Replies

I always thought Ayn Rand's political philosophy could be summarily expressed using the time-honored American maxim, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Isn't there an underlying assumption here of "do no harm"? Why is it wrong to do harm? Who says?

It's not a question of "who says."

It's a simple, objective fact that if we all agreed not to initiate force or fraud against each other, we'd all be better off.

Certainly better off than those who initiate force against each other based on their personal beliefs about God.

I just sat through a four-hour ethics course. At no point was any appeal made to a supernatural authority as a reason for acting ethical. Indeed, the entire reason for acting ethical boiled down to "it makes good business sense." If people trust you they will do business with you; if they don't trust you they'll go to your competitor. Trust becomes the very foundation of all human transactions.

We are social critters. We need each other to survive, because individually we are weak and make a great meal for a goodly number of predators. Plus, individually, we have a hard time procuring that which we need to survive. Because we need to work as teams, trust is paramount. The great ethical philosophies, including those predating Christianity, realized this. The golden rule cropped up independently in a half dozen civilizations simply because it is rational and promotes survival. One did not need to be a God-fearing Christian to realize this.