Daniel Barnes Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 (edited) Judith:>I wish I had the time and ability to dig up the bit in Rand's work where she says that others are like us and that it is natural and desirable to want to see others do well. Everything you say above is completely consistent with that particular work, and with the body of her work as a whole.Oh of course. My point is that this would hardly be a distinctively Objectivist position.>Somehow I find it hard to believe that Rand would have condemned professional or amateur lifeguards.Hey, I report, you decide. >Daniel, you're attacking a specific essay or two. They're written, as I've said before, in a specific context. As you said, it's important to look at what Rand actually said. But the essay isn't THE BIBLE. This is getting ridiculous.It's not 'ridiculous' in the least. This is exactly how serious criticism is done. You can't examine a whole body of work all at once! You have to examine specific essays, and specific statements in those essays. In this case I don't have to make any great 'interpretation.' It's there in black and white. The part about it being "immoral" to risk one's life to help strangers is distinctively Randian. As it happens I am very familiar with most of Rand's work, though I admit I am first and foremost interested in her epistemology. The statements here don't clash seriously with any other parts of her work that I can recall.> We're arguing interpretation and exegesis, and the woman was a fallible mortal who wrote in a context and didn't express her final intent for all time perfectly in those particular essays. The body of her work and the study of her life bears that out.What you're saying here is that the position she expressed in "the Ethics Of Emergencies" is simply wrong, and that the true Objectivist position on risking one's life for a stranger is expressed elsewhere in her work and biography.OK, but where? I don't know of anywhere. No-one else on this thread has suggested any contrary examples. You may in fact be right, and I may be wrong, but without evidence it is difficult to know (your other examples were not strangers).You should also at least consider the possibility that you are wrong too, and that on closer examination the Objectivist ethics might not be quite what you think they are. Edited April 22, 2007 by Daniel Barnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now