ttime

Are we talking about illegally as in violating copyright? If so... It is clearly immoral. Think about how evasive such an act is. You are denying that wealth needs to be produced by man for him to live, and that he needs to have a right to the product of his labor. No man who tramples the rights of others can claim rights for himself, so violating the rights of others is a self-contradiction and hence irrational. Since man needs to be rational to make the full and proper use of his faculty of reason (which is a cardinal value), being irrational is not in his self-interest. Here is an article that discusses some related issues: Prudent Predator Argument Remember the cardinal virtues, and observe how this act violates them all: It is dishonest (you sacrifice your view of existence to your victim), it reveals lack of integrity (since by asking this question, it is obvious that you recognize that stealing itself is wrong; otherwise you would not have specified this), it destroys your independence (you need your victim, he doesn't need you), it is irrational (for the reasons stated above), it is unproductive (you are only reducing wealth, not acquiring (or producing) it; nothing can be a value to those who attempt to gain it at the cost of their mind...i.e. the software is a disvalue), it works against your pride since you lose your sense of being able, and it is unjust (you are punishing someone for doing good and trying to reward yourself for doing evil), and finally it is not benevolent because it reveals that you are not willing to trade with others; rather, you resort immediately to force (at least in this case). If not (which I suppose would imply that it is an act of censorship by government that it is illegal, I can think of no other example)... Then it would be moral (though make sure you don't get caught!). Tristan

Very well said, I feel much the same way, although I have never seen it articulated explicitly. Thanks for this!

No.

Of course you should speak up. Tacitly standing by as they engage in immoral actions is basically giving them a sanction. If they are rational, they will listen to an argument you have about why it is not in their self-interest to violate rights. If they are not rational, you have no business spending time with them, in my opinion. However, it may be that in most facets of their life, your friends are virtuous and that they have a slight flaw in their character in this particular respect. If that is the case, then there is nothing wrong with spending time with them when they are using stolen property, so long as you point out to them that you know it to be wrong.

Are principles not concepts?

I have been pondering over this for a few days, now. I am getting increasingly hesitant to believe that duels should be legal, especially since Peikoff talked in a podcast about a similar case and declared it should be illegal. Now, it seems that the only way to infringe on other's rights is by force or fraud (fraud is basically force, but I wanted to make sure no one brings up that case; let us assume both parties to the duel know the terms beforehand and are independent adults). If the government's only purpose is to protect individual rights, and the government is only justified in punishing those who have infringed upon the rights of others, then it seems that dueling should be legal. This is because duels are mutually voluntary contractual agreements. Many people in the chat room who have disagreed with this idea stated that it is not the proper purpose of the government to protect those people who "abandon" their rights. However, it seems that in this case, just like euthanasia, someone is not "abandoning" their rights, but in fact exercising them. The principle behind the legality of euthanasia and dueling seem to be the same: In both cases, one is giving another permission to kill them; the main difference is that death is only a 50% possibility in dueling (depending on your shooting accuracy ) and euthanasia always entails death. Now, those people that disagree with me (including Peikoff, apparently) assert that someone who has killed someone in a duel is objectively a threat to society. But this does not seem to be the case, since that person was engaged in voluntary interaction, and even if this means that they possibly might have an inclination to kill people (outside of contractual agreements), we all well know that we should never equate the potential with the actual. So, what is the answer to this problem, and why (if at all) does dueling constitute a violation of rights? To be clear, I am only referring to lethal duels (i.e. duels that end in the death of one person), but any responses can additionally discuss duels in which people are only injured, not killed. However, if anyone does so, it would be helpful if they made the distinction clear. I am also assuming that the duel takes place on private property, there is a written contract, two witnesses are present, and both pistols are cleaned and checked for any possible functional issues.

What I don't understand is how someone can have a "right" to vote (I'm assuming this is what Rand means by a man's right to choose his representatives). Because, after all, it seems that such a right implies a positive obligation on at least some other people. After all, elections are not free. They must be organized at someone's expense. Of course, practically speaking, the government will surely always have enough funds to hold elections...But what if no one wanted to pay for elections? Would that mean that everyone's right to vote was being violated? Again, I might be misunderstanding Rand here (plus it is possible that she did not actually mean a right in the absolute sense; perhaps what she actually meant is privilege). But if anyone could explain this to me that would be really helpful.

Equivocation

"Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course." The "choice to live", as revealed in this quote, means the choice to engage in life-furthering or live-hindering actions.

LOL

So you don't think life provides the means for acquiring values within life? Or do you think life is the only value? This seems like a big contradiction in your position. Obviously I do not have the means to acquire things I value if I am not alive; therefore my life is my means of acquiring what I value. So you either must deny that life provides the means for acquiring values, or you must reject this definition that you have provided here.

But isn't life an instrumental value because it is the ultimate value? In other words, isn't it valuable because it makes all other values possible?

How is something be a choice if it's preprogrammed? Isn't "involuntary choice" a contradiction in terms? Also, what would you say to the idea that life is an instrumental value in sustaining itself, if that is the goal of the valuer's actions (whether voluntary or involuntary)?

Values are simply that which man seeks to acquire and keep. So things like alcohol and drugs can definitely still be values. The point is that they are not objective values, because when one hold such things as values, they are using a standard of value other than life. Any other standard of value besides life is subjective, since life is the value that makes all other values possible (i.e. is the only possible ultimate value). Nearly anything can be a value, but the purpose of morality is to guide you to choose the right objective values. I think you agree with me on this point, but I wanted to clarify for the OP's sake that the main distinction is between subjective and objective values.

It seems as though there are a few things your professor has failed to understand. 1) First of all, the negative concept of freedom does work, and it doesn't contradict itself. Economic power is not the same as political or military power. No matter how powerful wal-mart is, they will never be justified in taking away my property or imprisoning me. Sure, they may be able (to a degree) to restrict which grocery stores I can go to by becoming increasingly dominant in the market, but that's not inhibiting my freedom in any meaningful sense. I don't have the "freedom" to stop capitalists from trying to be as successful as possible. Just like a poor person doesn't have the "freedom" to steal money from a rich person to fulfill his need. The negative concept of freedom is the only concept of freedom that works, because it is the only kind of freedom that doesn't involve inhibiting the freedom (by infringing on the rights) of others. 2) Inequalities are irrelevant to the foundations of a moral code. For one thing, everyone has differing abilities, and so inequalities will always exist unless they are forcibly eliminated. Thus, economic inequalities have to be accepted as a matter of fact if you are going to have justice in society. 3) The "system" isn't impoverishing anyone. In fact, the whole point of a laissez-faire economy is that the "system" isn't controlling anything or harming anyone. Rather, people are left on their own to do as they will and try to accumulate wealth. Further, he seems to be implying that it "isn't fair" for people to be born into poverty. By his logic, why not simply make it illegal for poor people to have children? Further, where do you draw the line to call someone "impoverished"? If he doesn't think it is fair for people who are called "poor" in the United States to be born into poverty, what about people in third world countries that are often incomparably poorer? Why should we not be forced to redistribute our massive wealth among them? Surely they aren't getting the positive "freedom" that they deserve? Perhaps at this point he may try to claim that our government should only be concerned with the welfare of its own people. What of immigrants (non-citizens) then? But there are even worse problems. Poverty, even within a country, is relative. Where do you draw the line? What is the difference between forcing economic equality and communism? Surely everyone in the United States on average is better off economically than they were 100 years ago. Does that mean that poverty has been (even nearly) eliminated? No, of course not. People will always be poor relative to others in a free society. Your professor tends to use a lot of straw men, wishful thinking, reification, and irrelevant conclusions. However, I can see why calling him a Stalinist would make him angry (he is clearly a moral relativist of sorts since he believes in compromise). It might be easier to argue with him about why morality doesn't need to be objective to work. Of course, that is an entire other argument that could take a while to convince him.

It's quite interesting how none of the replies by the collectivists in that forum have any sort of justification for their arguments against capitalism beyond "it's disgusting". I was pretty disappointed overall on their criticisms of Ayn Rand as well, they truly had nothing to contribute; most of their criticisms were nothing more than ad hominem statements. On the other hand, this only makes me realize how difficult it is to attack a philosophy founded on reason.

It is clear that Ayn Rand did not believe that all actions are purposeful. Note that she declared the most depraved person to be "the man without a purpose." She explained this statement by saying that people without a purpose still had to act, but in doing so had to act destructively, to destroy others and their achievements. Think James Taggart from Atlas Shrugged or Adolf Hitler. Purpose, as being used in this context, means a productive, creative purpose, an objective purpose.

we should create a secret capitalist society in a valley in the mountains of colorado!