Ayn Rand ?

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin

Of course, there is a big hole in there, and to cover it, the concept of absolutely valid morals is introduced. However, the hole is only scaresly patched.

Good is defined as something that compliments man's survival (i.e. his mind).

This is why the definition of rational self-interest is a corollary. because it must be made perfectly clear that killing, assault, dishonesty, and fraud are not in anyone's long term interest.

 

[newfangle]

Here's the original article on ethics:

OBJECTIVIST ETHICS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Humans are, by their nature, rational animals. In order to live and prosper according to their nature, each must identify and choose a moral code by which to act. But which one, in a dizzying array of offerings is a difficult choice. With so many alternatives, most people seem to choose not to choose. But there is only one fundamental alternative in the Universe. Hamlet recognized it: To Be, Or Not To Be -- existence or non-existence. Objectivism provides an ethical framework in which a man can live in manner consistent with his nature as a human.

Inanimate objects exist. They have no say in the matter. They may break down or be reconstituted, but the Law of the Conservation of Matter and Energy affirms that their existence simply continues. Living organisms, on the other hand, must act to preserve their existence.

Lower animals have limited choices. Evolution has seen to it that, for the vast majority of the choices they face, instinctual drives will effect the choice most likely to result in the survival and preservation of their species, though not always of the individual. Humans, however, are born with only the most rudimentary instinctual apparatus. Grasping and sucking in infancy, fight-or-flight autonomic responses later, and a few others are all that we have by way of programmed responses. And, as we develop, we become able to over-ride instinct. Only the highest levels of animals show this ability, and (humans included) only as a result of conditioning.

For the human who must act, action must be preceded by conscious choice (the distinction between conscious and unconscious choice is one of the vital points of Objectivist ethics). First, the human must choose to continue to exist. Then the human must choose the manner in which to pursue that end. At every event, and in response to every stimulus, the human must choose, and each and every one of those choices must be consciously made. That is, unlike the animal, the human will inevitably be faced with alternatives but will not be provided with any automatic responses.

Objectivism acknowledges this and asserts that the maintenance of existence requires that one pursue values. This leads directly to the question: what constitutes a value? A value, simply put, is what one acts to gain or keep. The next logical question would then be: of value to whom and for what? The very concept of a value implies a conscious entity capable of recognizing alternatives and choosing one or the other -- the one recognized as being a value. Values are ir-relevant in respect to inanimate objects, and a sharply circumscribed matter for lower animals. Values can only have meaning relative to a conscious entity. If no alternatives -- no goals -- exist, values are impossible, and only conscious entities can recognize and choose between alternatives (i.e., make conscious choices).

So, then, Life is the source of values -- both conceptually and in practice. A thing can only have moral import relative to a living organism, one that, by its nature must make conscious choices between alternatives. Living beings of any level of complexity are required to sustain their existence by means of self-generated (i.e., goal-directed) action. That is to say that since a being is there are certain actions he ought to perform. While most animals do not do this purposively, even the lowest, single-celled life forms can still be seen to engage in self-generated action.

For any living organism to accomplish this, two conditions must be met: material (i.e., fuel) must be gathered from its physical environment, and its body must act properly once that fuel has been obtained. The standard by which its actions can be said to be proper is its Life -- the necessities of its survival are the sole determinant. It is important to stress at this point that the organism has no choice in this respect. From single-celled protozoan to human, if the choice to exist has been made, the organism must act. The actions necessary to further its survival are determined by its nature -- by the kind of being that it is. Humans and cattle have different needs in this respect, but each is equally compelled to act and they can only act in accordance with their natures.

Since Life can only be maintained by a constant process of self-generated action, the goal of that action -- the ultimate value -- is the life of the organism. An ultimate value is the final, primary value, the end towards which all other ends are merely a means. The standard for all other values is set relative to it. Therefore, the standard of value for an organism being its life, whatever promotes or improves its life is the good, whatever hinders or threatens its life is the evil. Objectivism, in this fashion, provides a rational, empirically demonstrable basis upon which to define good and evil.

Consciousness is the basic tool of survival for all entities that possess it. Plants and other lower entities, while engaging in self-generated action, do so automatically. They have an extremely limited range of actions and alternatives. Higher organisms, which have a broader range of possible actions and alternatives, require consciousness in order to navigate them. Plants draw their fuel directly from the ground in which they grow and from the sunlight that falls on them. Animals must seek out, recognize, and capture their food. Humans must produce theirs. At each of these three broadly defined levels a different degree of consciousness is necessary -- from none through self-awareness to the ability to form abstract concepts.

Among conscious entities, wide variation of that faculty can be observed. At the lowest level, conscious organisms possess only sensation. They respond automatically to the pleasure or pain of an immediate sensation and only for as long as it persists. The stimulus in question cannot be sought out nor evaded, only acted upon as it occurs. Nevertheless, it is in order to further its life that the entity will act, if only in accordance with a genetically programmed script.

At higher levels of consciousness, organisms have the ability to retain sensations -- the faculty of perception. A perception is a collection of sensations which are automatically retained and organized by a consciousness. Possession of perception enables an organism to do more than merely experience sensations, it enables it to be aware of entities or things. Clearly this is a necessity for any being which must seek out and distinguish between any kind of alternatives -- some of which will provide it with fuel or allow it to reproduce, others of which will kill or harm it.

Being guided by integrated percepts rather than immediate sensation, the animal is able to do more than simply respond to isolated stimuli for only the duration of said stimuli. But, for most organisms, this ability to confront the perceptual field in front of them is all they can do. Many responses may be accumulated for various perceptions (for instance hiding, running, eating, copulating) and these are either instinctually determined or taught to the young by their parents. But the animal has no choice regarding what it will learn. What can be transmitted between generations remains essentially constant. The standard of value that underlies its choices is predetermined, so its choices are made according to an automatic code of values. In situations where its knowledge is inadequate, it cannot seek out new knowledge or interpolate new understanding from its existing knowledge. It perishes -- hence, deer stand transfixed by the headlights of an oncoming car when simply evading would save them. But, insofar its knowledge is valid, an animal will persist in the safety of its programmed responses. It cannot choose not to perceive or act against its own well-being as determined by its automatic code of values.

 

[newfangle]

Part 2

Only humans come unequipped with any automatic values and responses. Apart from the rudimentary instincts that help us first perceive, we must isolate and assimilate a code of values on our own. If we put a hand on a hot stove, an autonomic response will jerk that hand off the stove. But there is no prescribed means by which humans seek out and gather food, build shelters, or attract a mate. In other words, humans do not have an automatic code of values. What things are good and bad for Man, Man must discover for himself. Humans are the only conscious beings on Earth who have no guarantee that, so long as they are alive, they will remain conscious. The difference in intellectual capacity between humans and other conscious beings is profound, but the most significant difference is that human consciousness is the only kind that is volitional. A human must choose to stay alive, exercising a conscious choice to do so, but first he must choose to be conscious.

A plant’s automatic functioning is certainly sufficient for its purposes, but not sufficient for an animal. So, too, the sensory-awareness level of an animal suits it needs but is insufficient for human survival. Perceptions form only a beginning for Man -- to survive, he requires conceptual values, but these cannot be obtained automatically. A concept, an abstraction formed by integrating alike perceptual concretes, by definition requires a volitional involvement with one’s environment. Man’s ability to absorb and retain virtually limitless amounts of information is based in the formation of concepts, each of which denotes an unlimited number of similar but unspecified concretes. It is by forming concepts and then combining them into greater, more abstract concepts, that Man learns about and is aware of his environment. While the sense organs perform their functions automatically, and the input from them is organized into percepts by the brain automatically, concept formation on the basis of these sensory stimuli can only be performed by conscious, self-generated action -- by an act of will.

Since it is not done automatically, and since consciousness is Man’s basic tool of survival, it follows that conceptualizing (i.e., using one’s consciousness to form and abstract new concepts) is an on-going, actively sustained process. It is by this means that Man survives, learns, and discovers new knowledge. The faculty that directs this process is Reason. The process, of course, is called thinking.

It is here that the crucial distinction comes into play. In order to reason, a Man must choose to think, to focus his mind and abilities. He can evade the discipline of doing so, but only at the cost of existing at the level of an animal -- reacting to immediate stimuli and forming only whatever random associations present themselves to him. This is what it means to say that Man’s consciousness is volitional. To live as a Man, Man must exercise the choice to think. A feeling of discomfort due to cold, wet weather may impel one to seek out a dry cave, but will not instruct him in how to build a shelter or light a fire, or make clothing. Similarly, feeling hungry may inform him that he needs to eat, but will avail him nothing in learning how to plant, grow, and harvest food, or make weapons and hunt with them.

To do these things, Man must apply his faculty of reason to his environment. He must actively, consciously integrate concepts already formed into new ones and apply them. And, since Man’s reasoning faculties are not infallible, he must be able to recognize an error and be able to act to correct it. Further, he must be able to devise a means by which to validate his successes in order to assure himself and others that his knowledge is valid. They require that he discover the rules of thinking -- the laws of logic -- and be able to follow them. All of these things require that he be fully, volitionally engaged in the act of thinking.

In brief, it is clear that nothing is given to Man in terms of his survival. He has a potential and the means available to act on that potential, but the actual details of living are left to him to discover, validate, and use; and each of these actions must be generated, driven, and performed by him. Since the very fact that he is implies that there are certain things Man ought to do, it is up to ethics to guide Man in making the proper choices necessary to his survival. For this reason, a sound, non-contradictory ethical structure -- a moral code -- is an objective, metaphysical necessity of Man’s survival.

Since it is a moral code for men that ethics concerned itself with, and since Man is definable as a rational animal, the standard of value is Man’s life as a rational animal. Whatever, as shown above, furthers or otherwise promotes the life of a rational being is therefore the good, and whatever hinders or otherwise threatens it is the evil. It is important to note that where Man -- capable as he is of remembering the past and projecting into the future -- is concerned, survival does not mean mere physical perpetuation for the immediate moment, but, rather, the terms, methods, conditions and goals that will encompass his lifetime and enable him to be as productive and prosperous as his abilities enable him in the realms in which he is free to choose.

So, since it is only by means of self-generated action that any living organism can survive, it follows that the necessary beneficiary of values is the individual whose actions produce them. To have the ability to produce values but not to be allowed to keep them is to not be allowed to live. Furthermore, since man’s life is the standard of value for a rational ethics, it is necessarily true that his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man. A man must choose his own values, actions, and goals in order to achieve, fulfill, and enjoy the previously stated ultimate value -- his own life.

A value is that which one acts to gain or keep; it is by means of virtues that one accomplishes this. The cardinal values of Objectivist ethics -- the means by which man’s life is properly sustained and furthered according to his nature as a rational animal -- are Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem. Their corresponding cardinal virtues are Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride.

Productive work, the self-generated action by which a rational being sustains itself, is the central ethical activity of a man’s life. It is around this central value that all his other values are placed. Reason is the source and precondition of productive work -- pride is the inevitable result.

Just as life is an end in itself for the individual, so every individual’s life is an end in itself in his relationship to society, not a means to the ends of others. Man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself. This means that the highest moral end in a man’s life is his own happiness. This embodies a recognition that, where choices are to be made, they are not generally framed in terms of survival or death, but rather, happiness or unhappiness, pleasure or suffering. Happiness is a state indicative of a successful life, whereas suffering is a warning sign of failure or impending destruction. Emotional judgments arise as a necessary result of ones chosen values and moral constructs. To perceive oneself as being happy is a sign that one is successfully identifying and gaining values. Unhappiness is equally indicative of the opposite: either one has not succeeded in gaining values, or one has chosen destructive, contradictory values.

Survival and the pursuit of happiness are not separate issues, either. To hold one’s life as the standard of value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest moral end are one and the same. Successful maintenance of one’s life in accordance with one’s nature as a rational animal results in physical prosperity, to be sure, but also results in psychological well-being. They are, therefore, merely different facets of the same end result.

All of this being the case, the proper ethical system for a man, acting in accordance with his nature as a man, is one of rational selfishness -- "selfishness" being strictly defined as concern with one’s own interests. The rational interests of men do not clash with one another, nor do they require that some be sacrificed for the benefit of others. Rather, men’s rational interests are antithetical to these practices -- there are no conflicts of interests between men who do not seek the unearned, who endeavour to exchange values for values. This being the case, the only rational principle by which to model human relationships is that of trade -- free, voluntary, uncoerced exchange.

This entails that each man be willing to act as an independent trader, seeking only to exchange values with other independent traders, each acting without coercion of any kind to their mutual benefit according to their independent judgements. It requires that every man be fully free to enjoy his successes and allowed to keep the fruits of his labour -- productive labour being the means by which men survive. Further it requires every man to assume the responsibility his failures and not seek to exist at the forced expense of others or to force them to accept the burden of his mistakes. Any such use of force or coercion is tantamount to shackling the survival tool of some men -- their minds -- for the benefit of others not of their choosing.

This leads to the basic political principle of Objectivism: no man has the right to initiate the use of force against another. A rational, human, society requires that the society recognize the sovreignty of each individual. Society, as such, does not exist -- a society is a collection of individuals. It is not an entity in itself the needs of which can be said to supercede the rights of the individuals that comprise it.

Government is held by Objectivism to be the sole, arbitrary repository of retaliatory force. Not having such a body in place would leave men at the mercy of the first set of thugs with sufficient strength of arms to enforce their will on the rest. The proper function of a government, then, is to protect and secure the rights of the citizens over which it is constituted to exercise authority. Therefore, the only legitimate arenas through which the government may act are the police (to protect the citizenry from internal theats), the miltary (to protect them from external threats), and the courts (to act as a disinterested, arbitrary forum in which citizens may settle disputes).

Finally, there is only one economic structure ever implemented among men which entails and guarrantees all of the necessary conditions for men -- living as men and not animals -- to conduct their affairs in a state of freedom from coercion: laissez-faire capitalism. All other systems attempted to date have intrinsically required that some men live for the benefit of others and allowed others to exist as parasites. And, just as happiness is indicative of a properly lived, successful life, so prosperity is indicative of a properly run, successful economic system. Even hobbled with the constraints that have perpetually been attached to it, the rough approximation of capitalism as practiced in the United States (especially prior to the New Deal) has been demonstrated to be the most successful economic power in the history of mankind. This is evidence enough.

Thus Objectivism as an ethical system is in keeping with man’s nature as a rational being in a manner no other ethical structure can be said to be. A man survives by means of his mind -- his consciousness. In order to function, his mind must be free of coercion of force and able to direct his actions as his best ability sees fit. Any other moral code than one which upholds the inviolability of the individual’s consciousness is a prescription for destruction and mutual sacrifice - to whit: abdicating consciousness and choosing to live at an animal level.

 

[thestonesfan]

I really hope people read that.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Inanimate objects exist. They have no say in the matter. They may break down or be reconstituted, but the Law of the Conservation of Matter and Energy affirms that their existence simply continues.

However you interpret this, it is wrong.
I once saw a house burn in flames. A house is an inanimate object. The house ceased to exist.
If it means that what inanimate objects are composed of can't be destroyed, it is true. But that is also true for all living things.
Saying that an inanimate's object continued existence does not depend on its activities is also false. If my computer's output does not fulfill my needs, and makes me mad, I will break the computer. Destroy it. The computer will cease to exist as a computer.
It is also not true that an inanimate object doesn't need positive action to preserve its existence. A cloud, for example, needs to absorb water to sustain itself.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I really hope people read that.

I did.

Unsurprisingly, I do agree on most what is said in the first part (I have som disagreements, like the underrating of instincts in man, or the stuff about unanimated objects that Iceblaze highlitghted). As I'm quite fond of rationnality and logic myself, I expected to share most of the basis with objectivism.


But starting with the second part, logics and rationnality seriously fell apart, which is quite bad for something which is supposed to be based on them...

All the part about ethics is completely absurd.
There are supposed logical conclusions that aren't logical at all.

Why would the fact that "his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man" would lead to the conclusion that "Man must live [...] nor sacrificing others to himself" ?
It's completely unrelated. Respecting the rights of others is not at all a logical consequence of the principle "it is necessarily true that his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man".
In fact, it's even the contrary. Considering that your own life and well-being are the highest moral thing in the world, make it morally OK to take whatever you want from whoever you want if it benefit you.
You can't define rights of other on a basically egocentric point of view. To accept that others have the rights as you, imply that there is a morality that is beyond yourself.

There is also the absurdity of "it is relative to one, so it is absolute" that Alphex has noticed.

And finally, there is the total warping of what is supposed to be the Man.
The article says in lenght that what is important and good is what respect the nature of Man, but then it describe Man as some thing that never walked the Earth outside the ideal dreams of some, as a being of pure rationnality and logic, completely disregarding the fundamentally social and emotionnal nature of humanity.


For me, this article is a good example of hidden emotional belief, based on what the author WOULD LIKE TO BE, and disguised as "rationnal". But sorry, I don't buy it. I'm a bit too realistic to not see the enormous amount of wishful thinking necessary to make all this work.

 

[col]

Good analysis, Akka. I think most of us would agree with the first part about rationality. The jump to the ethical stance in the second part is a step too far - and the early part of the argument is simply intended to lull us into accepting it. Emotive terms like animal are there to deflect us from considering ourselves as primarily social beings and instead create this construct of the egocentric superman.

I dont buy it.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka

Unsurprisingly, I do agree on most what is said in the first part (I have som disagreements, like the underrating of instincts in man, or the stuff about unanimated objects that Iceblaze highlitghted). As I'm quite fond of rationnality and logic myself, I expected to share most of the basis with objectivism.

Just a note about the house burning down. The context of that passage was life itself, which of course is the foundation of ethics.

Originally posted by Akka


Why would the fact that "his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man" would lead to the conclusion that "Man must live [...] nor sacrificing others to himself" ?
It's completely unrelated. Respecting the rights of others is not at all a logical consequence of the principle "it is necessarily true that his own life is the only valid ethical purpose for an individual man".

As a rational being, one must respect the inherent rights of any other conscious being. It is always, repeat, ALWAYS in my best interests to respect the rights of ALL men in ALL circumstances.

Originally posted by Akka


In fact, it's even the contrary. Considering that your own life and well-being are the highest moral thing in the world, make it morally OK to take whatever you want from whoever you want if it benefit you.

No it wouldn't. Again, someone resorts to the strawman argument for selfishness. This thread is turning into a cyclical phenomenom.

Originally posted by Akka

You can't define rights of other on a basically egocentric point of view. To accept that others have the rights as you, imply that there is a morality that is beyond yourself.

Morality is beyond yourself in the sense that your mind has no control over objective morality.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by col
Good analysis, Akka. I think most of us would agree with the first part about rationality. The jump to the ethical stance in the second part is a step too far - and the early part of the argument is simply intended to lull us into accepting it. Emotive terms like animal are there to deflect us from considering ourselves as primarily social beings and instead create this construct of the egocentric superman.

I dont buy it.

Like stonesfan said earlier, Col, the fact that man is a "social being" or whatever you want to call it is not ignored. Competition as well as co-operation are virtues from an objective standpoint, because both lead to progress.

However, to assert automatically that because man cooperates, man is a social being is a little miscalculated. Man possesses an individual, volitional consciousness. Society does not. Man possesses an individual mind- there is no collective mind. We are not ants. We are individuals, and ANY cooperation between individuals must be voluntary or else it is criminal.

This is why every instance of collectivism, egalitarianism, and dictatorship in history has collapsed, or is sure to. Man cooperates. This is true. That does not make him an ant, and until we devolve into some sort of collective species, there is no reason to attempt to bind humanity with the gun.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by newfangle
As a rational being, one must respect the inherent rights of any other conscious being. It is always, repeat, ALWAYS in my best interests to respect the rights of ALL men in ALL circumstances.

Totally and utterly absurd.
You're blowing hot air here, and proving NOTHING.

No it wouldn't. Again, someone resorts to the strawman argument for selfishness. This thread is turning into a cyclical phenomenom.

See above. Repeating false argument won't make them true.

Morality is beyond yourself in the sense that your mind has no control over objective morality.

You're (as usual) completely beside the point.
The point is that if something apply equally to others and to you, then it extend beyond yourself to include others.

You don't include others. Something that include them goes beyond yourself.

That's logical and obvious, when one is not completely blinded by what he WANTS to see, regardless of what IS.

 

[IceBlaZe]

It is always, repeat, ALWAYS in my best interests to respect the rights of ALL men in ALL circumstances.

Care to prove this? Lead me to the conclusion using premises?

10x

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka

Totally and utterly absurd.
You're blowing hot air here, and proving NOTHING.

And you are doing what, exactly?

Originally posted by Akka


Repeating false argument won't make them true.

.

No kidding.

Originally posted by Akka



You're (as usual) completely beside the point.
The point is that if something apply equally to others and to you, then it extend beyond yourself to include others.

You don't include others. Something that include them goes beyond yourself.

Rights apply to all men. Is that what you mean by equal? If not, what exactly is your point?

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by newfangle

As a rational being, one must respect the inherent rights of any other conscious being. It is always, repeat, ALWAYS in my best interests to respect the rights of ALL men in ALL circumstances.

It depends on what you want.

You have to admit, in many cases its much more beneficial and easy to infringe on the rights of someone else and hurt them. Taking what you want is easier, faster, and a more sure method of getting what you want than asking for it.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by newfangle
And you are doing what, exactly?

I'm actually making sense.
When you're able to prove that it's always in my interest to never abuse others (I suppose that all the thiefs, rapists, dictators and con-man of the world would beg to differ, but well, reality is such an easy thing to dismiss when you just want your opinion to be true), then do it. Until this, you're still blowing hot air.

No kidding.

No kidding.

Rights apply to all men. Is that what you mean by equal? If not, what exactly is your point?

The concept "what benefit ME is GOOD" doesn't include others.
Selfishness doesn't include others.

It's the very definition of "egocentric" : it includes yourself, but not others.

Something that includes others is universal, and as such not restricted to someone, and as such can't be a relative point of view.

Gosh, and YOU are the one claiming to be logical and rationnal

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by cgannon64


It depends on what you want.

You have to admit, in many cases its much more beneficial and easy to infringe on the rights of someone else and hurt them. Taking what you want is easier, faster, and a more sure method of getting what you want than asking for it.

The point I am continually stressing (albeit I must be doing a terrible job) is that a life of violence, dishonesty, fraud or anything else unethical will not be in my best interests. It might be faster, easier, and more sure of me getting what I want, but if I have completely sold myself out as a human being and taken on the role of a savage, my life no longer has any value whatsoever.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka


The concept "what benefit ME is GOOD" doesn't include others.
Selfishness doesn't include others.

It's the very definition of "egocentric" : it includes yourself, but not others.

Something that includes others is universal, and as such not restricted to someone, and as such can't be a relative point of view.

Gosh, and YOU are the one claiming to be logical and rationnal

Of course selfishness includes others. Its not in my best interests to cut myself off from every person on this planet and go live on a desert island.

As for the rest, well that's just your emotions acting up again.

 

[col]

Originally posted by newfangle

This is why every instance of collectivism, egalitarianism, and dictatorship in history has collapsed, or is sure to.

This is nonsense. Man has always achieved more in cooperation than individually. Virtually all scientific progress has been a collective effort.

 

[Maj]

Originally posted by newfangle


You're going to have to present a very convincing argument showing that emotion is man's primary took of survival.

There have been several well documented cases of persons born with a severe mental defect that essentially robs them of the emotion of fear. Without close supervision they often hurt themselves. I suppose an educational program that focused on establishing a rational frame of mind towards avoiding life threatening situations could be implemented, but for most of us there wouldn't be any need to learn about the dangers of jumping off a cliff or petting a Grizzly bear.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by col


This is nonsense. Man has always achieved more in cooperation than individually. Virtually all scientific progress has been a collective effort.

All scientific progress has been achieved through the contributions of individuals within a group, not the group itself. Men aren't the Borg. We do not think as one.

@Maj: So because I am afraid of hurting myself, that makes me depedant on emotion for survival? Interesting....

Anyways, this has come to a standstill and the original thread starter hasn't returned.

If anyone has any questions just PM me.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by newfangle

As a rational being, one must respect the inherent rights of any other conscious being. It is always, repeat, ALWAYS in my best interests to respect the rights of ALL men in ALL circumstances.

Scenario:

I live in an anarchic society with several neighbors. I have managed to amass a formidable personal army and my neighbors are outgunned and outnumbered. Is it not in my best interest to use this force against my neighbors and take their property from them for myself?