Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atari 2600
but as an self-described Objectivist, qprogeny79, why would you care at all? Honestly, your post sounds rather phony & hollow to me. Now I do believe one should help a drowning man unlike Ayn Rand does. However, if hypothetically, Ayn Rand herself were drowning before my very eyes I would relish the opportunity to stand by & cheer & perhaps dance a jig.
Race is determined by geographical ancestry. The part of race that is culturally instilled will always be there unless true free enterprise, representation & truly equitable justice under the law are restored. On top of that it's going to take time...lots & lots of time. Only then will there be a chance for ignorance & apathy to be overcome.
Let me make it clear that I most definitely am concerned & that what we see happening in Omaha is yet more of the same rotten fruits of puffed-up Republican pride coming to bear.
|
first off, rand never said that one should
never help a drowning man. obviously if a baby were drowning in a puddle it would be seriously wrong to not help him out by any moral standard. to rand, such decisions should be based upon the value you place on the drowning person; it is justified to save a loved one at any cost, and it is also justified to save a total stranger, who is of
potential value, provided you don't incur such enormous risk in the process that your own life would be severely jeopardized (of course, risking one's life to save a stranger would be irrational, since few people value their own life any more than that of a random stranger -- lifeguards at the beach use this principle every day when they set limits as to the risk they allow themselves to incur to save people, as well as when they post "swim at your own risk" warnings during storms). the problem with this, to my mind, is that it seems to indicate that we are justified in letting enemies drown even if we would incur no risk in saving them; the golden rule seems to apply more here than rand wishes to recognize.
i agree with the sentiments about free enterprise and equal justice. the problem with american culture in particular is that we spend too much time harping on "black culture" and "hispanic culture" and "women's studies" and the like, as though they were
bona fide cultural entities. "diversity" does not consist in an "equitable" amalgam of racial/gender/ethnic groups but in a diversity of ideas. the only reason why we might actually get such diversity by throwing a bunch of eskimos, chinese women, saudis, and latinas in a mixmaster is because we teach everyone, in american society at least, that the content of their minds is actually determined by such frivolous matters as their genitalia and the region of the world from which their ancestors emigrated.