Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.comTHE REAL ROOT OF EVIL 121theory of natural rights because she was “not certain, myself, of the basisof the definition of rights. Is a ‘right’ a thing, a fact, existing unalterablyin the essential nature of the four dimensional world?” If rights werenot a fact akin to an electron, then they must be moral or spiritual, shewrote. But then how could they survive in the physical world, given that“anyone can kill anyone else quite easily”? What she sought was a basisfor 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 readin “Textbook” and Rand’s earlier letters, did not seem to solve the problem.On the other hand, Lane was primarily enjoying the exploration ofideas rather than being set on finding a solution. As she admitted, “I’monly a fumbler, trying to think.” 55 Rand’s ideas were for her provocative,but not complete. There were enough areas of agreement between thetwo, however, to keep the correspondence productive. In the early stagesit was enough that both women agreed individual rights must be clearlyand explicitly defended.Before long, more serious disagreements emerged as Rand’s individualismclashed with Lane’s holistic view of the world. Commentingon one of Lane’s book reviews, Rand criticized Lane’s invocation of“love thy neighbor as thyself,” and her discussion of mutual effort. Shewarned 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 helpothers, citing the example of a neighbor’s house catching fire. She askedRand, “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 thisplanet to survive.” 56 In her reply Rand emphasized that although humanbeings might choose to help one another, they should never be obligatedto do so, and certainly they should never help another person to theirown detriment. To argue that human beings should help others in needwas “the base of the New Deal pattern of declaring one emergency afteranother.” She tore apart Lane’s logic, posing hypothetical situations inwhich it would be moral to not help a neighbor (if one’s own house wason fire, for example). Aside from logic, Rand’s response to Lane drewupon her own stark understanding of the world. She told Lane, “eachman’s fate is essentially his own.” 57