[r9etb]

Tell you what. Give me a quote where Ayn rand said that, I'll send you a million bucks.

Pay up, Hank.

For the third time in this very thread, I give you Ayn Rand's very 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.

I've found on these threads that Rand's words are a source of extreme discomfort to those who are forced to logically defend them.

The problem here is: how do you logically prove that it's wrong to sacrifice others to ourselves, when there is ample evidence to the contrary?

[Dominic Harr]

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. Um --

A man might prefer to eat Cake for every meal, but that would not be in his rational self-interest or happiness.

Objectivism is quite the opposite of 'hedonism'.

Your understanding of this seems quite off-base.

I propose that "conservatives" who object to Rand do so purely on the basis of her atheism . . . religious people who feel that morality is not, can not be a 'rational' thing but is a gift from god.

To boil it down, they feel that 'individualism' is bad, because individuals should surrender their will to the authority of god.

This is just the same old rift between the 'social' conservatives and the 'economic' conservatives.

[Roscoe]

The problem here is: how do you logically prove that it's wrong to sacrifice others to ourselves, when there is ample evidence to the contrary?

I've seen that question posed them in various forms many times over the years. They NEVER answer it.

[Hank Kerchief]

Pay up, Hank.

I know this is going to be difficult for you, but I will try to help you understand these little words:

He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

In my post:

I quoted you: we can't sacrifice others to our own ends.

Then added:

Tell you what. Give me a quote where Ayn rand said that, I'll send you a million bucks. She never said we can't sacrifice others to our own end, or any other end. She said it was morally wrong to sacrifice others for any reason.

I know this is difficult for you, but "must not" and "can't" do not mean the same thing. "Must not" is what is meant by morally wrong.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked inPost #50?

Do you have a moral code? Do you have a philosophy? Can you prove them?

Hank

[Feiny]

" The problem here is: how do you logically prove that it's wrong to sacrifice others to ourselves, when there is ample evidence to the contrary?"

What evidence is there that it is right to sacrafice others?