Clarifying What Hardly Anyone Would Find Plausible

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 somehow gets from there to ethical egoism (be it of whatever kind) and free market capitalism as the only just social order. Do the other participants find that inference plausible? Or would they say that is not a fair characterization of what goes on in “The Objectivist Ethics”?

This entry was posted on Friday, January 29th, 2010 at 11:50 am and is filed under The Conversation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.