Conflicting rational interests

[airborne]

I'm having trouble understanding how rational interest cannot conflict. Tara Smith states that individual desires can conflict -

And I think this is the heart of my problem. Not understanding the difference between rational individual desires and rational interests. What is the difference?

I have trouble understanding this especially when it comes to having a lover who you loose to someone else.

Tara smith states that "Being turned down for a job is not the equivalent of losing your business; being passed over for another lover is not the equivalent of having your present lover die..."(Normative Ethics, pp.41). The difference I see here is that the job was never owned by the business owner in the first place. But you did own your lover, you had already gained her and now you lost her.

This can be a conflict of rational desires, but what if the lover is so important to you that you cannot live without her being your lover? Does this then not become your interest?

Edited February 18, 2008 by airborne

[Inspector]

This can be a conflict of rational desires, but what if the lover is so important to you that you cannot live without her being your lover? Does this then not become your interest?

Assuming a man with only rational desires:

Only one man is the best choice for the woman. Does the man with rational desires want her to go with him, regardless of whether he is best, or does he want her to go with the better man? Assuming both men are rational, then the issue at stake is simply one of discerning the facts of the matter - i.e. who is actually the better choice. Their true interests do not conflict.

[Ifat Glassman]

airborne: What are the options of the man whose lover has left him for another man? Suppose her reasons for preferring the other man were rational (he is simply a better match for her)

1) He could want her to want him anyway, which means he wants her to be someone else, or he wants her to somehow want something which is less than the best she can get for herself - all of those things wish reality would be something different than what it is. However, basing your actions on a wish is not rational. Trying to get her back while knowing that there is someone better for her is pursuing a wish that reality was different than what it is.

2) He could accept that reality is what it is, but still wish to keep his lover physically around, to enjoy the parts of her which he can. But this is exactly what he can get: her physical presence, without getting a share of her soul. Because sharing her soul with him has to be done willingly. Her physical presence alone cannot achieve that, and would only end up causing pain, since what you really want from a lover is not to enjoy them like a painting, but the interaction with him/her.

So bottom line this option is a wish that reality would be different than what it is as well.

[KendallJ]

This can be a conflict of rational desires, but what if the lover is so important to you that you cannot live without her being your lover?

No other person can be this important. This is not a rational desire.

I will say this is slightly different if a lover is facing death. If a lover does not choose you, then that fact in and of itself, will make you value them less.

Edited February 18, 2008 by KendallJ

[superj]

I'm having trouble understanding how rational interest cannot conflict. Tara Smith states that individual desires can conflict -

And I think this is the heart of my problem. Not understanding the difference between rational individual desires and rational interests. What is the difference?

I have trouble understanding this especially when it comes to having a lover who you loose to someone else.

Tara smith states that "Being turned down for a job is not the equivalent of losing your business; being passed over for another lover is not the equivalent of having your present lover die..."(Normative Ethics, pp.41). The difference I see here is that the job was never owned by the business owner in the first place. But you did own your lover, you had already gained her and now you lost her.

This can be a conflict of rational desires, but what if the lover is so important to you that you cannot live without her being your lover? Does this then not become your interest?

it all comes back to rand's statement of self- interest. If you seek rational interstests you must realise that in the end, you live for yourself. the fact that you may feeling like you cannot live with out her, may be your self interest. dont worry about conflicting beliefs of desires and interests. do what will cause the happiest outcome and it will make sense.