jbgotmar

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.com
THE REAL ROOT OF EVIL 121
theory of natural rights because she was “not certain, myself, of the basis
of the defi nition of rights. Is a ‘right’ a thing, a fact, existing unalterably
in the essential nature of the four dimensional world?” If rights were
not a fact akin to an electron, then they must be moral or spiritual, she
wrote. But then how could they survive in the physical world, given that
“anyone can kill anyone else quite easily”? What she sought was a basis
for rights “that doesn’t have in it what seems to me the fallacy of dualism.”
Rand’s theory of rights, or at least the brief exposition she had read
in “Textbook” and Rand’s earlier letters, did not seem to solve the problem.
On the other hand, Lane was primarily enjoying the exploration of
ideas rather than being set on fi nding a solution. As she admitted, “I’m
only a fumbler, trying to think.” 55 Rand’s ideas were for her provocative,
but not complete. There were enough areas of agreement between the
two, however, to keep the correspondence productive. In the early stages
it was enough that both women agreed individual rights must be clearly
and explicitly defended.
Before long, more serious disagreements emerged as Rand’s individualism
clashed with Lane’s holistic view of the world. Commenting
on one of Lane’s book reviews, Rand criticized Lane’s invocation of
“love thy neighbor as thyself,” and her discussion of mutual effort. She
warned Lane that both could be construed as supporting collectivism.
This touched off a lengthy discussion about individualism, collectivism,
and cooperation. Lane felt it would be “natural human action” to help
others, citing the example of a neighbor’s house catching fi re. She asked
Rand, “isn’t there a vital distinction between cooperation and collectivism?
It seems to me that the essential basis of cooperation is individualism.
. . . I think that it is literally impossible for one person on this
planet to survive.” 56 In her reply Rand emphasized that although human
beings might choose to help one another, they should never be obligated
to do so, and certainly they should never help another person to their
own detriment. To argue that human beings should help others in need
was “the base of the New Deal pattern of declaring one emergency after
another.” She tore apart Lane’s logic, posing hypothetical situations in
which it would be moral to not help a neighbor (if one’s own house was
on fi re, for example). Aside from logic, Rand’s response to Lane drew
upon her own stark understanding of the world. She told Lane, “each
man’s fate is essentially his own.” 57
Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com