I found this article to be good, and there isn’t anything major I would disagree with. It’s a response to people who say without religion, there would be no prohibition against murder, or other violations of people’s rights. However, I think the author didn’t explicitly state with sufficient “weight” what I think the fundamental Randian response to such an argument would be. If someone says: “Without religion, there could be no prohibition on murder, therefore we need religious faith to keep people from committing murder,” I think the Randian response would be to start with a discussion of why murder is bad. I think this is where Objectivism would start in discussing this because it’s where Rand starts her discussion of morality in general:
“The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?” (“The Objectivist Ethics”, _The Virtue of Selfishness_ Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html )
When it comes to a discussion of murder, I think it’s probably socially taboo to even ask this question, which is why I think theists use it. It’s like people are afraid to address the question: “Why is murder bad?” because they’re afraid they won’t be able to come up with a satisfactory explanation other than just: “It’s bad.”
I do, in fact, think murder is bad. But, I also try not to be afraid of any question (or the answer), and I don’t think Rand was either. So, why is murder bad?
If you ask most people, and they are willing to discuss the question with you at all, then I think most of them will say murder is bad for at least one of three reasons: (1) They don’t want to be murdered. (2) They don’t want anyone they care about to be murdered. Probably, a third reason that will be commonly posited is something along the lines of: If murder isn’t prohibited, then the social order will break down. This is also true, although I don’t think it’s fundamental, since I think society exists because it is beneficial for each individual living in that society. So, this really becomes: “Murder is bad because without it, I can’t live in society, which is bad for me.”
Once you have elicited one of these three responses from someone, it becomes fairly easy to explain to them why we don’t need religion to explain why murder is bad. Murder is bad because it isn’t consistent with the requirements of their life. “Man’s life” is the standard of morality for those who choose to live. When you combine this with a discussion of the the fact that “nature to be commanded, must be obeyed”, and with the fact that human beings have a certain nature, which gives rise to the need for long-range principles of action and conduct to live successfully long-term, then virtues, values, and individual rights become fairly easy to explain. Additionally, government can then be explained as the institution that is intended to protect individual rights, and to enforce an absolute prohibition on murder, assault, and property crimes, which must be prohibited for the individual to live in a social environment.
But, note that this explanation is based on the choice to live. It is only because one chooses to live that one needs morality at all. The choice to live was regarded as “basic choice” by Rand, that precedes morality. Murder, and all moral vice, is bad because it is not consistent with man’s life:
“Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.” (“Causality Versus Duty,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html )
Another discussion that would have to be had in conjunction with “Why is murder bad?” is: “What is ‘murder’ and how do we distinguish it from killing in self-defense?” The distinction is: Who initiated or started the use of physical force? There are many complicated scenarios that we can get into in terms of distinguishing a particular set of facts as “murder” or “self-defense”, but in general, it comes down to who initially uses force to gain a value from another person, or to destroy another person’s values. (In the case of murder, that value is one’s life.) A person who acts in self-defense only does so to preserve their own life from being taken, not, primarily, to deprive their attacker of their life -that is just an unfortunate “by-product” of self-defense.
A dedicated Platonist/Religionist won’t be fully satisfied with this explanation, of course. They want a commandment handed down from above saying: “Thou shalt not commit murder,” and they want anyone who violates it to spend eternity in hell. They want a commandment for all moral principles. But, the vast majority of modern-day Americans, I think, will find the Randian explanation perfectly acceptable for living our every-day lives -even some of the more religious ones.