DE5PA1R

But doesn't Rand assume that the decision to live implies the decision to be happy and pursue one's own self-interest? If so, one cannot choose to die for another no matter what the circumstances; the decision to be happy must come after the decision to live. If not, there is no correlation between being alive and pursuing happiness. False. I know parents who prioritize the life and happiness of their children above their own and are perfectly rational in doing so. I was not referring to the situation where John Galt gave himself up to his enemies. I'd hardly call it suicide.

I see that objectivist-forum-goers can practice evasion just as well as non-objectivists.

In John Galt's speech, Ayn Rand asserts that the goal and reward of life is happiness. But if an individual values something greater than that individual's life, doesn't the argument fall apart? If an individual can become happy by obtaining something he values and pay for it with his life, it demonstrates that happiness and life aren't necessarily directly correlated. This direct correlation is one of the foundations of Ayn Rand's argument. Can (and if so how would) an objectivist remedy the argument?