TLD

That's what love is about. Rand was stating a personal preference, not a philosophical point. Such emergency situations are outside the purview of morality because there are no rational choices available.

First, Objectivism does not "justify" itself; it is what it is and one can accept it or not. Second, philosophy does not deal with such emergency ethics questions. Thus, acting as one must to save his life in such a situation is not a moral issue. That would not mean that one life is more valuable than the other.

I can't think of essays or lectures, but plenty of references to drugs. One can cetainly apply her principles to the topic of drugs. What are you searching for?

I understand what you are saying; e.g. one could argue that passively believing but not living by the tenets of religion is only mildly irrational.... But faith runs contrary to the facts of reality, is the negation of reason and rationality; etc. From Metaphysics to politics, one's philoosphy generally becomes seriously flawed.

And you really think that Obj.ists would consider any theist to be rational? You must not have been an atheist on identified principle.

Objectively is the only way to look at it. One has not achieved any value by simply "believing" - that requires no mental exercise! And I surely don't need to consider the Christian's opinion re his happiness: feelings should not count in this discussion. Nor should the temporary moments of joy that people feel even without value achievement.

You want to be careful with the definition here. Happiness is a successful state of life that results from the achievement of one's values. It is not a moment in time as I noted earlier. In your example, I would say that they can have positive emotions about things but certainly not similar degrees of happiness.

She differentiated between economic power (good) and political power (bad). The latter of course requires the use of force; the politician using it is not himself being altruistic but he is asking others to be.

Wrong. As Rand said: Christ (in Christian philosophy) is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. That is sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.

Agreed except for the "guiding philosophy" part: religion explicitly follows the altruism code and taeches sacrifice. It's just that most people either don't see what is truly being taught or they understand that reason and rationality have to dictate much of the time and they are naturally pulled away from sacrifice.

This is an Obj.ist forum, and altruism has been defined here philosophically as Rand defined it - based on rigid concept formation and not on popular connotations. Be loose with definitions and rational argument goes out the window.

That research does not define altruism properly; purely emotion based. Why are you so intent to show that altrists are happy?

Correction: emotions result from conscious value judgments integrated by his subconscious. As a state of consciousness, I would not call happiness an emotion. In a moment of joy, yes. What you call a "feeling of happiness" is the "moment of joy"; but true happiness is still not achieved while holding anti-life values.

Happiness is the state of life resulting from the achievement of one's values. It is not a moment in time. No, one cannot be happy and irrational. That does not say that one can't make mistakes and still retain his happiness.

Rand: "What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." The principle is valid.

That is a contradiction. If you do the former, then you do the latter (explicitly or implicitly). True happiness is not equivalent to "feeling" like you are happy or "seeming" to others to be happy.

True happiness is achieved by living a rationally selfish life. As an altruist, this cannot be possible. However, there are many levels of happiness. An altruist who is otherwise a "good" person will reach a certain level of happiness, and he will likely be satisfied with that and believe he is truly happy. But he is certainly not striving for moral perfection, thus not as potentially happy as an Obj.ist.

There clearly is a lack of respect for Peikoff floating around here; and you wonder why he and other "experts" don't participate? You might conclude he is irrational? Where does that come from? If he does not write a fiction book equiv. to AS, then he proves himself incapable? Really? His existing works don't speak for themselves? And all the quesitoning about him being "intellectual heir": you just don't believe him? Were you around Rand's associates from the days of Branden to her death and learned something I and others don't know? Do you have reason to believe that Peikoff was Rand's "second mistake" (as noted by someone)? Is it the questioning of Peikoff and perhaps others in ARI and elsewhere that leads to the debate on the appropriateness of some Obj.ist hierarchy or on who is an expert? And how is all this questioning relating to the topic at hand?

No, no others could possibly make such a claim. How can you say that? "Evaluation": what are you saying?

Boy, you really have unfound suspicions re Peikoff! You don't know she did not grant him "intellectual heir"; I have every reason to believe that she did and that he is honest about it. I was among known Objectivists at the time of her death and fully understood that Peikoff was assigned the position of intellectual heir. She gave Branden too much credit, in retrospect. But why is it so hard to believe that Peikoff replaced Branden in her mind? In fact, in the end, she regarded him much more of an Objectivist. Is there really any reason to continue this discussion? Does it have any bearing on how Obj.ists should look up to the "experts" et al?

So where is the rationalization? You know I was only referring to titles: as intellectual hier (which Peikoff did not make up), Peikoff deserves the same respect as Rand until proven unearned.

By making him her hier (which she had plenty of reason to do), she essentially put him in a position to be evaluated in the same manner as she. And he has not been rationally criticized for holding philosophical views in contradiction to Rand's. That's what "hier" means here; her ideas are property that can be transferred. If you question his title (as described), than you would have to question her title as creator and owner of Obj.ism; and I don't expect you would do that. I gave just 2 reasons why some hierarchy is of value. Again, if someone wants to question Peikoff as top Obj.ist expert, then be specific.

Yes, there is a valid reason. Rand selected him as the "owner" of the philosophy, and he has been given the right to do the same. Hierarchy at the "top" is important to guide the spread of the philosophy, to identify the errors of others, etc.

Assuming you are talking about philosophical topics, I would conclude that only Peikoff is a true "expert." This conversation is too loose, and you need examples of his supposed contradictions/errors if you are to so challenge him. Peikoff cannot name a successor to him because he is not convinced that anyone else has his expertise. However, there are many who still make so few errors that they generally do not warrent the criticism from more amateur Obj.ists.

This is the kind of thinking that could make them not want to participate. They are exposed all the time - they are outfront in the media, at universities, etc. I believe that they want students of Obj.ism to read and gain some understanding of Rand et al before asking questions; thus their interest in addressing the type of questions often asked here is of lower priority. It does not sound like you are giving them - the experts - enough credit; I can't believe you would think that there is a "level playing field." More importantly, why do Students of Obj.ism think they need the experts' participation? Don't they think it is possible to learn Obj.ism well without it? I and most Obj.ists I know certainly did.