Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Conflict Of Interest

Rate this topic


rjdagost

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand claimed that conflicts of interest do not occur between rational men, but is this really so? I have so far found support for this notion to be unsatisfactory, so maybe some people on this forum can convince me of it. In everyday life we see many apparent conflicts of interest. A few examples:

(1) Say there are two chess champions competing with each other. The winner gets a million dollar grand prize, but the loser gets nothing for 2nd place. Both men stand to gain by the mistakes of their competitor. It is in the self-interest of both men to get the million dollar prize. This looks like a pretty obvious conflict of interest to me. One man's disastrous move is another man's jackpot in this case.

(2) The "job interview" case... Two men (call them "A" and "B"), both highly educated, experienced, and qualified, interview for the same job. The job is high paying and interesting for both of the applicants, so it is in their rational self-interest interest to actually get the job. How is it not in candidate A's interest for B to bomb in the interview (or vice versa)?

(3) As a college student some of my exams were curved because many students performed poorly. So, no matter how I performed on a curved exam I would always do better if my fellow classmates performed poorly. I stood to benefit from their poor performances, and vice versa.

Anyone could easily compose many situations just like these three. Speaking more generally, any zero-sum game (any competition where one man's loss is another man's gain) appears to violate Ayn Rand's contention that there are no conflicts of interest between rational men (under the restriction that it is in the best interests of the competitors to actually win the game).

Ayn Rand backed up her "no conflict of interest" statement by saying that it is in one's interest in the long run to have competent, capable competitors, and I agree with this. Take my exam curving example. I know that it is in my best interests to have many bright, competent people in the world. But in the particular instance of taking an exam, my best interest is not served when my classmates are bright and competent. My best interests are served when my classmates perform very poorly and my exam grade gets raised a bit. Their loss is my gain.

Initially I believed Ayn Rand's statement that rational men do not experience conflicts of interest. I now believe that this statement is too broad to cover all bases, and that there are particular cases where rational men do experience conflict of interest. What do you all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone could easily compose many situations just like these three.  Speaking more generally, any zero-sum game (any competition where one man's loss is another man's gain) appears to violate Ayn Rand's contention that there are no conflicts of interest between rational men (under the restriction that it is in the best interests of the competitors to actually win the game). 

The simple answer is that Objectivism is not a philosophy for winning games, it is a guide to win life. That basically covers your first two examples.

The third is a real life issue, but it is not in your long-term interest to strive to only do better than your classmates on tests. Your missing the point of the test: to guage how well you know the subject matter. If your purpose is to learn the material, good test scores will follow automatically and whether other people do better or worse won't matter. When you enter the 'real' world, you need to produce as much as you can to the extend that your knowledge allows. There are no curves outside of the classroom; Unlike your professor, Mother-Nature won't grant you an 'A' even if everyone else is starving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand claimed that conflicts of interest do not occur between rational men, but is this really so?  I have so far found support for this notion to be unsatisfactory, so maybe some people on this forum can convince me of it.  In everyday life we see many apparent conflicts of interest... 

Initially I believed Ayn Rand's statement that rational men do not experience conflicts of interest.  I now believe that this statement is too broad to cover all bases, and that there are particular cases where rational men do experience conflict of interest.  What do you all think?

I think you need to read, or re-read, Ayn Rand's discussion of this issue. She discussed it at length, in an essay entitled "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests," in The Virtue of Selfishness. In that essay, she explicitly took up one of the exact examples you give (the second), and the rest by implication. If she didn't convince you, we probably won't be able to either--unless there are more specific objections you have to the answers she has already given. If so, then present them, and perhaps we can address them here.

One problem I think you might be having is the assumption that the examples you cite as well as many other such interactions among men are so-called "zero-sum games." But morality and human life are not zero-sum games, even in cases such as these. Tara Smith fleshes the point out much more in depth in her book, Viable Values. If I recall correctly she also uses some of these exact examples in her discussion of that point. I recommend that you check out that book, as you might find it extremely helpful in further clarifying this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I address this point in depth:

http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/021189.html

http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/021200.html

http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/022109.html

(A word of warning: These three posts were part of an extended series defending Objectivism from a supposed "refutation". While these particular posts appear to be okay, some of the other posts in the series contain relatively minor errors, mostly methodological.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Say there are two chess champions competing with each other.  The winner gets a million dollar grand prize, but the loser gets nothing for 2nd place.  Both men stand to gain by the mistakes of their competitor.    It is in the self-interest of both men to get the million dollar prize.  This looks like a pretty obvious conflict of interest to me.  One man's disastrous move is another man's jackpot in this case.

In all such instances, if you simply keep the full context, the apparent conflict vanishes.

If chess matches weren't highly competitive and therefore exciting for chess enthusiasts to watch, who would be willing to give million dollar prizes to the winners? What makes it exciting and competitive? That there is a winner and loser.

Yes, you want to win and so does you opponent and only one of you can, but that, too, is part of the challenge and what makes the whole thing possible in the first place.

Also, in sports with rich prize money, there are usually significant rewards even for lesser players - so long as you are in at least the top tier. It is not strictly either/or - either you are the top player and get all the rewards or you are the loser and get absolutely nothing. There are other matches.

The job situation is a little different because it's not an either/or situation in the sense that there are other jobs. And getting or not getting some one particular job doesn't close off all your career opportunities.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking more generally, any zero-sum game (any competition where one man's loss is another man's gain) appears to violate Ayn Rand's contention that there are no conflicts of interest between rational men (under the restriction that it is in the best interests of the competitors to actually win the game).

That is true. But zero-sum game accurately describes very little, and it doesn't describe any of the three cases you provide. Rand's principle accurately describes all rational interaction, so it does describe the three cases you provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think that Weiss has something when he speaks of keeping the full context in mind.

1. The chess match: The full context includes the fact that for a good person, his work is not chosen solely on the basis of the amount of money he will make- it is possible to make a great deal of money in almost any line of work, so one should choose their work on the basis of what they actually enjoy doing. I doubt that either chess player in question plays the game because he wants to win a million. An excellent chess player probably loves the game, and respects the intellect it takes to be good at it. In this example, it seems that each player would want his opponent to be at the absolute top of his game, so that if he won, it would be a significant victory. Because self esteem comes from acheivement, beating an opponent who is ill or distracted would not be as great for self esteem or sense of acheivement as beating one who is at the top of his game. I think that in this example, it is in the interests of both people for the other player to perform excellently. I would rather get into a boxing ring with a champion than a 2 year old.

2. The Interview: I have thought about this one before, but was satisfied by Rand's explanation, as mentioned by a previous poster.

3. The Curved Test: This also was addressed by a previous poster. I agree- the point of the test is not to make a good grade. Your interests are met by learning the material excellently. The test is only there to show whether you have done so. I personally think that curving a test is silly and collectivist (is my goal only to be better than my peers? What about an objective standard of excellence?) so the factor of the test being curved should be ignored by the student. It is second-handed to rely on the failure of others for your success- like lying or stealing, it feeds on weakness. Your interests are to achieve 100%- and this is not against the interests of anyone else, because achieving perfect score is what is in their best interests as well.

Hope this addressed these ones- I think that the other ones you think of, you can think through, but always keeping the full context of the competition in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN]

The quote (p798 in hardcover) is " 'Did it ever occur to you Miss Taggart,' said Galt,... 'that there is no conflict of interests among men, neither in business nor in trade nor in their most personal desires--if they omit the irrational from their view of the possible and destruction from their view of the practical...' "

I agree with what i think she is trying to say but to say that people don't have rational non-destructive conflicts of interests i think is an oversight. Businesses competing for market share is the best example but really any two or more parties competing for something have a conflict of interests. I think that maybe she is using a more narrow definition of the phrase but if this is the case i think she should have explained it better.

Am i misinterpreting anything or what do you guys think about the quote?

P.S. i still have like 200 pages left so please dont refer to anything specific in your answer

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum Greg.

I think that maybe she is using a more narrow definition of the phrase but if this is the case I think she should have explained it better.
She did, in the essay, titled The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests, which is published in "The Virtue of Selfishness".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Businesses competeing for marketshare is the best example but really any two or more parties competing for something have a conflict of interests. I think that maybe she is using a more narrow definition of the phrase but if this is the case i think she should have explained it better.

Nope, the definition is all-encompassing and exact. Only if you take something out of context can it appear that there is a conflict of interest among rational men.

The only way to prevent competition in industry is for the government to step in, abrogate people's rights, and establish a coercive monopoly. However, since production is a result of the work of men's minds and the mind doesn't work under coercion, any kind of government coercion of this kind is destructive to human life. And that is in no one's interests.

That is not to say that if a monopoly occurs naturally (ALCOA) because the business is SO efficient and SO productive that it's not really feasible to make a profit by going into competition with them, that the government should step in and ensure competition. Again, force cancels destroys freedom, freedom is required for the mind to work, the mind is required for production. So, again, destructive.

If you take into account the FULL context of your actions and their results, you will see that there are, indeed, no conflicts of interest among rational men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Businesses competeing for marketshare is the best example but really any two or more parties competing for something have a conflict of interests.

I think that the point that most directly addresses your question is that rational people seek only to attain values that they have earned. Thus, if both companies (or men) were completely rational, they would want the "better man" to win, because this serves their long-term interest more than temporarily attaining a value that they do not deserve.

Because it is more in their interest to live in a world that is just than in one that is unjust, and no temporary benefit can compensate for the introduction of injustice. Sure, they get THIS contract, but who benefits? Who will get the NEXT contract? The one who deserves it.... or the better fraud/theif/flim-flam? A rational man simply isn't equipped with the ability to cheat or to live as a cheat... THAT ability is irreconcilable with reason, and to the extent that a man is one, he cannot be the other.

So a rational man, knowing that he cannot live as a cheat (and that cheats themselves cannot live as cheats!), does not seek to cheat. Thus in any competition, it is not in his self-interest to win "no matter what," but rather only to win if and only if he DESERVES to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is more in their interest to live in a world that is just than in one that is unjust, and no temporary benefit can compensate for the introduction of injustice. Sure, they get THIS contract, but who benefits? Who will get the NEXT contract? The one who deserves it.... or the better fraud/theif/flim-flam? A rational man simply isn't equipped with the ability to cheat or to live as a cheat... THAT ability is irreconcilable with reason, and to the extent that a man is one, he cannot be the other.

I agree with this statement completely. But them hoping that the best man should win does not preclude them from hoping that they gain the market share. it does not preclude either from hoping that he be the best man in this given situatioun. they still have a conflict in interests. You can't know who is the better man before they compete so going into the situation they are in conflict regardless of whether they might be in perfect harmony at they end (maybe they move to a different industry or retire."

This is really semantics in my opinion but i will say i think i'm right.

Edited by Gweg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But them hoping that the best man should win does not preclude them from hoping that they gain the  market share.

I don't see how you can say that and still think that they have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would only exist like the following:

1) Man "A's" best interest is for man "A" to win

2) Man "B's" best interest is for man "B" to win

3) Only one man can win

But this is not the case. It is in fact the following:

1) Man "A's" best interest is for "The Best Man" to win, whoever that is

2) Man "B's" best interest is for "The Best Man" to win, whoever that is

They have no conflict of interests because it is in both of their interests for "The Best Man" to win. While they will both try their hardest to BE "The Best Man," they have no reason to hope the other fails, unlike in the first scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this statement completely. But them hoping that the best man should win does not preclude them from hoping that they gain the  market share. it does not preclude either from hoping that he be the best man in this given situatioun. they still have a conflict in interests. You can't know who is the better man before they compete  so going into the situation they are in conflict regardless of whether they might be in perfect harmony at they end (maybe they move to a different industry or retire."

The center of this argument is the phrase 'interests'. Now, if someone were incompetent, or simply less competent, is it really in his (or anyone else's) best interests that he is chosen to do a job? And, if he is given a job over someone who is more competent, what has he really won? Two rational men have the same interests when entering applying for a job (or competing in any way): That the best man win. If he does not, then winning and losing no longer have meaning, and no one gains in the sense that no one can feel proud about their work or secure in their abilities. The wrongful loser feels resentment, and the improper winner feels like a thief.

I think that this also relies on the fact that rational men do not think of themselves primarily in terms of other men, nor is that how they define their ability. So rational men seek to be great, rather than 'better'. And I know that if someone better applies for a job that I also seek, I feel nothing but good will to find someone more capable, not that he has somehow harmed my life with his competence.

For a more conclusive (and perhaps even clearer) explanation of this topic, you should consider reading 'The Virtue of Selfishness', as was quoted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Man "A's" best interest is for man "A" to win

2) Man "B's" best interest is for man "B" to win

3) Only one man can win

But this is not the case. It is in fact the following:

1) Man "A's" best interest is for "The Best Man" to win, whoever that is

2) Man "B's" best interest is for "The Best Man" to win, whoever that is

They have no conflict of interests because it is in both of their interests for "The Best Man" to win. While they will both try their hardest to BE "The Best Man," they have no reason to hope the other fails, unlike in the first scenario.

1) Man "A's" interest is for man "A" to win

2) Man "B's" interest is for man "B" to win

3) Man "A's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man"

4) Man "B's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man"

5) It is in boths' best interest for "The Best Man" to win

These things are not conflicting. When a rational man desires something or is interested in it, neither thinking about whether he is going to deserve it most, nor being willing to violate the rights of the most deserving are prequisites for him to feel such a desire. Say for example, i want an apple. There is only one apple and fred wants this apple also. I come to realize that fred has earned this apple and i no longer desire it. that does not change the fact that i wanted it, he wanted it and a conflict of interests existed.

Also you completely oversimplified the market share situation. If A and B start with 1% and end up with 51 and 49% respectively, who has failed? No one. So they both desire more marketshare (conflict of interests) but neither is required to fail what so ever.

Edited by Gweg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Man "A's" interest is for man "A" to win

2) Man "B's" interest is for man "B" to win

3) Man "A's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man"

4) Man "B's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man"

5) It is in boths' best interest for "The Best Man" to win

These things are not conflicting. When a rational man desires something or is interested in it, neither thinking about whether  he is going to deserve it most, nor being willing to violate the rights of the most deserving are prequisites for him to feel such a desire.  Say for example, i want an apple. There is only one apple and fred wants this apple also. I come to realize that fred has earned this apple and i no longer desire it. that does not change the fact that i wanted it, he wanted it and a conflict of interests existed.

Gweg, you are completely missing the point. Man "A's" interest is NOT for man "A" to win. It is for the "best man" to win. He will try to BE the best man, but if he fails, he does not, as a result, any longer want to win. Being the best isn't something that is or is not "in someone's interest." Either they are the best, or they are not.

As for the apple, if it is Fred's apple, then you were MISTAKEN to have ever wanted THAT apple. Rationally, you can only want an apple that you deserve. You need to go get your own apple. No RATIONAL conflict of interest ever existed between you and Fred. It was ALWAYS Fred's apple; you merely had an irrational desire. Rationally speaking, it was never simultaneously in your interest for you to have the apple and for Fred to... you merely made a mistake.

(the same applies to market share: rationally speaking, they can't BOTH deserve the entire market share. They may both desire it, but that desire is not necessarily RATIONAL)

I do hope I made that clear for you this time...

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Man "A's" interest is for man "A" to win

2) Man "B's" interest is for man "B" to win

3) Man "A's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man"

4) Man "B's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man"

5) It is in boths' best interest for "The Best Man" to win

Firstly, I disagree that either man A or man B should properly desire to be 'the best man,' as they have ultimately, no control over this. A rational man places all of his desires in the context of reality, and his desires are things that he can attain through his own effort. That is, a man can only control how good he is at a certain task, but not how good the competing men are. To base one's desires on something that is relative is like basing one's desires on a coin flip (the person does not have ultimate control). Clearly, in the coin flip case, the man would be fraught with disappointment and frustration. Too, are men who desire that other men do worse then them (or worse still, desire that they will be rewarded for being inferior!).

If a man holds that objectivity and reason are in his interest, without contradiction, then it will also be in his 'best interests' that a better man gets a job above himself. You can not have you cake and eat it, too. On one hand, you can't say that rationality and objectivity are good, but on the other, say that it is in your self interest for that to be ignored until you get the job over better applicants.

Also you completely oversimplified the market share situation. If A and B start with 1% and end up with 51 and 49% respectively, who has failed? No one. So they both desire more marketshare (conflict of interests) but neither is required to fail what so ever.
In your case of market shares, firstly, the mere fact that a person wants more does not say anything about whether it is in his self-interest or not (since desire is not a tool of cognition). And clearly whomever has 49% has failed to meet the qualifications required to attain 51%. Are you suggesting that it would be in his 'best interests' for those qualifications to make an exception? And if objectivity, in this case, objective qualifications, are in his interests, then his getting 51% is not when he only deserves 49%. Perhaps you're saying that he wishes that he had done better (met the requirements), but this is not a conflict of interests, but simply an added incentive for him to do better.

These things are not conflicting. When a rational man desires something or is interested in it, niether thinking about whether is going to deserve it most, nor being willing to violate the rights of the most deserving are prequisites for him to feel such a desire. Say for example, i want an apple. There is only one apple and fred wants this apple also. I come to realize that fred has earned this apple and i no longer desire it. that does not change the fact that i wanted it, he wanted it and a conflict of interests existed.

In this case, the apple as a goal is taken out of context. A rational man does not have desires that are out of context, namely, 'What is required of me to get this apple before Fred does?' If you fail in that required action, such as walking over and picking it before taking a nap, then I do not believe it is in your self interest to be given it, because you did not fulfill the requisite actions. A rational man only desires the deserved, and he does not detach an object from his means of attaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it is not possible to desire something before you are certain whether or not it is you or another who deserves it? Is this not something that enters a rational mans mind before he discovers whether or not he does deserve it? If you desire to reach an achievement before you have actually reached it are you irrational? What goals do you want to achieve in your life? would you like to have a Ferrari? You would want those goals you would like that Ferrari.... if you deserve them. You cannot know whether you will deserve these things. Yet you still feel a desire for them. Just because you have the noblest of desires which can override all others does not disprove their existence. Its a matter of the present versus the future. The present exists before the future. Such desires as i have described exists in the minds of rational men.

Edited by Gweg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to draw some parallel phrasing.

man A values a job

man B values the job

Values, like action propagated by interest, can only be created/initiated.

It is up to each individual to create what is of value to them.

There is no conflict between men if a man simply fails to create what it is of value to him, even if it coincides with what another man values.

('create' in this context has assumed the same meaning as 'meeting a prerequisite' and 'fufilling a task' ect.. as it relates to a value.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I disagree that either man A or man B should properly desire to be 'the best man,' as they have ultimately, no control over this.
A man most certainly has some control over who is the best man. He controls how much effort he puts forth. In somecases no matter how much effort he will not be the best, but in many it will determine whether or not he is the best. Rational men will not always put forth a maximum effort to obtain something he desires since naturally there are multiple desires amoung which he must divide his effort.

To base one's desires on something that is relative is like basing one's desires on a coin flip (the person does not have ultimate control). Clearly, in the coin flip case, the man would be fraught with disappointment and frustration. Too, are men who desire that other men do worse then them (or worse still, desire that they will be rewarded for being inferior!).

Its not basing anything on a coin flip. One should judge what ventures one most wants to succeed at and is most likely to succed at. Likewise one should never be fraught with dissappointment and frustration. If one succeed he will be happy for having succeeded. If one fails or is not completely successful he will be happy knowing that he has not recieved anything undeserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it is not possible to desire something before you are certain whether or not it is you or another who deserves it? Is this not something that enters a rational mans mind before he discovers whether or not he does deserve it? If you desire to reach an achievement before you have actually reached it are you irrational?  What goals do you want to achieve in your life? would you like to have a Ferrari? You would want those goals you would like that Ferrari.... if you deserve them. You cannot know whether you will deserve these things. Yet you still feel a desire for them. Just because you have the noblest of  desires which can override all others does not disprove their existence. Its a matter of the present versus the future. The present exists before the future.  Such desires as i have described exists in the minds of rational men.

First of all, you necessarily desire to achieve a goal before you actually achieve it, or else you would not have taken the actions required to achieve that particular goal.

Yes, you can desire specific things, but you must take them in context. In other words, you may like a Farrari, but you may not think that it is a greater value than $200,000. Therefore, you would not rationally desire it. That is to say, that when one has a desire, a practical, rational man finds out how he can acquire it. Desires are dependent on that which is required to fulfill them. When taken out of context, I desire two cars instead of one. When taken in context, I do not desire the second car, because that would require my savings, which is of greater value to me than a second car.

A rational man is consistent. He has a consistently integrated value system, and he does not desire to create something now that will wipe out greater values at a later time. In a person with an integrated philosophy, no contradictory desires exist, because they are all in the context of how they contribute to his life. 'The present versus the future,' both out of the context of life as a whole, is a dichotomy experienced only by whim-worshippers. That is, their desires are based not with respect to the person's other values, nor how they would affect each other, but rather, on whim. I trust that you did not read her essay, so here is a short excerpt pertaining to your question:

A rational man sees his interests in terms of a lifetime and selects his goals accordingly.  This does not mean that he has to be omniscient, infallible, or clairvoyant.  It means that he does not live his life short-range and does not drift like a bum pushed by the spur of the moment.  It means that he does not regard any moment as cut off from the context of the rest of his life, and that he allows no conflicts or contradictions between his short-range and long-range interests.  -Ayn Rand    The Virtue of Selfishness

*Bear in mind, that she is the only one that can truly explain what she intended. My explanations are only my best understanding of her intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful post mala, that is very clear.

Though I do not understand what is meant by this:

*Bear in mind, that she is the only one that can truly explain what she intended. My explanations are only my best understanding of her intent.

Have you not validated, for yourself, the priciples you so eloquently stated here?

Do you feel you are in error (you aren't)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man most certainly has some control over who is the best man.

I did not say that he did not have 'some control,' I said he did not 'ultimately'.

If one fails or is not completely successful he will be happy knowing that he has not recieved anything undeserved.

You would be happy if you failed in your life's goal because you didn't get anything undeservedly? I would think that would be a very miserable outcome. Would you care to explain what you mean, because I'm not sure that you wrote what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would be happy if you failed in your life's goal because you didn't get anything undeservedly? I would think that would be a very miserable outcome. Would you care to explain what you mean, because I'm not sure that you wrote what you meant.

I might not be overjoyed but i would be satisfied that i had not trampled over others and that i had lived by the values which i held to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I do not understand what is meant by this:

Have you not validated, for yourself, the priciples you so eloquently stated here?

Do you feel you are in error (you aren't)?

No, I do not believe that I am mistaken. However, if I did make a mistake, I do not wish that to be a reflection of Ayn Rand, and I do not feel qualified to be her spokesperson ;) . It wasn't intended to reflect insecurity, just my profound respect for her and her ideas.

Wonderful post mala

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...