I know this is going to be difficult for you, but I will try to help you understand these little words:
He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.
In my post:
I quoted you: we can't sacrifice others to our own ends.
Then added:
Tell you what. Give me a quote where Ayn rand said that, I'll send you a million bucks. She never said we can't sacrifice others to our own end, or any other end. She said it was morally wrong to sacrifice others for any reason.
I know this is difficult for you, but "must not" and "can't" do not mean the same thing. "Must not" is what is meant by morally wrong.
You still haven't answered the questions I asked inPost #50?
Do you have a moral code? Do you have a philosophy? Can you prove them?
Hank
I know this is difficult for you, but it's actually possible to say the same thing using a variety of words. The meaning of what I said was clear, and it is not different from your "correction."
And you're avoiding the question: can you prove that we "must not" sacrifice others to ourselves?
And the answer is, no. You cannot. Rational assessment of the objective evidence says that "must not" is false. Indeed, objective evidence suggest that the real answer is "may, if you can get away with it."
If we are to grant the truth of the "must not" statement, we must base it on something other than rational assessment of the evidence.
I do -- but they're not germane to this discussion, which is about the fallacies of Rand's objectivism.