Ayn Rand doesn't believe that though; she believes being moral means respecting ones self and doing what is best in your own interests. I phrased that kind of oddly though (the bit you quoted) and it runs kind of contradictory towards what I say later.
Anyway to Inuzuka (to correct what I said above.) I believe morality is personal. To you and I killing is immoral. But to someone else it isn't. Reproducing, I don't know if that's a moral thing or not. It's logical sure for most of your species to procreate but I don't think it's immoral if you don't (especially given the world's current population.) I don't know I'm tired so I'm not being very clear. I believe morality is conditional and not something that can be established with the same rules as a concrete science and I also believe it's something that evolves.
I think there's a difference between what is logical for survival and moral though. I mean to put it an extreme situation, if there are three people let on earth. You, at a very very very old age (too old to have sex), a little girl and a little boy and there was only enough food for two people what do you do? Rand teaches it would be moral for you to look out for yourself yes? Well if it was and you fed yourself (which would be moral because its selfish right?) then your species would die out (which would be immoral.) What's the right thing to do in that situation? Do you see what I'm saying about setting up rules for something abstract being difficult? There are certain situations where things just aren't very clear.
|