My response to John Galt: Objectivism Campfire
If ye would like to moderate the Objectivism Campfire, please drop becket@jollyroger.com a
line. Objectivism & My response to John Galt
I have done a lot of thinking about both PG's and JG's posts concerning Rand's ethics. I had to rethink many of my ideas about the world, but I have finally concluded that John Galt is correct.
The question, "Should man choose to live?" has no meaning. This is the trap of intrincicism. There can be no guide to action without a goal of action. One cannot ask what the goal should be.
I have only one question for John Galt. Rand's ethics is based on the choice to live. But what if one were to base an ethics on the choice to kill, or destroy, or ? If the choice to live is not subject to judgment, are these choices also not subject to judgment? Surely, murder can't be right even if my ethics is based on the choice to murder. In this way, it seems Rand umes that it is moral to choose to live. Yet, at the same time, she does not subject this choice to ethics. I will do some more thinking, and I can probably figure this out, but I would appreciate your response.