Ironically, I'm in the middle of writing an ethics paper on Aristotle. We will be considering Ayn Rand's position starting next class.
On point, there is a flaw in her speech. Many people produce money for themselves at the expense of other things of value. The problem is that money is not valued as a medium of exchange, but as an end in itself.
For people that not only say, but act, in the proper way, Ayn Rand is right. In the real world, it falls apart. Not everyone is a philosopher, and they will be tricked by hollow artifacts of social acceptance and material wealth.
I like pg's position where people produce because they like to build and solve problems using their reason ( A position much like Aristotle's I'm finding. ) Material things lose their fun after enough time and you have interacted with the static object enough. People are interesting because they can be dynamic because of their reason.
If money is valued as an end in itself, it is only valued that way in abstract, because money itself is worthless, but it is a reliable substitute for other things... things one may wish to exchange it for at some point in the future.
So money is fine as an abstract end, because it allows the end to be "time shifted" nicely.
On point, there is a flaw in her speech. Many people produce money for themselves at the expense of other things of value. The problem is that money is not valued as a medium of exchange, but as an end in itself.
For people that not only say, but act, in the proper way, Ayn Rand is right. In the real world, it falls apart. Not everyone is a philosopher, and they will be tricked by hollow artifacts of social acceptance and material wealth.
I like pg's position where people produce because they like to build and solve problems using their reason ( A position much like Aristotle's I'm finding. ) Material things lose their fun after enough time and you have interacted with the static object enough. People are interesting because they can be dynamic because of their reason.