RoR: Forum

Nice article, many salient points.

I do object to this, nor is this the first place I have heard it:

Because there are no conflicts in the interests of rationally acting men,

When they are acting rationally, yes. But there are are conflicts between and among rational men. I offer the flame wars here and on other Objectivist sites as proof.

Clearly if there were no conflicts between rational men, we would not need a court system. Is that what you believe?

Post 1

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:53am

Clearly if there were no conflicts between rational men, we would not need a court system. Is that what you believe?

If all men were rational at all times, but obviously they are not.

Post 2

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:45am

" A wholly ethical society is one that needs no laws or government...capitalism is the only system which can create a wholly ethical society."

I'm mildly confused. Are you arguing for an anarcho-capitalist society here?

Post 3

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:47am

Robert Davison, for once we agree.

Post 4

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:00am

Clearly if there were no conflicts between rational men, we would not need a court system. Is that what you believe?

If all men were rational at all times, but obviously they are not.

Humans minds are not infallable, even with the same value systems and acting entirely logically, people may come to different logical conclusions based on their information set. Even acting rational at all times people can still disagree.

Post 5

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:21am

Humans minds are not infallable, even with the same value systems and acting entirely logically, people may come to different logical conclusions based on their information set. Even acting rational at all times people can still disagree.

I still don't follow. It seems to me as if you are saying that two different people could have two different realitites, or two different logics. But as I've said before, prior to my experience on this forum, my only experience with Objectivism was through Rand's novels. My understanding of this subject comes from Branden's essay in TVOS. Could you provide an example of two rational men having a conflict?

Post 6

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:45am

Wolf,

================
Clearly if there were no conflicts between rational men, we would not need a court system.
================

Like Jonathan said, this is 'true' -- but irrelevant. Here's the explicit line of reasoning (the syllogistic logic) you're implying ...

If men were always and only rational (never seeking the unearned), there would be no conflict.
Men are always and only rational.
===================
Therefore, there is no conflict among men.

The function of a court system is to resolve conflict (peacefully).
There is no conflict among men.
===================
Therefore, we don't need a court system.

See the error?

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:50am

Our opinions come from two things, our values and our informations sets. Two people could have the exact same sets of values yet different information sets (since no one person can learn everything about a particular subject) at some point we have to make rational assessments of situations based on the information available and the information we have processed. If two people with identical values were privy to the exact same set of information than if both were logical they would both come to the same conclusion. But in reality how often is that the case? Never, really. Since your information set is the whole of your life experiences, I could never convey to you every single bit of information that leads me to have a particular opinion on a subject. I can try to, conveying concepts and a few particulars, but until you have lived my life you couldnt possibly have the same information set.

As an example, this discussion. We are both rational and logical people but the information we have processed in regards to this question is different, so you logically conclude that two rational men can not have differeing opinions, I logically conclude that they can, because they can be basing their conclusion on different information. Now they should both obviously logically acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge and the possibility of an incorrect assessment, but you can't make it through life without ever making assessments of situations.

Now with that bit of information you might change your mind. Does that mean you were irrational before, and now are being rational? Or are you still just as rational but are including more information in making your assessment?

Post 8

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:08am

Ahh, good point, Michael D. -- rival information sets (how could I have overlooked this??).

You see, I'm rational -- when exposed to a superior view (this one INCLUDING -- and integrating -- the dynamic of information sets), I immediately adopt it. It's as if I CAN'T HELP but to adopt that which is superior -- once understood.

;-)

Ed

Post 9

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:23am

Ahh, good point, Michael D. -- rival information sets (how could I have overlooked this??).
You see, I'm rational -- when exposed to a superior view (this one INCLUDING -- and integrating -- the dynamic of information sets), I immediately adopt it. It's as if I CAN'T HELP but to adopt that which is superior -- once understood.
;-)
Ed

Thanks Ed, It is something I always try to keep in mind when engaging in a discussion. I may strive and suceed at being rational but the person I am engaging in a discussion with may be as well. It becomes very useful when the purpose of your discussion is actually learning a more accurate description of the way the world works. I am like you, immediately adopting a superior assessment of something as soon as I understand it. Realizing this association between values, information sets, and opinions helps me whiddle disagreements back core values as well, finding common ground to start from, and I am usually surprised how many people share similiar values but simply have been privey to different sets of information.

Post 10

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:02pm

This much is true: It is not against the interests of people to compete with each other economically, even though someone will win and someone will lose, because even the losers are better off in a society that allows economic competition than the winners are in a society that does not allow it. What is good for me economically is also good for you, even if, in the short run, I win and you lose, because if you are better at something than I am, then it's in my interests for you to do it, and for me to do something else that I am better at, and for the two of us to trade, which is what is meant by David Ricardo's "law of comparative advantage."

How do we find out what people are best at? By allowing them to compete with each other. By sorting out the winners and losers, competition assigns people to their most productive occupations. In contemporary lingo, capitalism is a "win-win" situation, which is what Adam Smith meant when he referred to it as a "harmony of interests." And this, I suspect, is what Ayn Rand was alluding to when she said that "there are no conflicts of interest among rational men."

- Bill

Post 11

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:18pm

Geezus, Bill!

That succinct, profound post almost brought tears to my eyes!

You gotta' stop doing that!

;-)

Ed
[please, don't ever stop doing that (it's what you do better than "the competition")]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/27, 12:19pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 2:47pm

Thanks, Ed. I always appreciate your positive feedback. Now if only we could get that Cal fella to feel the same way. But I guess that whenever you "dish out" the compliments, you need to be careful not to attract flies. ;-)

- Bill

Post 13

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 3:15pm

When I wrote this article, I was in favor of an anarcho-capitalist government. Since them I have changed my mind. The purpose of a government is to protect individual rights and having a court system to do this would not be an infringement of individual rights, and would cause no harm.

Post 14

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 5:18am

Michael,

I find the statement:

Because there are no conflicts in the interests of rationally acting men

true, even despite what you say:

Our opinions come from two things, our values and our informations sets. Two people could have the exact same sets of values yet different information sets ... If two people with identical values were privy to the exact same set of information than if both were logical they would both come to the same conclusion. But in reality how often is that the case? Never, really.

Because I assert that rationally acting men should communicate when a conflict of interests is detected. Via communication, they will have the same infromation set (at least for the issue at hand).

Cheers,
Ricky

Post 15

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:39am

Bill said:

"And this, I suspect, is what Ayn Rand was alluding to when she said that "there are no conflicts of interest among rational men."

And Rickey said:

"Because I assert that rationally acting men should communicate when a conflict of interests is detected. Via communication, they will have the same infromation set (at least for the issue at hand)."

A lot of good comments were made in this thread and I have had to think about my position. Originally I was asserting that "Even acting rational at all times people can still disagree." because we are not omniscient nor infallible, even though I was responding to a comment about conflicts of interest. I still stand by statement and I think it is something we should always keep in mind. However, Bill's and Rickey's comments are also valid, and I think where the distinction lies is between the idea of a "disagreement" versus a "conflict of interest" While the latter always includes the former, the former can be had without the latter.

So while rational men may still disagree, they should not have any conflicts of interest.

Post 16

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:03am

As usual this fly is less impressed by Bill's argument than Ed. Bill:

This much is true: It is not against the interests of people to compete with each other economically, even though someone will win and someone will lose, because even the losers are better off in a society that allows economic competition than the winners are in a society that does not allow it.

That we in general will be better off when people can compete with each other does not imply that there can be no conflicts of interests between "rational" people. On the contrary, I think that conflicts in themselves may be useful as part of the motor that generates wealth, just as we probably wouldn't have our current standard of living without the existence of agression, or we would very quickly become extinct if there didn't exist pain. But to conclude from that that conflicts of interest "don't exist" is verbal sleight of hand, it's stretching the meaning of words beyond breaking point.

D'Anconia and Rearden might be so "rational" that they were happy and content that Dagny ditched them for a new lover (after all he was the best one for her, and may the best man win!), but do you think that this will happen in real life? Rand apparently did think such things were possible with rational people, with the well-known disastrous results - conflicts of interest were unavoidable in her situation, no matter what her theories said.

Post 17

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:34am

Cal wrote:

I think that conflicts in themselves may be useful as part of the motor that generates wealth, just as we probably wouldn't have our current standard of living without the existence of agression, or we would very quickly become extinct if there didn't exist pain.

Cal how do you define the following terms in this context of the conversation:

Conflict

Aggression

Pain

Interests

Post 18

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:47am

"D'Anconia and Rearden might be so "rational" that they were happy and content that Dagny ditched them for a new lover (after all he was the best one for her, and may the best man win!)"

Rearden's behavior came from a RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUALITY of a person, not because he thought 'the best man' should win. To respect and cherish someone includes holding that same feeling for what is most important to them, what they need to find and seek happiness. Do you think Rearden would have been happy demanding Dagny enslaved herself to his feelings, feelings which are obviously not based on any kind of admiration or love for Dagny (since he denies Dagny's choice)

I have had the pleasure of having a relationship that was based on the respect for the individuality and admiration of each other, and no there were no conflicts of interest, no lies, no assaults, no disrespect. That relationship was more fulfilling than my previous 10. There is nothing un reachable about the relationship that Rand portray's Dagny and Rearden having. It is the only proper form of a relationship, anything else is irrational, derogatory, and insulting.

If you don't get angry and hurt that your friend doesnt want to hang out with you then you dont get angry and hurt when your lover doesnt either, else you are demanding voluntary slavery.

Post 19

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:23pm