No, No, No. Man’s happiness is not the basis of property rights. Are you serious? The basis of property rights is the fact that no one can exist without them. This is really basic stuff. I would say that happiness rests on property rights and not the other way around.
The founders said “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were inalienable rights. Property rights are implicit in all three.
Man has to take care of his own needs first before he can help anyone else. To do that he has to be the beneficiary of his actions.
Yes, Objectivism holds that every man’s life is an end in itself, that happiness is his highest moral purpose and that he must achieve his happiness through rational means neither sacrificing himself for others nor sacrificing OTHERS TO HIMSELF but that is an ethic. Ethics is not a primary. It rests on metaphysics and epistemology.
Perhaps all your talk of a “man’s life” was about that basic point that objectivism kind of rests on ? You know it’s wrong if someone steals from you because it takes away from your happiness. You lost your nice thing, whatever was stolen. Is that it ?
“Perhaps all your talk of a “man’s life” was about that basic point that objectivism kind of rests on ? You know it’s wrong if someone steals from you because it takes away from your happiness. You lost your nice thing, whatever was stolen. Is that it ?”
Now I already gave you the principle involved for why it would be wrong to keep the money from your example so why are you asking me this?
Now I’ve answered your questions. I’d like you to answer mine.
Sorry, itself was supposed to be himself.