Nevertheless, I thought I would argue against some of her points. Most of what she says at the beginning of the video is encapsulated here:
- Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
- Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
- Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
- The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
I agree that facts are facts independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears. However, suppose that last week you and I talked and I verbally agreed to sell you a cord of wood. You verbally agreed that I would deliver a cord of wood to your property. The agreement has already cost both of us in opportunities missed. Each of us is sure of our facts but our facts are different. There is an objective fact here; but we may well be unable to ascertain what it is. The existence of an objective reality does not guarantee that we can know that reality.
On point 2, I would absolutely disagree that reason identifies and integrates material provided by man's senses. The first argument I would give against her claim is that the human mind and its faculty of reason evolved from simpler brain structures, brain structures that enabled more primitive beings to survive and reproduce in environments very similar to ours. At least some of these beings had senses, senses that enabled them to navigate and survive in this environment and yet, they did not have reason.
At about 2:35 into the video, she claims that she can prove her morality through logic. She cannot. She claims that every man must exist for his own sake. Again I will appeal to evolution and claim that it is at least arguable that humans exist to reproduce - i.e. to produce other humans. That is not existing for his own sake. She can make an argument for her morality. She can't prove it.
And on point 4, it is just a proclamation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
