[Taliesan]

Since the ultimate purpose of an individual's life is his enjoyment of it, whatever interfere's with that purpose is bad, and whatever advances that purpose is good.

You forgot the standard Objectivist modifier "up to the point where the individual's enjoyment infringes on another's enjoyment."

Otherwise, you just endorsed Jeffrey Dahmer.

[Hank Kerchief]

I said: Since the ultimate purpose of an individual's life is his enjoyment of it, whatever interfere's with that purpose is bad, and whatever advances that purpose is good.

You forgot the standard Objectivist modifier "up to the point where the individual's enjoyment infringes on another's enjoyment."

Otherwise, you just endorsed Jeffrey Dahmer.

That is not quite correct. The expression you refer to pertains to individual liberty, not the purpose of one's life.

The purpose of one's life is one's enjoyument of it, period. The question of how one fulfills that purpose is the whole question of moral values.

The expression then pertains to how one fulfills the purpose of their lives, and for human beings it means they must be free to think and choose and act, without restriction, up to the point that any choice or act of one individual may not limit the liberty of any other individual.

But the idea was good one, and ought to be emphasized, even in this case. Thank you!

(By the way I am not an objectivist, and the objectivists do not hold that the ultimate purpose of an individual's life is their enjoyment of it. I do not believe you will find the purpose of human life expressed that way in any objectivist literature, certainly not in Rand, Peikoff, or Kelly.)

Hank