Re: Ethics

Daniel Fabulich (
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:37:57 -0400 (EDT)

On 22 Jul 1998, root wrote:

> Besides the points in the rest of this post, the most important issue
> here is that applied consistently, over the long term, a criminal
> lifestyle increases the risk of being caught with every act. When you
> are 'trying not to get caught' you are, as Rand pointed out, at war
> with reality - which is a losing proposition.

That's why I asserted that egoism demands that we steal only to the extent that it is profitable, *and no further*. If the risk increases every time I steal, as you claim, then egoism claims that I should steal only up to the point where that risk would become unacceptable.

> To 'get away' with a crime, you have to make the facts appear to be
> other than what they are, and since reality is an integrated whole,
> and all aspects of it inter-related, there is no way to sustain a
> consistent misrepresentation of facts over the long term.

Can you prove that? Remember, I don't necessarily have to provide any representation at all in order to get away with a crime: I just have to keep it a secret. If objectivism is true, it should be trivial to prove that you can never keep a secret for a long time.

> So you WILL be caught out in the long-term. And the reality-split
> within your own mind will produce paranoia, guilt, and eventually,
> severe psychosis, as you try to win your losing battle against
> reality.

I doubt you can even provide convincing *evidence* that this is true; say nothing of proof!