In Defence of Ayn Rand #8: "nor sacrifice others"

A response to sw33tliberty.

In her video, she says that Rand seems to be saying not to sacrifice life of ANY kind at all. sw33tliberty asks if this might be a flaw in Rand's philosophy because, clearly, one must sacrifice life to live (e.g., plant or animal life).

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• sacrifice

[Sw33tLiberty]

Hey, thanks for this response. I think people watching this probably think I'm either an Ayn Rand critic of some sort or new to Objectivism. But that's not true. I have read Virtue of Selfishness and most of her other works, and I agree. I just had a problem with the way the argument was formulated in that particular article. Thanks for the response though- I love your videos!

[PaulMcKeever]

Hi SL: I'm enjoying your videos too. I also think it was a great idea to split your channel into 3, as you did. They're all good, but a good argument is quite different from a great dance routine. Cheers. P.

[PaulMcKeever]

Thanks, all, for your kind words.

[olvew]

Good commentary. I very much agree.

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 6)

It'd be difficult to organize, and like any other business, it'd have to acquire the ability to take a majority of the market to be very effective, but it could work. There's enough support for animals to create such a market and, unlike other "pro-animal" activities, this wouldn't involve violating the rights of man.

Those are my thoughts on the issue; feel free to correct me if you think I'm mistaken. Sorry to take up so much space, but I wanted to share the idea.

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 5)

Then, if evidence is found to show that the consumer is violating the terms of the contract, the government can step in. It seems like this method could help reduce animal abuse legimitately, as enforcing this would be a case of defending the property rights of the animal organization.

This could be a "free market" solution to the problem, which I certainly think is possible within the Objectivist philosophy...

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 4)

I think citizens could create organizations specializing in the breeding, raising, caring, and selling of animals as pets. This organization could then create a legal contract that includes objective criteria for the proper care of a given animal for a given amount of time (including the animal's lifespan), with recourse to legal action if violations of this criteria are found, to which the consumer must agree before buying an animal from the organization.

[LiberatedPrometheus]

Note: I meant, above, to say "in order to survive --among other men--.".

(Continued, pt 3)

I think I've thought of a way individuals can protect their animals without undermining the government's purpose or violating others' rights. That's through the use of contracts..

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 2)

And whether or not an organism experiences pain is irrelevant to the issue; man doesn't have these rights because he feels pain, he has them because they identify actions he needs to take in order to survive.

So, while I think a person abusing their animals for irrational reasons is abominable, it doesn't look like the government is justified in creating laws to prevent it as such. But...

[LiberatedPrometheus]

(continued, pt 1)

Rights are moral principles, and morality is only possible to a conceptual consciousness. A conceptual consciousness is an attribute distinctive to man; therefore, rights are only possible and applicable to man.

Specifically, they identify the requirements of man's survival in a social context. If this is true, then their inapplicability to other organisms is obvious: the requirements for man's life is not the same as that of a jellyfish's, and vice-versa

[LiberatedPrometheus]

Hi johnnowak. I know your comment is 4 months ago and was directed at Paul, but I'd like to share my input, as I've been thinking of this idea recently. It'll be a little long, so I hope you don't mind.

I'm generally fond of animals,but I've come to the conclusion that the government is not justified in making laws to protect the lives of non-human animals, as such, within the Objectivist philosophy. My reasons for this are as follows in the next comment:

[LiberatedPrometheus]

Nice video.

[PaulMcKeever]

johnnowak: you ask a good question, and it has come up before at all-candidates meetings during elections. I cannot say that I have a well-thought-out philosophical response at this point. I can only say that there must be something seriously wrong with the mind of a person who causes an animal to suffer pain without a rational purpose (e.g., such purposes as: slaughtering animals for food, controlling violent or destructive actions by animals, medical research).