In Rand's own words: 3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Now ... am I going to believe you, or my own lyin' eyes?
Back to what you said:
The motivations in her philosophy are whatever the individual holds as an interest, regardless of what that interest is.
So if I like to torture people, and take their stuff -- if that's my interest, you're saying Rand would support it? No, she wouldn't. She'd say that "my interest" is not a sufficient moral justification, because it acts against the interests of others.
Which of course contradicts Rand's claim that every man is an end in himself -- if this were really true, my interest in torturing you need not be affected by your reluctance to submit to it.
The problem is, following Rand's first two points (objective reality and "going by the evidence") leads me to conclude that there is no absolute injunction against torture, theft, murder, and so on -- the only constraint would be my self interest (Rand's point #3), and whether I thought I could get away with it.
And, of course, there's no particular reason to claim that "my interests" are the true measure of morality at all. The theory of evolution, which has a strong scientific backing, suggests that "the good of the species" might be a better choice. At the very least, this is a demonstrably valid alternative to Rand's "absolute" individualist morality. Logically speaking, the existence of a provable alternative means that Rand's findings are not absolute after all -- so much for her "objectivity."
The problem here is that objectivists expect us to accept their underlying assertions as true and absolute. For example, an objectivist favority is the non-initiation of force. I happen to agree with this -- but the sad fact is that one cannot objectively demonstrate that it is an absolute moral requirement. Indeed, the evidence suggests precisely the opposite.
Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
And is a function that adds to the primary rational self interests.
I should have added the appropriate qualifier to the clause, "regardless of what that interest is." That is, that the rights of others can't be violated in the course of pursuing those interests. In general, Rand holds that: "It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders."
" there's no particular reason to claim that "my interests" are the true measure of morality at all."
The foundation isn't the nature of the interests, it's the nature of man himself. He is an individual with certain characteristics. Since their is no rational reason, natural, or contrived, for anyone else to claim authority over that individual; there is no justification to initiate a forceful conquest of anyone elses sovereignty of will. That's the basis of the noninitiation principle.
" Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
The application of reason is the only way anything can be known to be true. Absolute, means it is real and unique; it has an objective reality. The source of the concept, or thing is irrelevant to whether it is subjective, or objective. The fact that the noninitiation principle is the only moral guiding principle that allows men to maintain their essential nature, when those men are contained in a community is a fundamental characteristic that leads to it's absolute nature.
"When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
The proof lies in examining the opposite principle and comparing it to the noninitiation principle. The opposite principle is any principle, simple, or complex, that allows for the initiation of force for some individual interest. If that principle is held as the guiding foundation in a moral code that governs the interaction of men, some men will be redefined and forced to take on an artificial essential nature. Their real nature though, will still be intact.
It cannot come from God either, since God has sometimes commanded his followers to slaughter babies...
Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. All knowledge includes assumptions at its base. By definition, assuptions are not proved. If you don't believe the assumptions, all that's built upon them is suspect, but nonproveable assumptions there must be.
Even in mathematics, agruably our most pure knowledge, there are plenty of assumptions. Under certain perfectly valid assumptions, 2+2 is not 4.
Christianity begins with the assumption that God exists. No proof is offered. A second assumption is that the Bible is the Word of God. Again, not proved anywhere.