RoR: Forum

So what is an example of a conflict of interest between two totally rational men?

Post 41

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:44am

An example could be two men wanting the same physical good. (Of course, 'conflict' need not to involve violence.)

Joel Català

Post 42

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:47am

Jack,

There are no conflicts in the interests of rational men.
With all due respect, this is wrong. If it were true, there would be no need for courts.

I might be getting my fallacies mixed up Robert, but isn't this an example of a non-sequitur argument? Your conclusion is based on every man acting rationally at every moment. This was never one of Jack's premises.

Post 43

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:51am

Jack, re to your post #39: I recognize that Ayn Rand was a good novelist, who knew how to sell ideas.

The valid values he held stem from Classical liberalism, which at the same time stems from the values of Civilization.

But about her original philosophical ideas, they were not good.

My view.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/23, 9:53am)

Post 44

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:52am

An example could be two men wanting the same physical good. (Of course, 'conflict' need not to involve violence.)

Joel Català

And how is this a conflict?

Post 45

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:56am

Cal,

Someone can pursue a life as a parasite and do this in a highly rational way.

Apparently, you don't know what it means to be human.

Ed

Post 46

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:57am

Thanks Joel. However, when you write:

Ayn Rand desperately tried to get her desired answer, which was to get rid of any metaphysical concept smacking of Theism.

I should mention that I'm just as much against theism as Rand, though for different reasons. I can understand your enthusiasm for Ryan's book; personally I think many of Ryan's criticisms are valid and therein he makes a lot of good points, but alas, I don't find his own philosophical ideas much better...

Post 47

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:58am

Well, imagine that, for whatever reasons, they want the same piece of real state.

Joel Català

Post 48

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:01am

Cal,
Someone can pursue a life as a parasite and do this in a highly rational way.
Apparently, you don't know what it means to be human.

Ed, you smuggled your values in.

Just imagine that the parasite does not share your values: imagine that that human parasite is Lenin.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/23, 10:03am)

Post 49

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:03am

Well, imagine that, for whatever reasons, they want the same piece of real state.

Joel Català

So? Who owns this real-estate? If they are truly rational then they will recognize the owner's freedom to sell to whomever he wishes, and if the owner is rational it will be the highest bidder. Merely desiring the same object does not equal conflict.

Post 50

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:08am

Cal,

Someone can pursue a life as a parasite and do this in a highly rational way.
Apparently, you don't know what it means to be human.
Ed, just imagine that the parasite does not share your values. Realize that here you smuggled your values in.

Joel Català

Joel, the parasite rejects the universality (sp?) of the concept of man. Although the parasite does use his own life as his standard of value, he resorts to methods which deprive another man of his own life. He abandons the concept that human life, all life, is a standard of value.

Post 51

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:10am

Jack, you wrote:

Merely desiring the same object does not equal conflict.

Well, relared to the term "conflict", if you look at dictionary.com, you will see something similar to the following:

Conflict: "A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash."

To me, two individuals desiring the same object is a disharmony between incompatible interests, and a conflict.

As I said before, conflict does not necessarily involve violence.

Joel Català

Post 52

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:13am

But a rational man does not want what he hasn't earned, and since neither individual has earned the piece of real estate, there can be no conflict.

Post 53

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:15am

Ed:

Apparently, you don't know what it means to be human.

Why not? Why is a human who lives a parasitic life not a human? Is he an Untermensch? We may disapprove of his way of living, but that doesn't make him less human, and saying that his behavior is not rational is begging the question. As Joel said, being rational is not the same as being moral, no matter what Rand said. If you like it or not, some crooks can be very rational and defining it away is no solution.

Post 54

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:22am

Ed, you wrote,

He [the parasite] abandons the concept that human life, all life, is a standard of value.

Yes, that why parasites are so despicable to you and me, who are passably moral lads.

But this particular moral agreement between you and me is irrelevant to the discussion.

Departing from cognitive faculties corresponding to a pretty shrewd Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the human parasite Lenin thought that his morality was fine as a standard of value.

Joel Català
(Edited by Joel Català on 6/23, 10:28am)

Post 55

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:25am

Why not? Why is a human who lives a parasitic life not a human? Is he an Untermensch? We may disapprove of his way of living, but that doesn't make him less human, and saying that his behavior is not rational is begging the question. As Joel said, being rational is not the same as being moral, no matter what Rand said. If you like it or not, some crooks can be very rational and defining it away is no solution.

Cal, they are only rational up to a certain point. By stealing, they are violating the rights of another man. Since our concept of man is universal, either they leave themselves open to robbery (which wouldn't be very rational if they value their life) or they declare themselves superior to every other man, which is also not rational.

Post 56

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:25am

Cal wrote:

some crooks can be very rational and defining it away is no solution.

Yes. And the duty of a moral man is to actively combat the crooks' immoral tenets and acts.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/23, 10:26am)

Post 57

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:33am

But a rational man does not want what he hasn't earned, and since neither individual has earned the piece of real estate, there can be no conflict.

Jonathan, imagine they both have the money to pay the piece of real state, they both want it, and the price is fixed by law.

There is conflict. It might be solvable by changing the law, but under these conditions, the conflict would exist.

In fact, I would bet that there are real-world examples of a similar conflict.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/23, 10:34am)

Post 58

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:45am

Jonathan:

But a rational man does not want what he hasn't earned, and since neither individual has earned the piece of real estate, there can be no conflict.

That would imply that neither of them wants the piece of real estate.

Another example: suppose my neighbor wants to build a shed while he needs it for his gardening tools. But I'm not happy with that while it will take away the breathtaking view I have. This is a conflict of interests and both our viewpoints are rational. That is not to say that it can't be solved, we may take it to court and the result might be that the interest of one of us is deemed more important than that of the other one, or there may be found some compromise. But the fact that a solution can be found does not mean that there is no conflict of interests and that we are not rational in having that conflict, that would be defining the conflict away by mere word play.

Post 59

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 11:04am