January, 2010

Bravo Neera

by Douglas B. Rasmussen
The Conversation
January 29th, 2010

I think Neera is correct to say in response to Michael that there are “a whole lot of other premises.”  This is why it is important to take Rand as making insightful suggestions, but not as offering a finished product.  But if you think any and every version of naturalism in ethics must fail, then [...]

Read: Bravo Neera

This and That

by Douglas B. Rasmussen
The Conversation
January 29th, 2010

Rod:
Doug thinks that the natural harmony of interests that the eudaimonist tradition largely embraces requires an agent-neutral conception of the good.
Neera:
Doug is right that the omission of the virtue of practical wisdom from Rand’s discussion is an important one. But I don’t find it surprising: she was not a systematic philosopher, and she omitted to [...]

Read: This and That

Yes, We Can Get Along — and We Can Even Agree Quite a Bit!

by Neera K. Badhwar
The Conversation
January 29th, 2010

Thanks to Doug, Roderick, and Mike for further food for thought.
Starting with the most recent: Mike is right that you can’t go from “Living things face an alternative of existence or non-existence” to ethical egoism. But of course Rand introduces a whole lot of other premises to get there: all living things, including the human variety, [...]

Read: Yes, We Can Get Along — and We Can Even Agree Quite a Bit!

Clarifying What Hardly Anyone Would Find Plausible

by Michael Huemer
The Conversation
January 29th, 2010

I can’t dispute with Neera about what she finds initially plausible. But I want to clarify what I thought hardly anyone would find plausible. I didn’t mean neo-Aristotelian egoism per se. I meant the argument in “The Objectivist Ethics” that, as I think, starts from “Living things face an alternative of existence or non-existence,” and [...]

Read: Clarifying What Hardly Anyone Would Find Plausible