievable.

To add to this, the "freeloader argument" is often invoked against voluntary government financing: "If people had the option of not sending money to the government, no one would ever give the government a dime!" In practical terms, that is absolute nonsense. In such a situation, your choice is between a penniless government, resulting in anarchy and no protection of anyone's rights versus a government which every citizen can count on to protect his rights. You can keep all your money and then fight off the mob the rest of your life or you can give up a little and spend your life safe and secure. Which do you think people would choose? In addition, just think of all the trivial stuff that Americans bend over backwards to donate to. When they see the benefits of a proper, rights-protecting government, Americans would dump more money on the government than it could handle.

Excellent post all around, Sophia. Thank you. Absolutely. Truth is causally antecedent to value, but, as you said, in the context of morality, value is the essential, not truth. Were truth to be held as a primary in morality, man would go around collecting facts about anything at all, and only then decide which facts have value to him. Some life. That would be a disaster! There is a yellow car parked 50 feet from me. Fact. So what? That fact isn't a primary to me. I don't even have any business knowing it, unless knowing it is a value to me. Man properly starts by asking what part of reality is in his rational self-interest to examine. Then he starts collecting and integrating the facts that are causally connected to that part of reality (that value). Man says first, "I want to know about X," and only then can, and does, he say, "What about X is true and what about it is worth retaining? What facts should I retain that serve my interest in knowing X?" By this quote, Kelley seems to regard facts as so much flotsam that drift thrugh man's consciousness. If he's going to argue that truth is a primary in this context, then he is equivocating between epistemology and morality. To expand on your statement above, the very purpose of truth is to equip man's mind with the material it needs to pursue his values -- to live Kelley's quote is one of stunning ignorance. The concept of evil applies to people in the context of their specific actions. In moral judgment, actions cannot be separated from the people who perform them. (Metaphysically, yes, but not ethically.) Only man can perform actions that can be morally judged. If the wind blows a tree onto a house, that action isn't good or evil, it just is. It is natural, i.e., necessary. If a man pushes a tree onto a house, that is evil, because that action is anti-life. The man has a choice, as opposed to nature, and his choice is the product of the ideas that he holds, however unidentified and unintegrated. If Kelley expects that quote to be taken seriously, then he needs to explain what he means by "derivative", and really, he just needs another word altogether. Does he think that there is some factor other than ideas that is the cause of one's actions? (And no, I'm not including those whose mental defects cause involuntary action -- only volitional action is involved here.) Kelley's position is a disgrace, and you've done a nice job of identifying the problems and the answers.

From Wikipedia: Doesn't sound like "Pantheist" is a good term to describe someone who rejects the concept of God.

Clarissa, your story sounds tragic, but the direct, confident way in which you articulate your thoughts makes me think you will overcome your adversity with flying colors. This forum is indeed a good place to explore the questions you have about living. Kudos to your psychiatrist for recommending "The Fountainhead". Hopefully it will encourage you to read more of Miss Rand's work. Best of luck to you in your college work!

Some notable additional resources: Americans for Free Choice in Medicine and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). The latter is co-organized by Dr. Paul Hsieh, an Objectivism Online member.

Happy to oblige. Here is The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Right's page on health care. But you shouldn't limit your investigation to the economics of health care. Before you can ask, "How much will it cost to enslave doctors and patients," you should ask, "Is it right to do so and what happens when you do?"

Aside from the practical consequences that socialized medicine is never cheaper and more effective than a free-market system, the moral aspect trumps everything else: socialism necessitates coercion, and coercion is the destroyer of rationality and morality.

The conclusion follows logically from the assumptions. The assumption is false -- that's the point. The conclusion does not contradict the assumptions, it contradicts reality.

I'd like to expand on what Qwertz and musenji said about logical consistency and with respect to your teacher's syllogism proving God's existence. The "bad" news: his syllogism is logical. The good news: it's also not true! As Qwertz noted, logic applies equally to premises, whether they are true or false. Logic only serves to identify consistency between assertions. Without first appealing to the facts of reality, logic is useless. If you start with false premises, logic will only pass on a false conclusion. It is insufficient to determine the validity of an assertion. I don't think I saw in your whole exchange the one word that is the most important to your discussion: reason. Reason is the means by which man knows the facts of reality, and logic is but one of reason's tools. Reason also requires a focus on an existent's essentials, and logic alone is insufficient for identifying those essentials. For that, man needs to understand causality. To hammer home my point about keeping assertions bound to reason and the facts of reality, I wonder if your teacher recognizes the arbitrariness of the first premise in his syllogism. Why is it safe to assume that "If it is not the case that God exist,s [sic] nothing else could possibly exist"? Why? Of what use is this premise? Are we even going to try to evaluate its validity, to ask whether it's true or not? We're just going to take it as a given? Your teacher, explicitly, and your deluded, dishonest opponent, implicitly, are relying on your own confusion and inability to filter out their garbage. Don't let them. Think for yourself, say only what is true, and know why it is true. This is especially critical when you invoke the three axioms as metaphysically given, as axiomatic. You most know why existence, identity, and consciousness are axiomatic. I've always said that God has the best gig in the universe. He gets all the credit for anything good and none of the blame for anything bad.

I went to Syracuse University and discovered Ayn Rand there. While I enjoyed SU, I'm glad I'm not there anymore -- I could not take the winters. It's nice to know there are Objectivists in Central NY.

Good for you, Jessica! Discovering Ayn Rand will put you on the road to a lifetime of happiness and fulfillment.

And boy are those nice facts to evaluate.