Take a look at the middle east today.

That's what it would have solved.

That assumes we accept that particular part of Ayn Rand's philosophy as valid. Personally, I think that's one of her half-truths. ;)

That is also true. I think a good example of that would be Bill Gates and his company Microsoft. Enormously beneficial to himself, and also to mankind. However, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is an incredibly noble endeavor as well, even though it's not particularly beneficial to Bill Gates himself.

So yes, we could certainly say that creating a beneficial and useful product is a noble thing to do, but it would be a grave mistake to say that it is the only way to be noble. There are perhaps as many different ways to be morally noble and virtuous as there people.

Well okay, maybe she was a bad example. But the principle is still valid.

Morally compelled? No. Though if a woman did choose to do such a thing of her own free will, it would be an incredibly noble act.

There are some actions for which it is not immoral if one chooses not to do them, but for which it would be regarded as highly virtuous if one does choose to do them.

For example, Mother Teresa's choice to devote her life to helping the poor. We do not consider it immoral if a person chooses not to spend their life in such a way, but it is highly moral if they do choose to do so.

Never seen that movie, but it does look interesting.

Well, discrimination, for one.

But there are other examples as well, such as someone dumping chemicals in their backyard, thus contaminating the soil in a large enough radius that the contamination seeps into their neighbor's yard and kills their lawn and garden.

An individual can certainly be harmed by the inaction of others, though I was really talking more about harm caused by non-forceful action, rather than harm caused by inaction.

As for whether an individual should be punished for causing harm in these ways, it depends on the situation. In some circumstances I would say yes, in others, no.

In Arizon, for example, there is currently a law in place which forbids any and all restaurants from charging for a cup of water, since several people have passed out and died from dehydration due to the excessive heat of that state. This is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable law, because it helps to prevent harm. Other states where the weather is cooler do not have such laws, because they are not needed there.

As for your example of refusing to give food to a starving man who dies as a result, whether or not you should be punished would depend on whether you were a just some random person passing him on the street, or the owner of a homeless shelter turning him away at the door. In the first case, I would say no, because it isn't the responsibility of one man to provide for the needs of another. But in the second case, I would say yes, because the owner of a homeless shelter specifically and intentionally takes on the task of providing for other people's needs, and therefore he can and should be held morally accountable if he refuses to do so when he is able.

Then there's also the well known case of thirty-eight people who witnessed a murder, yet didn't call police, which allowed the killer plenty of time to finish off his victim when a single phone call to the police could have saved the victim's life. In this case, I would say yes, absolutely, the people who witnessed the murder but did not call the police absolutely should be punished in some way (a hefty fine seems most appropriate, in my opinion). You can read more about that case here:

http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/F...

I also once read about a case where there was a big party at someone's house with about fifty or sixty people in attendance, and two of the people attacked and killed a third person in full view of everyone else, and then proceeded to bury the body in the backyard while everyone else just stood by and watched. No one called the police, or made any attempt to intervene, and once the body was buried, they all continued on with the party as if nothing had happened. In this case, I would say the two people who committed the murder deserved to be charged with first degree homicide, and all those who watched deserved to be charged as accomplices for doing nothing to stop it and failing to alert the police.

So yes, there are circumstances in which a person can and should be punished for failing to act (the degree of punishment varying depending on the particular circumstances and nature of each individual case).

I can think of plenty of non-forceful ways that one person can harm another, though stopping such harm generally requires legal action of some kind.

"In 1980, had I been President and Carter not emasculated our military, I'd have slaughtered every man, woman and child in Iran as an object lesson to the rest of the world."
---
So you're a bloodthirsty warmonger who would be a genocidal tyrant if he ever gained political power. Good to know.