George Dance wrote:
> mikegordge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>George Dance wrote:
>>
>>>[This article was originally by the Ontario Libertarian Party under the
>>>title "The Party of Choice', and opened with this paragraph: "The
>>>Ontario Libertarian Party is proud to be known as 'The Party of
>>>Choice.' Choice is what we stand for, and promoting choice is why we
>>>exist." Permission is granted to any libertarian organization, list,
>>>or website to reprint in full or part without changes (other than the
>>>name of the organization)]
....
>>
>>
>>> We must have a goal
>>>in mind.. such as human happiness, or whatever you think is the moral
>>>purpose of man.
>
>
> But everyone does have goals or values in mind; that's a fundamental IS
> about people. Another IS is that no one can accomplish his values or
> goals without (a) his life (he has to stay alive long enough to
> accomplish the goal), (b) his liberty (he must be able to accomplish
> the goal), and (c) his property (he must be able to get the resources
> he needs to accomplish the goal). It's alo a logical IS (a logical
> truth), that anyone who values a goal *should* value what's necessary
> to that goal; otherwise, his values are inconsistent. From which it
> follows that anyone who does have a value or goal should value his
> life, liberty, and property. And since it's an IS that everyone does
> have at least one goal or value, it follows that everyone *should*
> value his own life, liberty, and property.
>
> That's the reasoning by which Ayn Rand and others attempt to derive a
> *should* from an IS. Perfectly logical, AFAICS.
The goals and values are a consequence of being alive. So to argue that
a person should value staying alive in order to attain his goals is
circular.
It’s not that I disagree with the conclusions, but I don’t see how they
can ever be put on a strictly logical basis.
|
