Originally Posted by
Galt
I'd say, instead of fit being used to define physical prowess, it, in the context of todays society, means rational.
Now then, egoism holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value (quid pro quo).
Now, Ayn Rand wrote in one of her books the following;
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."
Something to chew on.
Nom'd on that for a couple of minutes, and here's what I have in return.
First, is Rand referring to an altruism which claims as its paradigm the person who gives completely from the self without regard to the self? That's just irresponsible self-destruction, and ultimately destroys the self and the community, so that kind of altruism isn't kindness, good-will, or respect. I'm not even entirely sure if the ideal of altruism I've adopted is true altruism or not, or if it has a different name -- I just know it isn't selflessness in the dictionary or traditional sense. Labels can come later, though, after that's sorted out.
Secondly: By determining the rational as being those most fit to survive in modern society, and the ultimate scale of value being based on an objective, rational basis, does that mean that those who are not rational are of a lower value than their rational companions? Or are they simply people who are less fit to survive?
The latter, perhaps, could connote that they are of lower value?