[16721] in APO-L
Re: Summit - Fuel for Discussion (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph M. Fisher)
Sun Apr 27 14:21:55 1997
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 14:15:35 -0700
Reply-To: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
From: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <9704260208.AA27680@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
As half-baked as this individual's opinion and Ayn Rand's philosophy are,
I think that this tripe, as Bug put it, is a useful reminder of exactly
what it is that we do in APO.
> We believe that living a rational, productive life in the achievement of
> YOUR values is a moral virtue. What we need is not "a new sense of
> duty," but a new understanding of THE VALUE OF INDEPENDENCE
Doesn't the first sentence here sound awfully reminiscent of the Story of
the Founding? Our goal, loosely stated, is to make the world a place
where everyone finds it POSSIBLE to live for the achievement of their
values... or in simpler terms, where everyone has equal value as an
individual.
So really we as APO brothers agree with this guy's purpose.
His conclusions, on the other hand... well, obviously he got lost
somewhere (so did Objectivism... Ayn Rand's metaphysics are fine for
strong, adaptable minds, but impossible for your average congressman).
Service need not take away from one's independence. And the quotee's
reaction to the summit is about as overblown as Rush Limbaugh.
However his attack on the "sense of duty" is worth developing. Someone
brought up the concept of the noblesse oblige... well, that is the very
thing that Ayn Rand is tearing apart in all those quotes from _The
Fountainhead_. That seems to have incited a great deal of insult on our
part... but Rand is not attacking us. "Duty" does not adequately
describe the motivations of Frank Reed Horton. Duty (or noblesse
oblige) is not the word we should use to describe our reasons
for doing service in APO.
The problem with duty, and the reason why Rand rejects it, is that it
devalues the individual. It subordinates the person to society as a
static, impersonal historical framework. This is a) distasteful and b) a
very bad position to argue from. This is the sort of unacceptable
conclusion reached by founding one's ideas on duty:
> Then man must wish to see others suffer -- in order that he may be
> virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism."
"Necessity" is a much better idea to work from. Consider that we are
all connected, happy and unfortunate alike; our lives overlap and
intertwine. (This is not Rand now... she goes off in an impractical,
extremely individualist direction.) Under these circumstances (which
are part and parcel of human society) we NEED to make the world a livable
place for everybody, because that is the only way of ensuring that the
world is livable for us. This gives the individual a fair and responsible
place in society. And I think that it is a good statement of how we
approach service in APO.
-- Cyrano
