Ayn Rand - There Is Nothing Such As Duty

ayn rand taught the world that there is nothing such as duty.

she said that a parent has no duty towards his child. she added that the only difference is that if the parent is not concerned about his child then that makes him an immoral human being.

why did she say that ?

she meant that there is a difference between morality and legality.

something may be immoral. but it is not necessary for the same to be illegal.

but she did not elaborate why should it not be illegal. i think she did not explain further because no one probably asked her in public. or else maybe she did not describe because people would have misunderstood her.

and that is a fact. the world has misunderstood her.

the truth is that she claimed that it should not be illegal because the relationship between a parent and a child is very personal and private.

the court should not interfere in anyones private affair because there are too many complexities and aspects which are either hard to prove or else things which a parent would rather not disclose in the courtroom to avoid embarrassing own child.

but then all said and done - the courts do not bother. the law in itself is diplomatic in nature and plays political games with peoples lives because it is created by politicians who just care about one thing - do whatever the masses would like to see.

for example a child without any rational reason behaves in an illogical or hateful manner towards his/her parent to the extent crossing all limits then sometimes it leaves the parent with no other choice but to teach a lesson to the child through a hard approach after giving up trying all sorts of alternative / normal methods.

so yes - this was the reason why she said that.

then she again said that there is no such thing as duty and a soldier has no duty towards his country.

why did she say that ?

she meant that once a soldier chooses to join the forces then it is his/her own choice as he / she knows in advance that death could be a possibility.

and she explained that in her own words.

so the issue is that she again did not elaborate this point because she knew that the public will not be able to understand her principle.

the only difference here in contrast to the above example is that she meant that for example a soldier while at the battlefield and facing the enemy during shooting on both sides decides to save his life by running away instead of going ahead further in the enemies territory then that may make him/her an immoral or a moral human (depending upon case to case basis) being but his act should not be illegal.

but why should it not be illegal ?

why should he not be court-martialed ?

reason being - for example lets say usa declares war over canada (obviously it will never happen - this is just an example) just for a simple reason to acquire its land and resources. and lets say the american commando (under discussion) is against the war because he feels it is unethical for his country to occupy another country under a strange excuse which is flawed but the real hidden motive being conquering land belonging to a peaceful country then it is his choice whether to carry on in the battlefield or else hide then run away.

so that is why she said that - there is nothing such as duty.