| | Jay,
You say,
"Perhaps having a rational Group Objectivist philosophy in place would give us the tools to prevent the regulatory abuses we've seen." I notice that you have capitalized Group Objectivist as if it were already a body of knowledge, like Objectivist Ethics, or Objectivist Epistemology.
But at this point, there is no such body of knowledge to be used as a tool as you suggested. And I don't see that it is needed in the examples you raise. You are arguing that there should be such a body of knowledge. I can't completely agree or disagree without seeing what exactly it is that you are proposing. (Not that that stops me from making some observations :-)
You said,
"I would expect one primary goal of group Objectivism to be the effective protection of individual rights. Yet since the nature of groups (conflictive personalities) effectively undermines any guarantee of rational self interest, what are correct and natural ethics for groups will ultimately differ from individual ethics, even though they strive to assure the same ultimate goal." Okay, lets start with that. You say that one primary goal would be effective protection... I assume you are talking about definition or identification rather than protection. For example, Objectivist Ethics defines or identifies rights, it doesn't protect them. The protection comes later from an environment that favors them, from laws or regulations that extrapolate the rights into code, or by the actions of legal entities (police, judges, etc) or self-defense.
From there you begin discussing the nature of groups... but I don't understand where this material is coming from. Is there description of the nature of groups that we should be referring to? Before we could call it "Objectivist," that would be a first step to accepting and integrating with the principles already at hand.
I don't agree that the
"nature of groups... undermines any guarantee of rational self-interest..." I can look at my own history, my self-interest, and my interactions with others (groups) and find that where conflict has frustrated some ends, it has been more than offset by the advantages of living in a social setting (groups). For just one example, look at the extraordinary benefits of specialized labor. Rand was quite aware of the potential for conflict and the role of ethics and law to protect the individual and she went out of her way to point out the beneficial side effect to all (group) of such a system.
Objectivist Ethics holds that a group does not have a natural right apart from the natural rights possessed by its individuals. And I can see no way that you can derive a set of group rights, that don't conflict with the individual's rights and there is no way that you can give preference to a group rights with out saying, "Adios Objectivism."
You say,
"The authority of all regulatory agencies should be pared down to assure they do no more than fulfill their essential purpose - we need to carefully regulate the regulators." Agreed. But there are two caveats: an electorate or people will never be able to raise government to heights of ethical behavior that greatly exceed their own. I know that it is like pissing in someones lemonade, but it has to be said, this is a slow, step-by-step process of education and implementation. Second, it is a dangerous utopian path, one that has swallowed up much idealistic yearning and well-intentioned energy, that that leads one to act as if a system can be so perfected, or so engineered as to take away the need for an assertive, rational, educated populace. That responsible, understanding citizenry is the only real check and balance against the thugs and thieves that would cloak themselves in government garb. Everything else just slows down deterioration (while sometimes hiding problems and often confusing issues).
You wonder if Objectivism can,
"...be stretched or extended to cover societies, or should there have been more Objectivist study and analysis on the nature of groups..." I say the basics are there in existing Objectivist understandings and the imperfect applications and bodies of knowledge already exit (like sociology, cultural anthropology, political science, psychology, etc.) - but these disciplines need to be reworked where they are inconsistent with a rational theory of human nature. Nothing else is needed in the way of a new Group Objectivism. There are group dynamics in the field of psychology - what is needed here is sorting out the material and doing enough reworking to ensure that the aspect of human choice, character, existing belief structures, etc. are properly woven in. I'd say beware of the siren call of 'exciting' new studies or theories - academia is littered with them.
My field of interest, my area of greatest joy, is found at the intersection of three great intellectual roads: The theory of human nature, motivational psychology of the individual, and an evolutionary view of human culture. If you want fresh new ground to plow in a multidisciplinary area - jump in. Rand took care of the basics, there are enormous bodies of work in all the social sciences that can be Objectively 'deconstructed' - and reclaimed.
|
|
