NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/930

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 4.3 KB | 83 lines

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!isc-newsserver!ritvax.isc.rit.edu!MJM5049
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Conflicts of interest
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vaxc.isc.rit.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:39:25 GMT
Lines: 70

I have never understood what Ayn Rand held to be a person's rational
interests.  I gather that she did not mean either survival_as_such
or pleasure (She's not Bentham).  Nor did she think that interests
are a matter of arbitrary individual whim or social norms.  As far
as I can make out, AR claimed (correct me if I'm wrong) that:

2)  No conflict of interests exist between rational men, which is to say
3)  The initiation of force or fraud is NEVER in one's interest.

Moreover AR seems to have held that these propositions are true because
of the nature of existence as such.  She certainly never conducted studies
to find out what kinds of actions produce happiness.  Indeed, I find it
difficult to imagen how such a study could ever be made, insofar as AR
never (again correct me if I'm wrong) gave an operational definition of
happiness.

AR refused to answer questions of the "life boat dilemma" variety on the
grounds that situations of that sort hardly ever come up in day-to-day
life.  But surely this is not an acceptable answer.  If AR believed that
conflicts of real interests are, a priori, impossible, then _any_ counter-
example is a sufficient disproof.  On the other hand, if AR determined the
nature of rational interests on a postiori grounds then the question becomes
a mere matter of psychology (not psycho-epistemology just plain ol', run of
mill

psychology) not metaphysics and she must adduce empirical evidence pursuant to
the rules of science just like everyone else.

Consider the example Ms Rand used in her essay on the subject of conflicts of
interest (see "The Virtue of Selfishness") :  two men applying for the same
job.

Let us look at the question of whether or not one of the men "ought" to lie
on his resume in order to increase his chances of getting the job.  I am
supposing that the current job market is very tight (a not altogether unreal-
istic supposition), that the applicant in question really needs the money,
and that the applicant thinks that he can get away with the deception.
AR made the argument that if the principle of lying_on_resumes were
consistently accepted by everyone that the economy would collapse; thus the
lier damages the very system which produces the value which he seeks to gain,
something like a parasite which harms its host.  But obviously the applicant
does not cause everyone to lie on resumes nor even does he condemn himself to
constantly lying in the future.  More to the point, if Randian Objectivism
claims the three propositions listed above, it must show that "parasitic"
behavior, such as lying on resumes, always decreases happiness.  Do not
misunderstand me, I certainly would agree that

A)  The applicant risks losing his job if the deception is found.
B)  The applicant may find the job to be very difficult because he falsified
    his qualifications.
C)  He could loss some self esteem because of the deception.
D)  Once the applicant has lied the first time, he is more likely to lie again.

All of the above considerations have a potential negative effect on our
applicant's happiness, but the net effect on happiness might nevertheless be
positive.  Whether or not the applicant becomes more happy is a question for
psychology.  The psychologist Maslow thought that people have a hierarchy of
needs divided into six levels.  The achievement of each level is required
before the level above it.  Self-esteem for example cannot be acquired before
one has food, clothing, shelter, physical security, a sense of belonging, etc.
Maslow's exact formulation may be incorrect, but surely food is a more
important interest than the self-esteem of never lying.  Rand never, to my
knowledge, addresses this plurality of interests within man.  It seems to me
that not only are there conflicts of interest between men, but conflicts of
interest within men.

Am I understanding AR correctly?  Tell me what you think.

                        Michael J. McGranaghan
$