Randian

Thanks for all replies! I now realize which premise was wrong

My thought was that perhaps a new "greater goal" could arise after being presented with the choice to live. If one was to pursue that "greater goal" wouldn't life become the highest value until that ultimate goal was reached (and then being of no value), and if so how would one condemn a man pursuing that goal when life is not his ultimate goal upon which ethics are based? I don't want to play the devil's advocate but I really want to grasp this to the fullest

Hi, I've been a supporter of capitalism for a long time and recently came into contact with the philosophy of objectivism and this forum I'm currently reading Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand and I've come to wonder how one would morally evaluate a person A who: 1 - has chosen life 2 - lives in accordance to the ethics of objectivism 3 - chosen the murder of person B (whom he dislikes) as his goal in life 4 - commits suicide after the murder of person B as he has accomplished his goal Now don't get me wrong, I consider this person a debauched and heinous man. It's just that I'm having problems motivating my evaluation in accordance to objectivist ethics, any help would be appreciated My line of reasoning is similar to the following: Person A chooses life ---> must adhere objective rights and values Person A chooses murder of person B as his primary goal in life ---> life is his primary value (murder can't be commited if he's dead) until murder of person B is accomplished (then his life has no value) ---> Person A commits suicide