The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests - Question

[Skylark02]

Sounds to me, from what I've read here on this thread, that Rand propounded two different ethics. The two men in her example live by the ethic of animalistic competition, but the creator lives by the ethic of rational creativity or genius.

No dichotomy here. It's a numbers game.

"...even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter" (AR) - "particular encounter", is the key, here.

I've been flipping through my old "Free To Choose" (Milton Friedman, 1980) and it really is a good,easy, read on economics and freedom.

He writes "Two classes of workers are not protected by anyone : workers who have only one possible employer, and workers who have no possible employer".

He cites Babe Ruth as an example of the first - only the New York Yankees could afford him!

More relevant is this : "The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers."

(Of course he uses "protection" advisedly, being opposed to State and Trade Union involvement.)

For sure, Rand's favorites were the Creators, but she did not see employees as fighting for a job, but being able to use their perseverance, improving their skills to make them better equipped in the present market, and being able to take advantage of the huge numbers of job opportunities.

Every worker might 'lose' many times, but he only has to 'win' once.

I don't understand how the term "dichotomy" can apply to a social context. We all live under the same roof, economically speaking. And I certainly didn't imply any social dichotomy. I'm not saying that the genius and the worker can't co-exist in the same society with their two very different respective ethical systems in play. What I'm saying is that the ethos of the genius is incompatible with the ethos of the worker, and vice versa.

True, wrong choice of word. But still, I don't understand your confusion over the two "ethos-es".

These two - 'Worker,' and 'Creator'- are united under the same roof of freedom, I believe, (or should be).

Besides, life isn't that simple : I had a friend once, a high-rise construction worker, who was a genius. (He introduced me to Ayn Rand,btw). Also, in the course of work, I've met many CEO's, some of whom are uncreative dummies.

Confusion? Not in this case, anyway. You will admit there are two ethical systems at work here. Regarding your two examples, the genius construction worker is living well below his intellectual means. I just think that Objectivism would consider his choice of workplace immoral unless he is only trying to work his way through college in order to better himself. But if he is not, in the long run, trying to live up to his intellectual stature, then he is living an immoral life, according to Objectivism.

The uncreative-dummy CEO may have other things going for him, such as a strong will and great tenacity along with strong social ties. It depends on the person. For all I know, his position in life might merely be the result of nepotism.

[Leonid]

Christopher "Let's assume for a moment that we cannot bring everybody up to a level of awareness sufficient to act in ways that support the future of the Earth-resource system.Therefore, certain people's freely-chosen actions (say, 60%+ of the population) could actually end up pummeling the entire Earth into hell."

That would be hell of the job to do. We’ve barely scratched earth’s surface. But I can imagine the situation in which ALL earth’s matter will be fully used and fully recycled. Earth will become an artificial object, completely adjusted and suitable to the needs of the human habitation. That what Vladimir Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin, called noosphere. The word is derived from the Greek νοῦς (nous "mind") + σφαῖρα (sphaira "sphere"). “In the original theory of Vernadsky, the noosphere is the third in a succession of phases of development of the Earth and it includes all of the multiverse, after the geosphere (inanimate matter) and the biosphere (biological life). Just as the emergence of life fundamentally transformed the geosphere, the emergence of human cognition fundamentally transforms the biosphere. In contrast to the conceptions of the Gaia theorists, or the promoters of cyberspace, Vernadsky's noosphere emerges at the point where humankind, through the mastery of nuclear processes, begins to create resources through the transmutation of elements. It is also currently being researched as part of the Princeton Global Consciousness Project.[1] “ (^ http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

Would that be an answer to the question of competition over “limited resources”?

There are no limited resources, only limited creativity and limits imposed on the human mind by all sort of mystics, Gaia worshipers included.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Leonid

[RightJungle]

Keep in mind that Rand said that there is no conflict of interest among rational men. Also remember that Rand never said anything that she didn't work over very thoroughly. Notice that additional applicants must exist. Even if they did not happen to both apply for the job, they must exist. Without the additional applicants the business concern is operating in an environment that is very unlikely to exist – an environment of total isolation from the job market as well as its own market of buyers.

She used this example as a broadly interesting one that could be interpreted as presenting a conflict of interest if you either didn't think about it objectively or didn't have Rand to tell you about it.

Mary Lee

Edited February 27, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[Christopher]

Leonid,

I think I tried responding to this before, but Explorer crashed and I didn't have the energy to rewrite. My thoughts: like borrowing money, there is certain amount of risk that's worth taking now with expectation of future growth to offset the present costs. On the flip side, it is "risky," and one should not depend full-heartedly on such innovation. If the right innovation doesn't happen, we all die (to be dramatic). So somewhere there is probably a middle-ground, allowing for potential future development while at the same time ensuring a level of conservation; thus if the right developments don't occur as required, we're not doomed. But all in all, I like your perspective.

[Leonid]

Christopher "If the right innovation doesn't happen, we all die (to be dramatic)."

That's right. Mind is the only tool of human survival. However this is unlike scenario. If we didn't die out till now, when the human mind has been restricted, oppressed, denied and tortured through out almost all known human history, than we should survive in the future. Unless you predict that in the future the prosecution of the people of mind will be worse than it was in Dark Ages.

[Selene]

Christopher "If the right innovation doesn't happen, we all die (to be dramatic)."

That's right. Mind is the only tool of human survival. However this is unlike scenario. If we didn't die out till now, when the human mind has been restricted, oppressed, denied and tortured through out almost all known human history, than we should survive in the future. Unless you predict that in the future the prosecution of the people of mind will be worse than it was in Dark Ages.

Leonid:

It is not that the persecution would be worse, it is that the technology of the oppressor of the individual mind will be so much better and massive.

I fear that will with the power of the technology. As Aristotle stated clearly, "If you have the will and the power, the deed is done."

You see how difficult it has been to get information out of Iran, or China, even with the technology that many individuals have in their personal possession today, e.g., cell phones, etc.

Adam

[RightJungle]

Understood.

In a world of resources, some that are more scarce than others, what model do you suggest we use to resolve that competition?

Adam

Ah.. I wish I knew. I believe it will have to be a grass roots movement that evolves slowly over time as people become more educated worldwide.

GS:

I have the same wishes. Can we agree on freedom as the default position?

Adam

Is anybody else having trouble staying with this conversation? It keeps changing, but this resource question is an interesting one. When worrying over resources, we can always look up and notice the enormous universe around us. Given a government that protects our "Moral Rights and Political Freedom", the resources are available to the innovative entrepreneurs.

Mary Lee

[Leonid]

Adam:” It is not that the persecution would be worse; it is that the technology of the oppressor of the individual mind will be so much better and massive. I fear that will with the power of the technology."-that's the same. You fear that using of technology will make the prosecution worse. Well, that could happen. Technology as such couldn't resolve that. Only philosophy could. However, in the end of the day technological development depends on the right philosophy. Without it technological progress becomes stagnant and goes backward. So I don't think that in the long run we'll have philosophical savages armed with modern technology. Contradictions don't exist.

[Selene]

Adam:" It is not that the persecution would be worse; it is that the technology of the oppressor of the individual mind will be so much better and massive. I fear that will with the power of the technology."-that's the same. You fear that using of technology will make the prosecution worse. Well, that could happen. Technology as such couldn't resolve that. Only philosophy could. However, in the end of the day technological development depends on the right philosophy. Without it technological progress becomes stagnant and goes backward. So I don't think that in the long run we'll have philosophical savages armed with modern technology. Contradictions don't exist.

Leonid:

As a number of wise folks have answered, that "in the long run argument," thusly...

In the long run, we will all be dead.

This type of projected argument is not really substantial.

Nor, would I want to live in the time of the apogee of that highly technological repressive state.

Moreover, I was making a "fear" argument which, by it's very nature involves emotion [pathos].

Orwell's 1984, was frightening enough for me, low technology and all. It is interesting, I just listened to a lecture last week, which argued that Orwell was critiquing statist centralized power in Great Britain, per se. Not fascism or communism.

If I might suggest, "... in the end of the day technological..."is not quite the way us colonialists say it. We say, "...at the end of the day."

Interesting points, Leonid

Adam

[Leonid]

Adam:" It is not that the persecution would be worse; it is that the technology of the oppressor of the individual mind will be so much better and massive. I fear that will with the power of the technology."-that's the same. You fear that using of technology will make the prosecution worse. Well, that could happen. Technology as such couldn't resolve that. Only philosophy could. However, in the end of the day technological development depends on the right philosophy. Without it technological progress becomes stagnant and goes backward. So I don't think that in the long run we'll have philosophical savages armed with modern technology. Contradictions don't exist.

Leonid:

As a number of wise folks have answered, that "in the long run argument," thusly...

In the long run, we will all be dead.

This type of projected argument is not really substantial.

Nor, would I want to live in the time of the apogee of that highly technological repressive state.

Moreover, I was making a "fear" argument which, by it's very nature involves emotion [pathos].

Orwell's 1984, was frightening enough for me, low technology and all. It is interesting, I just listened to a lecture last week, which argued that Orwell was critiquing statist centralized power in Great Britain, per se. Not fascism or communism.

If I might suggest, "... in the end of the day technological..."is not quite the way us colonialists say it. We say, "...at the end of the day."

Interesting points, Leonid

Adam

[Leonid]

Adam: "Nor, would I want to live in the time of the apogee of that highly technological repressive state."

Why to worry? At the end of the day we all die. Repressive state is repressive state, technology notwithstanding. Maybe highly technological repression is less painful than that of Attila, Hitler or Stalin? In any case, if you don't like repressive state, fight against it, not against technology. That what we, the oppressed natives always did.

Leonid

Edited March 1, 2010 by Leonid

[Selene]

Adam: "Nor, would I want to live in the time of the apogee of that highly technological repressive state."

Why to worry? At the end of the day we all die. Repressive state is repressive state, technology notwithstanding. Maybe highly technological repression is less painful than that of Attila, Hitler or Stalin? In any case, if you don't like repressive state, fight against it, not against technology. That what we, the oppressed natives always did.

Leonid

Leonid:

And which "oppressed native" group did you belong to?

Adam

[Leonid]

Adam "And which "oppressed native" group did you belong to?"

To the non-English speaking group of course. We are oppressed by the bloody English spelling, grammar and syntaxes.