Socialism guarantees a basic level of dignity to the poor. Why do some people oppose this idea ?

You are the only one who owns your life. You are the only one who owns your property, the result of your productive actions. You can trade with others what you have produced. No-one can tell you what you must produce, and no-one can tell you, whom you can trade your product with, as long as you are not initiating violence against your fellow men. You are free to associate or not associate with anyone around you for any purpose whatsoever, according to your own judgement.

This is a crude version of the set of individual rights. All the rights, if they are to be valid, pertain to individual liberty. Violation of individual rights is equivalent to enslavement of men.

A slave is someone who continues to produce, while others consume his product without his consent. No-one in his right mind would want to live in a slave society. Slaves are not happy people. Slaves do not innovate.Slaves do not initiate production. Slaves do not trade. Slaves do not prosper.

Capitalism is the only political-economic system that is based on the principle of upholding individual rights. It doesn’t recognise any form of enslavement.

To answer your question, in a society that doesn’t recognise slavery, you are not at liberty to force your fellow men to guarantee your livelihood. You only have the liberty to earn your livelihood, if others are willing to trade with you what they have, for what you have produced. Be it a tomato, or your ability to teach a theorem by spending your time. There’s dignity in trade.

If you think your fellow poor man is a good person, and that he deserves your help in his hard times, so that he can be a more productive trader at a later date, you are at liberty to donate your own wealth. You are at liberty to start a campaign and ask others to donate their wealth, if they are willing to do so. Many will do so, out of generosity. The poor man will respect their generosity and there’s some dignity in that. Because he is respecting others’ right to their own property and respectfully seeking their help with a forthright attitude. Only such a man deserves generosity.

But if you try to amend the rules of civilised association by proclaiming that the poor man must own a so called “fair share” of everyone’s wealth, so that he can live with a basic level of dignity, you’ll achieve the opposite. Everyone who is sane, will start hating the poor man. They won’t be generous anymore. And he won’t feel dignified anymore. He’ll start feeling like a robber, because he is. He has no right to other’s wealth. And taking another person’s wealth by force is stealing, even if it is sponsored by the state. There’s no dignity in stealing, or worse, trying to enslave others by institutionalising slavery. If you force generosity, you’ll only succeed in achieving cruelty. A penny donated with generosity is different from a penny taken by force. The difference is the liberty to spend one’s own wealth in the way they see fit.

So that is the problem with socialism, whose alleged goal is to guarantee a basic level of dignity to the poor: 1. You propose to do it with others’ wealth without their consent. 2. Another person’s dignity is not yours to guarantee. He has to earn it.

Avinash Kumar.

Originally answered on Quora for the same question.

Advertisement

Acknowledging the preachers of animal rights

We, the conscious, animal killers, acknowledge your existence. We know that animals feel pain when we kill them. They do wail and fight with every ounce of their strength to avoid their slaughter. We know it. They are not happy about their death, as any living being. We appreciate that fact. We kill them anyway because we judge that our purpose of the slaughter is far above the displeasure we feel at the animal’s suffering and painful death. We do not yield our purpose to the animal wails. We never have. It is a well thought out and morally good choice that we make, and we understand that it is the right choice. Good because the choice furthers our lives, even if only by a few good minutes, at the expense of the animal’s life we took, and we are proud of that choice. We are proud, just like the capable men of every generation since the dawn of mankind. Achievement of our purpose and our own happiness is far more important for us than the suffering, which we consciously cause to animals. And we are at well earned peace with that thought.

We understand that capable men have fought against the wilderness and that the fight included, killing other animals. For protection against them, for the nutrition in their meat, eggs and their milk, and for the shelter of their hides. We are grateful for their purposeful choices, which made our existence possible. We are happy that those men were intelligent enough to not equate humans with animals.

We are happy that they never sought consent from the animals, only from their fellow humans. We are grateful for their well deserved victory over wilderness. We are grateful that they voluntarily organised themselves, cleared the animals off the land, and cultivated it, which involved identifying and using the right animals for that purpose, without spending their time to feel sorry for the animal’s misery, because they were not stupid enough to judge the worth of the animal life superior to that of human purpose.

We are thankful that capable men have made the moral choice to create and continuously improvise miraculous medicines that continue to save human lives, even today, by making intelligent use of animals, by purposefully, systematically experimenting on animals. We are happy that their chosen purpose involved the judgement that the worth of human lives is far greater than that of animals. We are happy that their eyes were not clouded by the tears which they didn’t shed for animal suffering.

We are happy that men have always desired the best that their minds can perceive, grateful that they had the minds to perceive it, and for the moral choice they made: to choose to achieve the best. By the same moral spirit of judgement that achievement of our own rational purpose as superior to every other choice we can make, we purposefully, mercilessly kill animals.

We kill the animals without a second, and with a completely conscious and careful first thought, if that slaughter meant that it can further any rational interest of our own, even if by a minute amount, and we will continue to do it, so long as the slaughter continues to serve our rational interests. No, we have no concern about the fate of the animals unless it serves our purpose. We do not care about the well being of animals, unless it is tied to our own purpose. We do not place any considerations whatsoever, above our own rational purpose, as judged by our own morally superior, self-serving minds.

We know, it is the sense of moral righteousness one earns by achieving a rational purpose, that you utterly lack. And hence you seek to replace it by preaching selflessness, by defending the rights of animals. We know, it is the desire of men to achieve their own rational purpose, that you actually hate, though it is that motive power which makes your life possible. We know that you are the result of the mercy of competent men who created abundance, yet generously passed it over to you, the unworthy recipients of charity, who identify your own lack of purpose with that of the animals that you seek to serve, that makes you empathise with the pain and suffering that you see in the animals that we kill. Not in your wildest dreams can you fathom or empathise with the pain of a rational man, when he failed in achieving his chosen purpose, despite his best efforts. We, the conscious, purposeful, animal killers, acknowledge you. Now, get out of our way. We have a world to run.

Avinash Kumar.

The Gold Standard

When man first started to produce more than he could immediately consume, especially in agricultural societies, he is faced with a significant challenge. While he was very capable at producing valuable products, a part of which he would trade for the products he wanted from other producers, he needed to find a way to safely store his property: the result of his productive efforts, so that he can use the value he created, on a future day, when he may not be as effective at production.

This necessitated the use of some currency of Money: A substance, the worth of which can be established as a scalable equivalent to the worth of the products offered by the producers. A substance that doesn’t perish like vegetables or meat, a substance that is universally valued by all other producers similar to him, and a substance that must be available in a limited quantity, and hard to procure, so that even a small amount of that substance can be traded for large amounts of goods and services from others.

Gold fits the criteria better than any other substance. It doesn’t perish. Total quantity of gold on the planet is constant, hence limited. Mining and shaping of gold is a task that is tough enough to justify the worth of that effort as equivalent to the worth of the efforts that men put into producing some tons of crop or an equivalent amount of other products, as decided by the traders making a trade.

Soon after, gold became the universally recognised currency. Some men started mining and shaping gold, some men started to discover and establish the methods to check its purity and weight, and other producers around the world continued to produce what they are good at producing, without worrying too much about their limited storage capacity. Because now it is possible for them to sell their surplus production for gold. When they needed goods from other producers, they could easily buy it, with gold. Payment in gold is the most honest payment possible. That is the reason why men value gold even today. It is not a mystery that a fixed amount of gold can get you roughly the same amount of goods or services today, as it did some centuries ago. 

To solve the problem of security for the gold of producers and to facilitate long distance trade between producers, men developed banking system. Managers of important banks in an economy voluntarily associated with each other and agreed to issue gold certificates to the producers who deposit their gold in the banks. Particulars about the identity of a producer and the amount of gold he deposited in a bank will be made available to all the banks in the association, with an agreement that the gold certificate issued by a bank is exchangeable for the amount of gold it guarantees, in any bank recognised by the association. This is the beginning of paper currency backed by gold.

As long as it is explicitly agreed and strictly ensured by the managers of the association: that the certificates are of a similar shape and size, and cannot be printed at the will of any bank manager, without actual deposits of gold from a producer, the gold backed paper currency note is safe to use, and safe to exchange with other producers, since the currency note promises to “pay the bearer of this note, the goods or services that you judge are equivalent to the amount of gold stated here.” This method of issuing paper currency notes by the association of banks, with each currency note freely exchangeable for a fixed and stated amount of gold, is called the “gold standard”.

Gold standard was in practice across the world, and most widely practiced in the 19th century, until the statist governments all over the world took control of the banking associations, and decided to print the currency notes at their will, even if there were no actual gold deposits by the producers in the banks, and used those printed notes to obtain actual goods and services from the producers, many of who, still continued to trust the banking system.

In the regions where men panicked and started to take back their gold deposits from the banks, the government seized all the gold deposits into its own treasury, and forced the people to exchange the paper notes they possess, instead of gold, to obtain the goods and services from each other. The people who already took back their gold deposits were forced to submit them to the government, in exchange for the paper notes, which are now backed by nothing, and can be printed at will by the government. Refer to the Executive Order 6102 by US President Franklin D Roosevelt, issued in 1933.

This the biggest moral crime ever committed in the entire economic history of mankind. Nothing else can match it in scope or the sheer amount of wealth stolen. Since the original purpose of currency note was to guarantee the delivery of gold deposited by the producer, each currency note printed without an actual deposit of gold is equivalent to stealing that much amount of gold, which is equivalent to stealing that much amount of productive effort from the life of every producer in the economy. This reduces the producer, who once had a complete and rightful control over his produce, to a slave who produces, while some unknown parasite somewhere in the economy, consumes that unearned wealth, in a proportion that is subject to the whims of every changing government.

Avinash Kumar, 28 November 2020.

Objectivity of Mind

It is generally defined that an ‘objective’ fact is that which exists independent of mind. The correct meaning of this concept (ie., one that corresponds to reality), is: Existence of an objective fact doesn’t require any mind. Observe that it is mind that identifies the facts, and identification of a fact has no meaning without a mind to identify it. Independent of whose mind is perceiving the fact, when identified correctly, identity of the fact must remain the same.

There can be no confusion about the meaning of this concept, except on the grounds of evading the distinction between Existence and Consciousness. The evasion can be observed in how the meaning of ‘objective’ is conveyed: “An objective fact is that which is identified without the use of mind.” This distortion is used to conclude that: Since it is an individual’s mind that perceives any alleged fact, and since objectivity requires “absence of mind”, mind cannot perceive objective facts.

This conclusion is maintained by accepting a false premise: Words do not symbolise concepts that correspond to reality, they are meaningless sounds articulated by arbitrary will of the collective, and can be used without any meaning. This effectively renders language as a method of cognition, unreliable.

The reason for accepting false premises is non-objectivity of mind. In this article, I will present the meaning of Objectivity of Mind, and its corresponding relation with Rationality.

Objectivity is the voluntary choice of a man to form his conclusions and evaluations, exclusively from what he knows. To be objective, a man can neither disregard what he knows for a fact, nor can he take on faith, anything that he doesn’t know. ie., to be objective is to be contextually absolute: to neither allow any context-dropping, nor allow any concept-stealing.

Reason, which is Consciousness qua man’s reasoning faculty, is that which identifies and integrates the information that he perceives. It is through a process of reason, that man identifies and integrates his contextual observations into the entire body of his knowledge.

Reason neither works automatically, nor can it identify and integrate that which doesn’t exist. Reason can only identify and integrate, that which exists. This is due to a fundamental principle, which can be called Absolutism of Reality: Reality exists as an absolute. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, in the same manner. Or, as Ms. Ayn Rand puts it, “You cannot have your cake and eat it too.”

In every instance of correctly identifying any A as A, and in the general proclamation of the universal law that A is A, implicit is the principle of absolutism of reality. That something exists as an absolute, and you are identifying it as such.

A contradiction is the result of an error made by man in the process of identifying that which exists. Contradictions as such do not exist in objective reality, because of its absolute nature. What can exist temporarily, ie., until a man voluntarily corrects himself, is his own error in identifying existence. If an individual misidentifies any A as non-A, he doesn’t alter the objective fact that A is A. He merely faces a contradiction when he attempts to integrate such false observation with his knowledge, which indicates that his identification was erroneous.

Rationality is the voluntary choice of a man to exercise his faculty of Reason. To be rational is to voluntarily identify existence, and integrate his observations into his entire knowledge, without contradiction. ie., to leave no part of his observations unintegrated with his entire knowledge. ie., to drop no context.

Now, to be Irrational means to attempt the impossible: to attempt the integration of non-existence with existence. ie., to fake reality and pretend that one has observed what he in fact, has not observed. Ie., to steal concepts that he has not formed himself. This is the process of claiming a false witness of reality, primarily to himself. To be irrational is to be non-objective.

Hence, Rationality is the method to preserve the objectivity of mind. An objective mind must be a rational mind.

– Avinash Kumar

23 September 2020.

Capitalism in a single line

You can get only what others give you willingly, and you can spend only what you have.

The keyword here is will. No one can force you to do anything. You do anything in a capitalist world solely for your own reasons, not for the demands of others, while keeping in mind that, if what you do is not productive, you won’t get anything out of it, and you cannot force others to sacrifice their time, energy or money for you, for free. The system emphasises a central fact: There is no free food. Someone always pays for it. In a capitalist system, you pay for your own food. There is no way for you to force anyone to feed you.

Ruling principle of the capitalist system is Justice. The market will judge your worth and compensates for your services accordingly. If a stupid employer won’t pay you enough for your worth, the intelligent one will hire you. Better judgement wins. If a stupid employer pays you more than your worth, he’ll waste his wealth, and loses his market share in the competition against his betters, who hired better people for the same cost. Again, better judgement wins.

To understand capitalism by contrast, take a look at the current alternate forms of statism, where the Government forces you to act for reasons which are not your own, forces you to pay for services that you do not want to use or endorse, forces you to hire incompetent people on the basis of their need and not their value to your purpose, forces you to discriminate on the basis of gender or economic status, and constantly infringes upon your right to act on the judgement of your own mind, which is a corollary of your right to your own life.

– Avinash Kumar, 19 July 2020.

Note: This article is originally my answer on Quora to the question: Can you explain capitalism in a single line?

Capitalism and Unfair advantage

What people call “crony-capitalism” is a private party gaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace over his competitors by the means of governmental intervention in trade. This happens by lobbying the Government to pass trade regulations in their favour, creating state sponsored monopolies. But when the Government is accorded such power to intervene in the market, by the citizens, the market is no longer free, and the political-economic system is not Capitalism.

Allowing governmental interference in trade activity will incentivise the private parties to lobby, and makes the bribery of governmental officials possible. Absent governmental interference, there is no way an individual can have an unfair advantage in the market.

Observe that “fairness“ doesn’t mean “equality”. Fairness is a concept to be understood in the context of economic freedom. A free trade is fair trade. It means that the consumer is choosing by his free and voluntary will, with his complete knowledge, the best product in the market he can afford, from the producer he wishes to buy from. The choice is not unfair, if it is not forced upon him.

Competence makes wealth possible, not the other way around. In a capitalist system, wealth is produced through competence, and lost through incompetence. How the individual spends his wealth is completely his choice. If a poor producer is not able to compete with a rich producer in creating and selling a better product at a lower price, it is not unfairness. It is unfairness if you are forced to buy from the poor producer, by the government, because he needs money, though he is incompetent. It is unfairness if any producer, poor or rich, is not allowed to sell his product in the marketplace through governmental interference. It is unfair because then, your choice to trade is no longer free.

In a Capitalist society, the institution that protects the individuals against the abuse by a producer who sells his goods to his customers by cheating or stealing, or by physically forcing his customers to buy from him, or by forcing his competitors out of the market by physical violence, is Government.

Individual rights are the means of preserving an individual’s morality in the society. They are the principles that protect an individual from the immoral choices of his neighbours. The only proper purpose of Government is to protect the individual rights: Life, Liberty and Property, whose meaning is in essence, to safeguard the freedom of action of the individual.

Capitalism is the only morally proper system of economy, because it is the only system that is made possible by, and works on the principle of individual rights.

– Avinash Kumar.

Note: This article is originally my answer to the question on Quora: How can capitalism be a success in India if there are too many people in India who lack proper morals & ethics and thus misuse capitalism to promote crony capitalism in order to cheat and abuse people for their own benefits?

Alleged fulfilment of the American dream in the Nordic countries

The American dream was the ideal that any individual can make his fortune according to his ability, irrespective of his background or lineage, and keep it— by voluntarily dealing with other individuals, absent physical force and compulsion. The forefathers made sure that necessary conditions exist for the survival of a rational individual: the kind who can produce wealth, and keep it without the fear of being robbed or looted of it by others, especially the Government. They laid foundations for a nation to be built on the Principle of Individual Rights— a relatively new concept to grasp.

Individual rights are not entitlements. They are the principles safeguarding a man’s “freedom to take action” in a social setting: the freedom to pursue his own chosen course of action for the fulfilment of his own life without compulsion, freedom to produce and trade his own wealth on his own terms. Such conditions, especially the implicit right to free trade made it possible for the individuals to create unprecedented wealth, improved their living conditions drastically, and anyone who exercised his freedom to voluntarily produce and trade his products, benefitted tremendously, in proportion to his competence.

This was true until the late 19th century, when the Government still maintained a reasonable —but dangerously reducing distance — from the economy, primarily acting to protect the individual rights. It is no longer true today. America is not a capitalist country. It is a highly regulated mixed economy, like most other countries.

The existing conditions, projected as allegedly desirable aspects of Nordic Countries, are in fact, violations of the principle of individual rights. The government providing unearned income— no matter how high or low the amount provided might be— to non-productive individuals: at the expense of productive individuals, maintaining an “accessible” or “free” universal health care system: at the involuntary expense of individuals, including those who do not intend to use or pay for such a service, providing free and “high” quality education to all: at the involuntary expense of individuals, including those who do not intend to use or pay for it, attempting to fix the “gender gap”: when the employment of an individual ought to be a voluntarily made contract exclusively between two free individuals, are all violations of individual rights, by creating systems that institutionalise the involuntary sacrifice of an individual’s life(time, energy, efforts) for the benefit of others.

This is a from of moral cannibalism. It doesn’t matter if they arrive at such a system democratically. A man’s individual rights cannot be voted away through majority will in a society where individual rights are recognised. Unless of course, the meaning and the principle of individual rights is perverted —as it is being done today across the world—by changing it from “freedom to take voluntary actions—and bear the expenses” to “freedom to take the products of actions of others—and pass on the expenses to those who take productive actions.” A rational man would have no choice but to move out of a society which institutionalises injustice.

The Nordics who think that they happily agree with their existing heavy wealth redistribution system —and many think that many do—miss the point that agreement is never an issue in any society. It is the individual’s freedom to disagree with the collective, that requires protection. What choice does a rational man have in Nordic countries other than to leave his country?— A man who only cares to live within his means, neither sacrificing others to himself, nor sacrificing himself to others. Forcing a man to leave the society, not because of his vices, but for his virtues, is not the characteristic of a civilised society.

It has been recently said,—by the World Economic Forum — economists found that people withdraw from economic life if they perceive that opportunities and wages are “shared unfairly”.

The idea that economic opportunities ought to be “shared” fairly or unfairly, can only arise in a society where people accept that wealth earned by a man is not his own by right, and that he is bound by an obligation to spend it in ways prescribed by those who didn’t produce it. In a society where trade and government are completely separate —a Laissez Faire Capitalist society— a man who provides economic opportunities to those who do not deserve them, will lose his wealth in the market. The price for his wrong assessment of an individual’s worth, is paid from his own pocket. It is justice, and no rational man can have any problem with that.

People do not withdraw from economic life if they cannot get an economic opportunity for which they do not qualify according to an employer’s judgement. They are forced to do so, —as is happening across the world today— when it is made impossible for them to get an opportunity from any other employer, who would have employed them,—and they would have taken it—but didn’t, because of some democratically approved “progressive legislation” which forces the employer to pay his employees a wage which he cannot afford, forces him to hire and manage his employees on the basis of gender, and forces him out of existence—qua an employer— through taxation, for supporting the services which he would never otherwise intend to use, offered by those, who he would never voluntarily employ.

Government —as a force that is authorised to appropriate your products— can never solve economic problems. It is the source of all widespread economic problems that plague nations.

– Avinash Kumar, 16 June 2020.

The meaning of political equality

Political equality means that the individual rights of all the citizens are equally recognised, and protected by the Government. It is the essential condition for existence of a free society, and the only kind of equality possible between individuals.

Remember that the concept, “rights” only pertain to the Freedom to take actions: the individual’s freedom to live, to think, and consequently take actions to produce and trade values, without compulsion or intrusion from other individuals, including and especially, the Government.

If a group of individuals is accorded any exclusive rights, that are denied to others, its meaning and unavoidable logical consequence is a state-sponsored monopoly on production and trade.

Observe that the violation of your freedom to produce and trade, by others(especially the government), essentially implies and requires the violation of all your rights: It implies the violation of your right to think(since the purpose of thinking is to take action, and your freedom to think is redundant if you are not free to act and produce values in accordance with your judgements), and the violation of your right to live(your life, ie., a life proper to man: a non-parasitic life, requires that you think and act to produce and trade values, in order to sustain your own life). This is the reason why a free mind and a free market necessitate each other.

In this context, economic equality may be understood only in the sense that all men must possess the same political-economic right: the right to free trade. ie., the freedom to produce and trade any values with other individuals, with the voluntary consent of both the parties involved in the trade.

This doesn’t mean that all the individuals should be equally wealthy. It only means that all the individuals must possess the same freedom to think and act, to produce and to trade: the same freedom to live. In a laissez faire capitalist society, —ie., a society where individual rights are absolutely protected, and the government is completely separated from trade: making the state-sponsored monopolies impossible— your wealth is a consequence of your competence in exercising your freedom to produce.

– Avinash Kumar, 7 June 2020.

Note: This article is originally my answer on Quora to the question: “What is the relationship between political equality and economic equality?”

Objective Morality

Morality is the code of values that a man chooses to practice. I showed in my previous article: The Bridge between Metaphysics and Ethics that morality can be objectively defined. Since the value of life is objectively ultimate, it is only to living entities the concepts good or bad are applicable. It is for Man the choice is open to act against his own good: his own life. Hence it is Man, whose life requires making voluntary choices, that needs the science of Ethics: to choose his moral code for his own good. Remember that a value is never separate from the beneficiary: A value is always a value to someone.

Since men live in varying circumstances, the choices open to them are always in the context of their particular living conditions, that must never be omitted while making value choices.

A choice being objective is not equivalent to the choice being the same for everyone. Studying an introductory course on addition of numbers is an objectively good choice for a student who is a beginner, but not for an advanced mathematician: keeping in view their relative contexts. Observe here that making a choice relative to the context involved doesn’t mean that the choice is subjective.

All the contexts that men exist in, are absolute. A man’s history is not open to change. He cannot be a beginner and a scholar at the same time. He cannot be hungry and be satiated at the same time. He cannot be penniless and be a millionaire at the same time. He cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Hence, the choices he can make in the face of his context and alternatives are always open to objective evaluation.

Do not turn into a moral dilemma the issue such as: whether you should write your response in black ink or blue, when both are permitted while writing an essay. That is not an issue worth pondering by reviewing the whole context of your life to identify the roles played by those two colours in your cognitive development so far. Most appropriate issue to spend your time on in this context is, to think about the topic of the essay you chose to write on. That is unless if the topic of essay is moral significance of colours.

Observe that the issues you can ponder on, and the choices you can make are limited by the time span of your life. You cannot and you do not need to pursue the truth of everything in existence. Suffice it to know that objective truths can always be established in any context.

I’ll end this article by quoting Ms. Rand: “The pursuit of truth is not important. The pursuit of that truth is important which helps you in reaching your goal that is provided you have one.”

– Avinash Kumar, 27 May 2020.

The bridge between Metaphysics and Ethics

The meaning of ‘value’ is that which is valued by an entity capable of valuing. ie., value is that for which an entity acts to achieve or preserve, in face of at least one other available alternative course to pursue. Where there are no alternatives possible, no choices are possible, hence no question of valuing anything arises.

The premise I identified here is, Value is the chosen. The choice is made by the entity: Either it is explicitly made by conscious choice or implicitly by evading cognitive effort.

Life is the fundamental alternative chosen by every entity possessing it, in the face of the other alternative, death. Existence of life is not unconditional, since life is a process of voluntary, self-sustaining activity to be pursued throughout the course of organism’s existence as a living being. Entity that fails to recognise and meet the requirements of its choice to live, will implicitly choose death, and becomes inanimate matter.

Since life is the fundamental choice of any living entity, which makes all other choices possible, it is its ultimate value. In this context, I present the meaning of ‘ultimate value’: Ultimate value is that which makes all other values possible, and acts as the standard for the organism to choose all other values which are required for its continued preservation. It is irrelevant in this context whether this primary choice of organism is conscious or unconscious. For any living entity, to be a living entity, the value of life is objectively ultimate. Ie., independent of its recognition and preferences.

All its choices:values, that further its life are good for it, and all the values that threaten its life are bad for it. This is the imperative bridge between “what is” and “what ought to be”. The bridge between Metaphysics and Ethics, which most philosophers couldn’t identify, or evade, thus proclaiming that Ethics cannot be defined objectively.

Man being a rational animal, Reason is his primary means of survival: his primary value. Reason is the Man’s faculty that identifies and integrates material provided by his senses, hence his guide to make choices. Man is free to act irrationally: ie., free to make choices that are not consistent with the nature of his existence, but not free to succeed in furthering his life. If such a man survives, it is only in the capacity of a parasite. And only by the grace of other men who choose to be rational: that make his life possible, and only until such men exist.

Man “ought to” place no values inconsistent with his reason, if furthering his life in his full capacity as a Man is his goal. In this context, I give a brief note on the nature emotions. All of Man’s emotions are dependent on his chosen values. His fundamental emotions: Happiness and Sadness are results of his estimates on whether he succeeded or failed in accomplishing his values. Discussing the range of human emotions is outside the scope of this article. What is relevant here is to identify the existence and nature of causal connection between man’s value-accomplishments and his emotions. Observe that emotions are effects, and they are to be treated as such. They are not a guide to his action. Emotions will indicate whether a man succeeded or failed in his endeavours, but it is the province of Man’s reason to identify the endeavours he ought to pursue in the first place. ie., what makes a man happy is not necessarily what is good for him. But if a man pursues rational values consistently, he is bound to experience happiness. Inconsistent emotions experienced by Man are a result of pursuing inconsistent values that compromise his life.

Now, to appreciate the contrast with Objectivist ethics, observe the completely antithetical ethical system devised by Immanuel Kant, who was allegedly projected as a philosopher of reason. Kant’s ethics proclaim “duty” as a value. Observe that Self-sacrifice is the virtue (as Kant will have you practice it) that makes it possible. He held that a thing cannot be of value if you have a personal interest in it: His purpose is to detach value from the one valuing it. The unstated ultimate value that Immanuel Kant conferred upon man here is Death.

To convince a man to pursue irrational values, Kant must invalidate his objectively primary value: Reason. He approached that task, not by outright proclaiming reason as invalid, but by giving sanction to the irrational. He asks you to give benefit of doubt that a thing doesn’t exist, (which includes your own existence) because you perceive it, and because you are “limited” by the nature of your perception. The unstated premise which he wants you to accept, without making it explicit is, “Contradictions can exist because you cannot perceive them.” Its metaphysical meaning is, a thing can be not itself: A can be non A.

To arrive at a contradiction is the indication of an epistemological error. ie., to confess that an A has been falsely identified as a non A. To proclaim, and worse, to accept that A can be non A is as good as invalidating everything you know, which incidentally also includes Kant’s philosophy. It is by far the most evil as evil can go.

To protect yourself from this evil, observe that a thing that cannot be perceived, and which doesn’t bear any relation whatsoever with that which exists and can be perceived: does not, and cannot exist. Do not frustrate yourself by trying to prove the non-existence of non-existence by means of existence. It cannot be done. The meaning of proof is to show that something exists and bears an intelligible relationship with that which exists. The purpose of proof is affirming the existence of that which exists. ie., Existence can only be proved in terms of existence. Because only Existence exists: This is the Axiom of Existence.

– Avinash Kumar