(Ed)Murder is usually wrong, but if some criminal is about to kill your children, then it 'becomes' right and good to abruptly put an end to his life for him (ie. killing someone can be a good, or moral, thing to do -- in a certain context).
(Nick)Murder is, by definition, wrong. Killing to defend one’s children is “not” murder. Initiating the use of force against someone is immoral, according to Objectivism. Self-defense is not. Self-defense is justified. However, not sharing one’s property to feed starving children in Africa is not murder. Initiating force against someone because he or she does not help needy people is immoral, a violation against that person natural rights. The needs of other people, according to Objectivism, do not impose an obligation on those who are capable of satisfying those needs. Do you agree that this is an accurate interpretation of relevant Objectivist principles?
(Ed)Your crazy, Gilligan's Island context just doesn't apply to life on earth, period. So, troubles within that context, have absolutely no generalizability as to the merits/demerits of Objectivism in the real world.
(Nick)Caricaturizing the hypothesis as a “crazy, Gilligan’s island scenario,” is an unfair and fallacious way of referring to a possible, plausible, and relevant situation. If Objectivism needs to be defended by such methods, it is fragile.
(Ed)Objectivist principles take into account that human labor is something that ought to be divided.
(Nick)How is it to be divided, by force?
(Ed)If you go back far enough in time -- either literally, or metaphorically, as your Gilligan's Island scenario suggests -- to a time before the purposeful division of labor by man, then a different set of principles would govern right conduct. But this doesn't detract from the contextual rightness of Objectivism.
(Nick)If Objectivism is only contextual, to this extent, it is relative. Natural laws and descriptions of the nature of man and that which is good or evil on the basis of man’s nature, qua man, cannot be contextual. It cannot be the case that man is not fully human until placed in a pre-structured society.
(Ed)Just because you can think of a hypothetical scenario wherein Objectivist principles might fail to maximize expected utility, says nothing about the inherent morality of the principles here on earth, now.
(Nick)It challenges those principles. BTW, Objectivism is not justified only on the basis of utility. Rand says there is no contradiction between the rational and the practical, but perhaps there is. If it came down to violating the rights of a few maximize the benefits for the society as a whole, to help those individual egoists, would Rand support the short-sighted few? Was Sutter wrong? Would Rand, in my scenario, support the claimer of the fresh water source or the thirsty herd? What if she is a member of the herd?
I can understand why people become hostile toward those who make us think. They sentenced Socrates to death. Am I going to meet a similar fate?
Bis bald,
Nick
| 
