Arkadi

Anthony: I did not get your point in this sentence: "Unwilling to LIVE as the conquered slave" - you assume as "life or death" - where she obviously meant "Exist", in the normal sense." Ok, I am all for paraphrasing it as: "EXISTENCE in freedom or death." Would this satisfy you? "Is it ever implied or known that entering the armed forces will certainly lead to one's death?"--Of course, not! But how is it implied in--or relevant to--anything I said! Thanks for citing my particular statement which, in you view, is falsified by this trivial fact which you're stressing.

Peter: There is a personage in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, named Smedyakov, who gives a famous speech to the effect that it would have been better if Napoleon defeated Russia, for thus a "civilized" nation might have civilized an "uncivilized" one. But by what extant "civilized" nation would one wish the United States to be "civilized"?

Anthony: You've just confirmed my suspicion that you cannot accept Rand's words at their face value and are going out of your way to edit them so as to make them "palatable" to you. If she wanted to say what you're trying to put into her mouth she would have said: "preferring to risk death over life in slavery" instead of "unwilling to live as the conquered slave." In my view, Rand's actual wording is perfect, whereas even your last version is too weak as a message to be given to potentials combatants, as it lacks determination. The same is even more true of yours (or someone else's here?) previous version to the effect: "if worst comes to worst you may always surrender, guys." Soldiers programmed this way would be plausibly slated to lose; and Rand, no doubt, understood this.

Anthony: This new phase of the conversation was initiated not by me but by RobinReborn. I was just drawing attention to the fact that Rand's message to those in the military is to prefer death over life in slavery. I believe this is a great message. I have no "concerns" about it.

Anthony: What particular words of mine made you believe that I could possibly think such nonsense? I would be grateful if you could cite them verbatim.

Anthony: I understand that "there is more also to being in an Army"; but I am not talking about what there is--in general--to being in the army. I'm talking of Rand's message to those serving in the army. The reason for my repeating the quote again and again is that, in paraphrasing it, you're, again and again, muting its point that I'm bringing to the fore. E.g., in your last response, you rendered "unwilling to live as the conquered slave" by "not being prepared to be sacrificed to slavery." In my view, your wording lacks precisely the part of Rand's message that is relevant to the topic of this posting. If you disagree with this part, that's fine with me. What I am objecting to is your non-acknowledging that the part under question is there.

"not everybody has to defend his nation... I don't know if you find glory in the martial, Arkady"--Anthony, again: It is not about me or you. It's about us (US) having an army and about our message for those serving in it. One possible message would be: "Guys, you'll get in technical skills, gaining self-confidence and the challenges and adventure and skill with weaponry - while being well paid and cared for in a large organization. Good for you!" But that's not the message Rand chose to give them. She said nothing of the kind, but: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue."

It's not about what you would personally prefer. Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough: it is about the message you would give to those enlisted in the military (if you were invited to speak before them, like Rand was). I doubt that you would advise them to compromise rather than risk death. Rand's message to them, at any rate, was very different: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue."

"Surrender and courage are not necessarily incompatible"--Sure. I did not mean they are. "freedom makes your life worth living"--does this imply that slavery makes your life not worth living? Or life in slavery is still preferable to death, according to Rand?

Anthony: "I've no idea."--No problem. That just means you can't help me to understand Rand's words: "In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue." http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

To be free you have to living. Does it follow that "Give me liberty or give me death" is sheer foolishness? Or how to avoid this conclusion?

"Context matters"--Exactly. Otherwise there would be nothing to discuss here (for Rand or any other philosopher, at any rate). It's not a question like whether you want to be healthy and rich or sick and poor.

"It's a lot easier to bequeath values if you are living than if you die."--Sure. But it's impossible to bequeath the value of courage if you're surrendering.

RobinReborn--It's about what values we bequeath to younger generations. An area that is not war ravaged today can easily become war ravaged tomorrow. Nobody wants to die in battle just for the sake of dying in battle. 0 $$$

Meanwhile, I've come across the following citation "What signifies health, or life itself without liberty? Life without liberty is the most errant trifle, the most insignificant enjoyment in the world." http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/262/hist-116 Does this sound un-Randian? Am not quite sure what to think.

My apologies for interfering with an aside: I am surprised that Rand stayed, towards the very end, appreciative of Dostoevsky, as most of what he preaches--through his novels, in particular--may be easily seen as altruism: making oneself accountable for other people's failures, prostituting oneself to support one's family, etc. And one personage who preaches "rational selfishness" (Luzhin, in Crime and Punishment) is exposed as a disgusting egoTist, a clear ad hominem argument against the views of which he is presented as a proponent.

p.s. And BTW--re "There's no imperative here, only "is and ought": "ought" is an imperative. Thus Rand writes (in the "Ethics of Emergency"): "...if a man is able to swim and to save his drowning wife, but becomes panicky..., one would condemn him morally for his treason to himself and his own values, that is: his failure to fight for the preservation of a value crucial to his own happiness". NB: Rand's stance here is far from the "non-judgmental" attitude that has become a moral fashion today.

Anthony--"It is your "moral duty" to cherish and protect your values ... IF 'you' want to keep them."--Sure. The question ethics (of the Aristotelian kind) is supposed--and, as far as I can see, Rand is trying-- to answer is precisely what values it is truly selfish and rational to cherish and protect. Not everything we are attracted (not to say, addicted) to is such a value but only that which is conductive to our well-being (as measured against the "standard").

Brant--"I'm assuming a relationship of total commitment and devotion"--What if one is totally committed and devoted to one's country? or to an idea? Would the same reasoning apply? E.g., there was a young Russian soldier recently who preferred to have his neck cut rather than to take off his cross from it, as the Chechens who had captured him demanded.

p.s. In particular, being a fan of Aristotle, I am fascinated by Ayn Rand's bringing him back to life by drawing the implications of his thought relevant to our age.

Anthony--"It could help the context if you clarified your personal angle"--I am a philosopher, absolutely new to Ayn Rand, fascinated by her personality and some aspects by her thought, puzzled by others, which I am committed to figure out, as, on my intuitive assesment, understanding her thought is essential for fully connecting to my (relatively) new homeland, United States, which connection has a tremendous value for me. Is this account sufficient, in your view? I would be happy to answer any questions.

Brant--"Properly--usually--one doesn't give one's life in battle; one fights for one's life in battle"--I have, based on some helpful responses here, clarified and slightly re-formulated my question, addressing it now to the citation from Rand that I posted. It is now not about giving one's life in battle but about giving one's life to save that of one's beloved. And yes, this does not happen normally. But does happen sometimes, nevertheless.

Anthony--"It's implicit that a child didn't choose her parents. She didn't choose to live. Her existence was a value-choice made by her parents"--Does this mean that it is a moral duty for a parent to give his life, if needed, to save that of his child, regardless of whether the child is actually perceived by the parent as being of any value? If not, how is this relevant to the topic of our discussion? If yes, what's wrong with Rand's mother (as presented by Molyneux) performing her parental duties towards her children without perceiving her relationship with them as having any value? Molyneux says this is precisely what altruism is. Is he wrong?

p.s. I can easily imagine that some people might be not interested in the question that interests me. Yet I believe it to be unfair to suspect me in any kind of honesty solely on account of my posing this question. The question is valid on Rand's grounds, and getting the answer to it is of value for me personally. This is enough of a justification for posing it.

Anthony--I have just read "The Ethics o Emergencies" by Rand, as you advised. Thanks. It was definitely worth reading as it confirmed and brought to clarity what I had already inferred from other, mostly secondary sources. However, it does not address my question but only makes it more blatant. The phrase that is difficult for me to understand is this: "If [the person to be saved] is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one's life to save him or her--for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable." My question is: why, on Rand's grounds, can such a reason possibly be deemed "selfish" (implying, rational)? (1) How can one possibly know that one's life will be, literally, unbearable? Lots of people lose their beloved spouses, the loss seems unbearable to them, they grieve for a while, but eventually they meet another partner with whom they fall in love and live a life full of value. (2) An addict might plausibly believe that her life would be unbearable without an object of her addiction. Is it a valid ethical ground for her to commit suicide if deprived of the indicated object. (3) One might argue that love-relationship could involve a commitment to give one's life, if needed, to save the life of one's lover. But one might ask, in response: Is it rational and selfish (in Rand's sense) to make such a commitment to begin with? NB: Rand does not say (as some people here were trying to convince me) that in cases of emergency no ethical rules apply. She only says that (a) in cases of emergency the rules are different than in normal life, and (b) one should not apply to normal life the rules applicable only in cases of emergency. So there is nothing wrong in being interested, as I am, in rules applicable to the cases of emergency, given that I am not claiming them to be valid in normal life.