The Objectivist claims reality is neither good or evil. Reality just is what it is, neither good, neither bad, being measurable, absolute, and existing independent of perception.
Conservatives put Aristotle’s thesis of independence to work supporting an aristocratic hypothesis. While, for example, it appears that a progressive tax code provides funding for the needy without destroying demand, according to Objectivists, progressing the tax burden destroys the demand for capital that drives economic expansion. Capitalism, they explain, more efficiently measures what our needs are objectively. This yields economic efficiency, which in turn yields employment opportunity and a higher degree of divisibility on demand than “liberal sentiments” can, or ever will, on command.
The liberal-conservative debate is an argument among elites. To “win the argument” (as Ted Cruz describes it), conservatives argue for objective measures over moral, sentimental appeals to emotion and delusional, utopian fantasies.
The existential psychology of having discovered “objective reality” and “natural identity” is profound. Any discussion about the value of welfare–mitigating against all the “bad things”…all the emotional things…maintaining a system of income inequality “to make us all more productive” tends to produce–results in being presented a copy of “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged.” There is no arguing with “objective reality” and trying to, according to Paul Ryan, for example, is “intellectually lazy.”
According to conservative, aristocratic reasoning, mitigating the riskless returns of capitalism is an aggravation that denies the objective reality of a natural existence. Welfare, for example, destroys our natural identity. If the lower class is not dependent on the capital it loses its productive, on-demand identity. Expecting people to be productive without the incentive–earning the right to self-determine, measured by income–is delusional. We don’t want delusional people allocating capital because it’s really aggravating, isn’t it!
Sorting out the difference between good and evil requires intelligence. It’s a real brain teaser because no one agrees on just exactly what that is.
Since morality is not an exactly common divisible measure, as a practical measure (to reduce the errors and mitigate the aggravation) it is best to ignore the ambivalent, moral measures of accountability. Income is the best objective measure because, naturally, we all equally require it to self-determine and accountability depends on the capacity to enforce it on demand. The instruments to measure risk must be objective if we want to reduce errors and yield to the intendency of an otherwise probable, chaotic, and conflicted existence.