February, 2010

Identities and Interests

by Michael Huemer
The Conversation
February 2nd, 2010

There was something I didn’t follow in Doug’s last post, under his third observation. It seemed as though Doug was saying that we must interpret life in terms of flourishing rather than survival, because it is impossible to exist without a specific identity. I don’t follow this. People who are not flourishing (by Doug’s lights) [...]

Read: Identities and Interests

Interests, Harmonious and Otherwise

by Roderick Long
The Conversation
February 2nd, 2010

Reply to Neera and Doug I think by the “harmony of interests” doctrine Neera and Doug mean something more extreme than I do.  I don’t deny that the state of affairs that’s most in my interest may be inconsistent with the state of affairs that’s most in your interest, but that’s not what I mean [...]

Read: Interests, Harmonious and Otherwise

No

by Douglas B. Rasmussen
The Conversation
February 2nd, 2010

Some things are not as clear as our good editor thinks. So, in response to his pot-stirring, I offer these brief comments—each of which requires much greater development than I can provide here. First, strictly speaking, Rand’s “Causality Versus Duty” does not require an instrumentalist reading of morality.  See my previously cited essays in the [...]

Read: No

Instrumentalist Egoism

by Michael Huemer
The Conversation
February 2nd, 2010

On the subject of instrumentalist egoism, survival vs. flourishing, and the pre-moral “choice to live”: someone just reminded me of Rand’s “Causality versus Duty”, which supports interpreting Rand as holding the less sophisticated views on these matters. Consider two quotations: 1. “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act [...]

Read: Instrumentalist Egoism

Yes

by Douglas B. Rasmussen
The Conversation
February 2nd, 2010

I obviously agree with Neera regarding the no-conflict-of-rational-interests issue. But I want to express not only my appreciation for the reference to Ronald de Sousa’s important article but also for her point about how it is possible to lose the capacity to do the right thing as a result, at least in part, from doing the right thing.  (Sorry [...]

Read: Yes

More on the Conflict of Rational Interests

by Michael Huemer
The Conversation
February 1st, 2010

About Neera’s message on the conflict of rational interests: Ditto that. But now about her previous message, responding to me:  We’ve mentioned the following premises and/or lemmas that appear in “The Objectivist Ethics” (taken from Neera’s message, slightly abbreviated): 1. Living things face an alternative of existence or non-existence. 2. Living things have a specific [...]

Read: More on the Conflict of Rational Interests

Neither Stoicist Nor Putnam-Wittgensteinian

by Douglas B. Rasmussen
The Conversation
February 1st, 2010

I agree (1) with Rod’s response to Neera that happiness needs to be understood objectively and (2) with what he says about Michael’s concern re the plausibility of Rand’s general approach.  Much of what Rod says in response to Michael was noted by Den Uyl and myself in our “Nozick on the Randian Argument” in [...]

Read: Neither Stoicist Nor Putnam-Wittgensteinian

The Conflict of Rational Interests

by Neera K. Badhwar
The Conversation
February 1st, 2010

I too love the passage from Cicero that Doug quoted. But I did not see it as supporting either Doug (and me) or Roderick on the issue of the possibility of a conflict among different people’s rational interests. Although I have agreed with most of Roderick’s views so far, I am now making up by [...]

Read: The Conflict of Rational Interests