Leaderboard

If we acted deterministically (or at random), there would be no free will. It would not matter whether the deterministic (or random) elements forcing us to act as we do could ever be isolated by scientists. Moral principles would have no authority in the counterfactual scenario you are proposing.

There seems to be agreement that "conflict" will always exist no matter what. The disagreement is about "conflict of interest" not "conflict". (problem is that any conflict is about wants, is that interest?) The question hinges on the definition of interest. Does interest mean wants, as in desires? If so, there will always be conflict of wants. But the definition must be "what is objectively good for you" not simply what you want. What is actually good for you is your interest. If so, then the precondition is rational thinking, meaning a "well thought through want". But rational thinking will not necessarily bring one to the truth at all times, because of the contextual nature of knowledge. 2046 mentions taking all contexts into account, but wouldn't that be omniscience? If even with rational thought, one would not know what is ultimately and absolutely to one's interest, then some interests will simply be wants and desires and will inevitably conflict. It seems that the belief is that rationality will always come up with what is to your interest. Discounting the issue of mistakes, (as in rational men will consider that mistakes will happen and they will be dealt with rationally too), thought through desires will make conflict less likely (as in the percent issue that Merjet brought up). Conflict of interest, even with complete rationality would make conflict less likely, but not impossible. In other words, rational self interest is an objective good, but the ideal situation she talks about (no conflict of interest) may be a metaphoric statement to emphasise the point.

I mean I'd say neither. There is a conflict in the sense that the plans conflict since you stipulated they are incompatible. And that's fully coherent with saying one, both, or neither of them is being irrational. We don't know that yet. But this tells us nothing about whether there is a conflict of rational interests. Again, the thesis is about interests: whether there is a basic conflict in our individual human good. It's not a thesis about conflict of conclusions, conflict of plans, or legal/financial conflict. So to rework your example to make it more relevant to the problem at hand, I'd say you'd have to change it to where whoever's plan (E1 or E2) gets chosen by the boss to be implemented, gets a promotion (with corresponding pay raise and increase in status and authority), and then ask is it an example of a conflict between E1 and E2's good if the other's plan gets accepted, since it seems like either of their good will be served if their own plan gets accepted.

Indeed it is impossible, that's why you just admitted you are wrong.

I think one can get fixated on one word, when it's clear Rand assumed her readers recognize that "interests" covers a wide gamut. Take: Needs, wants, ambitions, goals, ideas, actions, purpose, work, career, love life, friends, pastimes, financial profits, appreciation of art - and "self-interest", itself. And substitute any one for "interests" in her statement. They all equally fit.