Philosopher views

MORAL ABSOLUTES EXIST

1. RELATIVISM IGNORES REALITY

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “The Cult of Moral Grayness,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND

LEXICON, 1988, p. 3.

Just as, in epistemology, the cult of uncertainty is a revolt against reason--so, in ethics, the cult of moral

grayness is a revolt against moral values. Both are a revolt against the absolutism or reality.

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “Altruism as Appeasement,” in Harry Binswanger (E&). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p. 309.

Moral cowardice is the necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential. It is the common symptom of all intellectual appeasers. The image of the brute is the symbol of an appeaser’s belief in the supremacy of evil, which means--not in conscious terms, but in terms of his quaking, cringing, blinding panic--that when his mind judges a thing to be evil, his emotions proclaim its power, and the more evil, the more powerful.
3. MORAL RELATIVISM DESTROYS CULTURE AND CHARACTER

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p.309.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

HUMAN NEEDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ECOLOGY

1. HUMANS MUST DOMINATE NATURE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, 1971, p. 136. In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. from the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without the alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.
2. SCIENCE AND LAWS CAN SOLVE POLLUTION WITHOUT SACRIFICING INDUSTRY Ayn Rand, Philosopher, THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, 1971, p. 89. As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved--as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry--if the preservation of human life is the standard.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER COLLECTIVE NEEDS

1. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE THE KEY TO ALL CIVIUZATION

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “A Nations Unity,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p. 214.

Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life--but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has top~ his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered.)

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “Collectivized ‘Rights’,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p. 73.

Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos.) But the expression “collective

rights’ is a contradiction in terms. Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the tights of its individual members.

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “Collectivized ‘Rights,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND

LEXICON, 1988, p. 108.

The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does

not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob.
4. COLLECTIVISM ENSLAVES AND SUBJUGATES THE INDIVIDUAL

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “The Only Path to Tomorrow,” READERS DIGEST, Jan. 1944, p. 8. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group--whether to a race, class or state does not matter. collectivism hods that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, 1971, p. 164. Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the “unfairness” of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact--in defiance of facts. Since the Law of Identity is impervious to human manipulation, it is the Law of Causality that they struggle to abrogate. Since personal attributes or virtues cannot be “redistributed,” they seek to deprive men of the consequences--of the rewards, the benefits, the achievements created by personal attributes.

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, ‘Textbook of Americanism,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p. 121.

If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist Doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong)--how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.