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.
So I'm not an end in myself after all. My self-interest is not absolute, but subject to the existence of others. So Ayn's got herself a bit of a problem.
What it suggests, then, is that rights are in some sense a "law of nature." But as we've already seen, observation of nature does not support Rand's claims to have discovered those rules.
The foundation isn't the nature of the interests, it's the nature of man himself. He is an individual with certain characteristics.
But in Rand's formulation, man would have to be a product of evolution -- the basis of which is the passing along of genes by whatever means, and "survival of the fittest," which in practice appears to favor the strong and/or the sneaky.
The source of the concept, or thing is irrelevant to whether it is subjective, or objective.
Objectivists claim that their ideas can be proved through application of reason alone. That is untrue. What are we to make of a philosophy whose fundamental claims are false?
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.
OK, I'll bite. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that biological evolution is a real phenomenon. As we can easily observe, one of the primary drivers in biological evolution is the initiation of force. Success in initiating force leads to better predators. Success in avoiding extinction at the hands of predators -- by a variety of methods -- leads to better prey. Note that the "goal" of this process is not so much the good of the individual, but instead passing along successful genes to subsequent generations -- the good of the species, in other words.
If we were to follow Rand's recommendation, we would have to conclude that man's highest moral goal would be some version of Social Darwinism.
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.
Well yes... but you've begged the question of what that essential nature is in the first place. In Rand's atheist conception we, as products of evolution, have no logical basis for setting ourselves above the evolutionary principles that guide the rest of nature. Yet that is precisely what objectivism does -- and it does so by violating its own basic premises.
IF we are say that man is set apart from the rest of nature, we cannot do it by applying reason to what we see around us. Our reason for doing so HAS to come from some other source.