Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 3 months ago
    Well and good all in all though a few points of contention must be addressed. These differences highlight why it is important to understand Ayn Rand's extensions of rational-empiricism as the basis for self-interest.

    Mises writes: “A man living in isolation has no moral rules to follow. He need have no qualms about doing anything he finds it to his advantage to do, for he does not have to consider whether he is not thereby injuring others.”

    You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most.-- Galt's Speech.

    [Mises] continues: “But sacrificing is moral only when it serves a moral end. There is a world of difference between a man who risks his life and property for a good cause and the man who sacrifices them without benefiting society in any way.”

    “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. -- "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  3 months ago
    Thank you Mike, great points, and very relevant to the differences between Objectivism and Austrian economic philosophy. I'm not the best at reconciling these, except to say that Mises' work covers a more narrow line of reasoning, if that's the right term.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo