| | Luke,
This a good approach. But it doesn't address one very important issue, which is how Objectivists interact with each other. There is little spirit of "laisez-faire" and plenty of schadenfreude despite Rand's warning:
The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of 'saving everyone's soul'--nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. Such appraisals are widespead, mean-spirted and self-serving, and often used as a weapon against 'latecomers' to maintain one's own place in the pecking order.
Most Objectivists do not, for long, find joy in each other's company. Many delight in rooting out evil in the other and ARI is proof that these appraisals/pronouncements are final. To err is not human, it is evil and irredeemable.
Judgment is about morality but immoral behavior can be corrected. It is not as many believe a 'fatal' flaw. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes an error is just an error, it should not always be viewed as irrefutable proof of evil.
The benevolence of "Live and let live" in its proper context is the problem you need to solve before there can be a brotherhood of Objectivists.
|
|
