Originally posted by Red Brigade+March 24, 2007 03:02 am--> (Red Brigade @ March 24, 2007 03:02 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 12:38 am
Watch out for words such as "freedom", "rational", "coercion", "values" and "rights" because they will mean something very different coming from an objectivist than from anyone else.
And ''reason''.
The objectivists claim that everyone should make their choices according to ''reason''. By ''reason'' they mean the pursue of self-fulfillment or happiness instead of sacrificing their well being for others.
Thus according to Ayn Rand, a mother protecting or raising her child, at the cost of her happiness, makes absolutely no sense.
They are very easily won in an argument, just tell her/him that ''happiness'' can not be achieved merely by being egocentric because humans are by nature social beings, they can not live without others, otherwise we wouldn't have societies. [/b]
Oh yes, knew I was forgetting one. The case you cite of children is interesting. It has often been noted that in Ayn Rand's books, despite the fact that they span a time frame of decades, nobody has any children, and indeed neither Rand nor most of her followers had children. I am not saying that they were somehow obliged to, but it does show their attitude there. Similarly a lot of them (though not all) dissaprove of pets, because people tend to be nice to their pets and the pets don't give anything material back. A very unhealthy attitude if you ask me.
And yes, I wish I could remember which philosopher brought it up, but a major criticism of egoism is that if somebody only seeks their own happiness they will never succeed because they have nothing to be happy about. Still again, while that sounds like "case closed" to me, don't expect an objectivist to accept it.