| |
Objectivism recognizes a distinction between ethics and politics, between a moral right and a political right. Anarchists conflate the political and the moral, and hence they fail to fully understand either science.
Observe, in this context, one can hardly take the question of whether an individual who espouses ethical egoism is entitled to his happiness as a legal or political issue, unless you yourself are a full blown statist-collectivist, or worse, an anarchist who doesn't know the difference. The question here is interpretable only as a moral (or perhaps psychological) but in any case a radically personal question.
Of course, if one is a concrete-bound, one can be confused by the fact that the Declaration of Independence uses the key words "rights" and "happiness." But that is a political document, not an ethical or a psychological one. Rand's observation on the pursuit of happiness was political. The answer requires using thought in principles, not a real or imagined google search.
It is a simple matter to recognize this mistake, if not such any easy matter to admit having made it. (Never to admit having made a mistake is the central principle, right and virtue of Objectionism.) If Ed and Luke didn't, on some level, recognize their mistakes, neither would have bothered with the alternate theories they came up with in posts 7, 8 and 12. I know that both these people understand the difference between politics and ethics, and that the word right can be used with a different meaning according to context. I am quite sure that both are capable of answering, if not willing to answer this very simple question:
Does a person who does not espouse rational egoism still have the right to be happy?
(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/13, 10:27pm)
|
|
