cab21 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp it would be interesting to hear thoughts on this article and it's logic. "Whereas the principle of egoism is the recognition of the fact that each person should act to promote his life and is the proper beneficiary of his own life-serving actions, the principle of rights is the recognition of the fact that in order for a person to uphold the principle of egoism, he must be free to act on his judgment. The former principle gives rise to the latter." this is part of the article near it's conclusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I find it strange that somebody using that many footnotes can make the fundamental mistake he did. When he got to natural moral law, he simply renamed it to supernatural law just because a few people that talked about it spoke as if there was a deity. But I can't make a mountain into a Toyota just by calling it one. Just as I cannot turn natural law into supernatural law by saying "God." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I find it strange that somebody using that many footnotes can make the fundamental mistake he did. When he got to natural moral law, he simply renamed it to supernatural law just because a few people that talked about it spoke as if there was a deity. But I can't make a mountain into a Toyota just by calling it one. Just as I cannot turn natural law into supernatural law by saying "God." what is the true representation of natural law? so i think by this one would have to look at the history of natural law, and find rational for a secular natural law rather than natural law from a creator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts