Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Conflicting Conclusions and therefore Conflict of Interest

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Conflict usually requires a sort of "commensurability" or a "field" of coexistence.

You may have to also add an element of "either or". One or the other for a conflict to exist.

(I have more to say but I have to go get my second Pfizer shot)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I mentioned this upstream, but thought I'd show more of it here, hoping to encourage more of the scholarly-inclined to get this book and make it one of our tributaries to discussions here. (I personal

I mean, you've been asked a few times exactly why you have a different view. You began the discussion by suggesting that Rand didn't understand the "common meaning", and/or was really only talking abo

You keep giving different versions of the same scenario. I keep asking each time why you think it is a conflict of interest, or phrased differently, which interests conflict.  At this point it'

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

You may have to also add an element of "either or". One or the other for a conflict to exist.

(I have more to say but I have to go get my second Pfizer shot)

Congrats!

 

That "either or" would be an important part of conflict within that field, yes.  This has more of an intimation toward "contradiction" than mere "opposition".

Interestingly, being in the common field goes hand in hand with "either or" being possible... I know the term "field" is imprecise.  But is my action in accord in with objective morality in my context EVER in the same "field" as your action in accord with objective morality in your context??  

We could physically "run" into each other accidentally or clumsily.. but does that qualify?  Surely we can see each other.. so I suppose the question of whether "choosing" to avoid each other falls within the gambit of "action in accord with objective morality" in either of our contexts becomes germane.

 

Before getting ahead of myself... do we have to stoop all the way to physical bumbling to find the find the "either or" in a common field?  How else could there be common field where "either or" is actually at play?

Eschewing any universal mind in which my and your mental contents coexist, or some rationalist platonic dimension in which our abstractions could interact, I am at a loss... and revert back to mean physicality. 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Conflict usually requires a sort of "commensurability" or a "field" of coexistence.

Can you elaborate?

This whole idea is intriguing. One of the problems with envisioning the whole thing is that I think spatially. A conflict is a potential collision. "Interest" is not in the spatial "realm" or "situation" or "field". A collision of interests would be a metaphor as they don't collide. But they do collide in a way.

The word conflict is in the realm of "ethics" or in the field of the normative.

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Sound does not generally "clash" with light.  My athleticism cannot interfere with my taste in music.  However, two of my thoughts can conflict with one another if using them together negates them both.

So ultimately, this is a conversation about a medium where collisions can happen (I still can't define the field). Two sounds, or two sources of light would be interfering with each other.

Now, how can potential for interference be nonexistent when interference between lights is possible? Will one of the two lights change to sound so as to not interfere? Otherwise, how can one light not interfere with another?

If a certain condition exists, or is introduced, conflict can be impossible. The condition seems to be rationality.

A condition making conflict impossible is much easier to see when talking about vehicles colliding.

Two vehicles can collide. They should not, so there is a conflict of interest between drivers.

A vehicle that is always at altitude 1000 miles above earth, will never collide with one that it at altitude 500 miles. They will never meetThey would have to be at the same altitude for a collision to be possible. The same can be said about vehicles that are never in the same "area".

I bring this up because of part of the statement regarding "no conflict". Just to show that, no conflict, in a case where conflict is possible, can be made impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The other problem is that I vehemently reject the principle of two definitions.

Is there a reason why? It is not to say that they are separate concepts, but that they are separate definitions. 

4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Does a disagreement about objective morality or acting on it cause a conflict of interest?

I don't think there is a normal case, but I can think of unique contexts. Interacting directly with a fellow slave on a plantation. Fighting with a fellow gladiator in the Roman Coliseum. Being held captive by the Chinese government among several other protesters, being interrogated. The key thing I'm pointing to is that these are not normal situations but they involve both rational people having to contend with the situation created by irrational people. Also, these situations involve living under a condition of egregious rights violations. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Interestingly, being in the common field goes hand in hand with "either or" being possible... I know the term "field" is imprecise.  But is my action in accord in with objective morality in my context EVER in the same "field" as your action in accord with objective morality in your context??  

Two rocks in space collide. (notice I did not say conflict). It's simply a description, an observation. They broke in a certain way. There is no value judgment, there is no right and wrong, completely amoral.

The moment you use the world conflict, you are inside the field of ethics. The word conflict describes something inside an ethical picture or realm or field.

It goes beyond the fact that a collision could happen, that it is possible. It should not happen. Should ... ought ... right and wrong etc. etc.

I will argue that "Use the word "conflict" and you're making an ethical statement, can't get around it".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eiuol said:

Is there a reason why? It is not to say that they are separate concepts, but that they are separate definitions. 

Yes, but ultimately it's about using the one word to refer to two distinct things. This inevitable hampers thinking and communication. Context has to be identified. Lack of CLARITY is the opposite of identification. This amounts to considering ambiguity and obfuscation as OKAY.

A is A,

it's not ... A is "A-prime and A" depending if my butt itches.

Peikoff went of the reservation on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I looked at my original post and I noticed it came out over the fact that Objectivists found the presidential political candidates as their interest. 

Thanks for the reminder. This topic is made difficult by "interest" having several definitions and people using it in such a wide variety of ways. Also, what counts as interest within the phrase "conflict of interest" is also very diverse, even among OO members. As I said here the one somewhat common meaning of the phrase is not the least bit recognized in Ayn Rand's essay. It seems she took it for granted there is a widely-used, common meaning for the phrase. Obviously there is no such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Can you elaborate?

This whole idea is intriguing.

Thank you.

[PS I've edited many times ... if you read this after an hour since posting it should be stable]

The reason I bring up commensurability or field is because it narrows down our thinking to referents of concepts to which the idea of conflict is somehow possible.

A "conflict of interest" in a person IS possible precisely because a person is of ONE mind, the one mind being the field for the two opposing interests, a single mind cannot be FOR and AGAINST the same thing and in the same respect, at the same time.  The presence of a single field guarantees the "either or".  It guarantees the impossibility of the two things.

If two things are wholly independent of one another, do not affect one another, or depend on each other, then ANY interaction, let alone "conflict" or any requirement of "either or" between the two things, as such, is impossible. 

My taste (as such) in music has no common arena to conflict with your taste (as such) in music.  No matter whether your love for Baroque or heavy metal wanes, increases or disappears, my love for tiddlywink continues on its trajectory without any concern for what happened in your mind.  Now we could literally get into a fist fight over my displeasure that you like different music from me, but that is not a conflict between our musical tastes, our tastes are not fighting, WE are.

Anyway this might be getting too concrete, but I think you get my general idea. 

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

One of the problems with envisioning the whole thing is that I think spatially. A conflict is a potential collision. "Interest" is not in the spatial "realm" or "situation" or "field". A collision of interests would be a metaphor as they don't collide. But they do collide in a way.

The word conflict is in the realm of "ethics" or in the field of the normative.

Collision is the the perfect metaphor.  Here we have a field, space, in which the things "solid objects" have an either or relationship: solid objects cannot occupy the same space, or pass through one another.

So, there being a field (not space) and things (not solid objects) which cannot both be in the field at once and in the same respect at the same time: i.e. there is an "either or"  we probably can best label it as a collision or conflict or contradiction.

 

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

So ultimately, this is a conversation about a medium where collisions can happen (I still can't define the field). Two sounds, or two sources of light would be interfering with each other.

Now, how can potential for interference be nonexistent when interference between lights is possible? Will one of the two lights change to sound so as to not interfere? Otherwise, how can one light not interfere with another?

If a certain condition exists, or is introduced, conflict can be impossible. The condition seems to be rationality.

A condition making conflict impossible is much easier to see when talking about vehicles colliding.

Two vehicles can collide. They should not, so there is a conflict of interest between drivers.

A vehicle that is always at altitude 1000 miles above earth, will never collide with one that it at altitude 500 miles. They will never meetThey would have to be at the same altitude for a collision to be possible. The same can be said about vehicles that are never in the same "area".

I bring this up because of part of the statement regarding "no conflict". Just to show that, no conflict, in a case where conflict is possible, can be made impossible.

There is a lot here I agree with.

I like the vehicle analogy it is a start.

 

Consider these claims:

A. Blind airplanes can collide.

B.  Seeing airplanes always avoid each other and cannot collide.

 

The air is the field, and the conflict or "either or" is physical collision.  The question raised about claim B is whether the seeing airplanes are infallible, otherwise it is possible they can collide.

 

I take your point that generally collision being possible is in a sense a foil for the claim of something more specific being an example of collision not being possible.

 

Consider now:

There are an infinite number of paths an airplane can travel on.  Let's divide them into two classes (which are not mutually exclusive)

I) Paths blind airplanes take

II) Smart Paths seeing airplanes should take

 

Now, consider this statement:

X) there are no conflicts between the Smart Paths.

Here, the field is no longer the air, it is the "abstract space" of paths, and the "either or" (conflict) is "crossed paths". Now random sets of paths generally do cross.  X proposes there exist smart paths the airplanes should take which never cross.  Note that this is not a statement about what paths seeing airplanes actually take but is primarily a statement about what paths they should take.

 

Without getting ahead of myself I think Rand is identifying something more about what "rational interests" are, as opposed to what so called "rational men" do.  Attributing too much of the statement as directed to men, who are fallible and never always rational, is a redirection from the profound statement therein about what "rational interests" are.

 

Now, my last examples of airplanes is of course simplistic.  A path through life, is vastly more complex than a path through the air.

Consider, however, that a rational path through life is guided by rational objective moral principles which includes being long range and respecting individual rights, and everything else which comes with Objective morality.

Although the consequences of such paths, and whether we can identify and follow such paths, are questions of knowledge, prediction, and capacity.  Sometimes in context we can predict, know,  and follow such paths... sometimes we cannot. 

BUT as Objectivists, I do NOT believe we can deny the existence of such paths.

 

The next step, if you agree is to look closely at the nature of these paths, and why they do not conflict (or why they can and do) 

Unfortunately, commensurability and the definition of "either or" raises its head again here, my path through life cannot AS SUCH conflict with your path through life.  Arguably, we could end up fighting over the physical paths, or bump into each other (rather clumsily) in following our dreams... but why couldn't I walk around you in physical space on my way back from fishing (my passion), while you are walking toward the lake to paint it (your passion)?  Our intelligent walking around each other represents no change or impediment to the life path either of us is on in following our respective passions.  I would argue that following the rational path INCLUDES and MEANS walking physically around one another in such a context.

I'm starting to wonder whether "conflict" should mean something more like "gives rise to a conflict", in that although the paths per se don't conflict, they might arguably give rise to a conflict between the people who follow them.  But the focus here is still on the paths themselves... and whether the rational paths necessarily give rise to conflict between those who follow them, if they could fully identify and follow them.

... I'm getting ahead of myself.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 5:22 AM, merjet said:

Ayn Rand’s essay The “Conflicts” of Men’s Interests (Rand 1964) alleges that there are no such conflicts. However, she failed to prove there are no “conflicts of interest” with that term’s common meaning. The common meaning is ‘a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.’ The actor’s interest is not primary. The “secondary interest” is another person -- the actor himself or another party that is not the primary interest, such as a friend or relative of the actor. It describes a situation that gives more opportunities for breach of trust, whether or not a breach occurs. Several examples will follow below.

The only example Ayn Rand gave in her essay is two people competing for the same job. While there is a “conflict of interest” in the trivial sense that both people won’t be hired for one and the same position, her example is not at all a “conflict of interest” as commonly meant. Maybe she didn’t know the common meaning. See for example “conflict of interest” on Wikipedia for other examples of the common meaning beyond the ones given below.

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other persons. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. Examples are the trust department of a bank and managers of pension plans, mutual funds, or endowments. The fiduciary must not profit from his position as a fiduciary without the consents of said other person(s).

“Trustee” is usually interchangeable with “fiduciary”. It also may denote a role in the non-financial management of an organization, often called a trust. Herein, I will ignore that role to focus on money or property.

The prudent man rule in common law directs fiduciaries "to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested." The rule does not explicitly say that, if there is a conflict of interest, the interest(s) of the beneficiary(-ies) outweigh those of the fiduciary. However, the focus of the rule is clearly on loyalty to the beneficiary(-ies) being primary. Moreover, often included along with implementations of the prudent man rule are statements such as: The fiduciary must put the beneficiaries’ interests before her own or act solely for their benefit. As such, the fiduciary must not undertake any transaction that would be adverse to the beneficiaries’ interests, especially avoiding any self-dealing.

Fiduciaries are typically paid, often very well, for managing the assets of the beneficiary(-ies). So it is hardly correct to say that the fiduciary sacrifices or lives for the sake of said parties. On the other hand, the fiduciary clearly acts for the sake of said parties (as well as his own). His actions as fiduciary put the interests of others above his own. These might seem to conform to a moral dictum of Comte and violate one of Rand. I don’t think so.

Fund Manager. Suppose the trustee(s) of a pension plan hire(s) an outside person or firm to manage the plan’s investments. The hired manager implicitly or explicitly promises to maximize the return on investment of the assets subject to constraints on riskiness. The manager typically has some discretion and may abuse it to the detriment of the trust’s beneficiary(-ies), such as executing trades with a friend who charges high fees.

Stockbroker. Churning is the practice of executing trades for an investment account by a salesman or broker in order to generate commissions from the account which increase the salesman’s or broker’s pay. Ceteris paribus commissions reduce the return to the account owner or beneficiary, his client. The client one way or another pays the broker or salesman for his service, and the client should be aware of that. However, if the broker or salesman increases his pay by churning that doesn’t positively benefit of the owner or beneficiary, doesn’t the broker inappropriately put his self-interest ahead of his client? It is neither coercion nor fraud, but it is a breach of trust.

Observe that without a single mind of one person, such as the fiduciary, there can be no conflict of interest.  That there is a primary and a secondary interest in the one mind is what makes the conflict possible, and gives rise to and is the sine qua non of the legal principles you describe.

 

This is not an example of a purported conflict between some interest one man holds for himself, and the interests another holds for himself.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think there is a normal case, but I can think of unique contexts. Interacting directly with a fellow slave on a plantation. Fighting with a fellow gladiator in the Roman Coliseum. Being held captive by the Chinese government among several other protesters, being interrogated. The key thing I'm pointing to is that these are not normal situations but they involve both rational people having to contend with the situation created by irrational people. Also, these situations involve living under a condition of egregious rights violations. 

As I recall, the full statement is "there are no conflicts of interests between rational men in a free society."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 7:02 PM, Easy Truth said:

Based on the current presidential contest one can conclude that rational men do in fact have a conflict of interest due to conflicting conclusions.

If some bizarre situation forced you to go live in either Iran or Russia as they currently are, how would you choose?  

The choice between Presidential candidates is similarly messy.

It is in everyone's interests for the candidate to be elected who gives us the best chance of avoiding dictatorship and societal collapse until Ayn Rand's ideas become dominant.  Two people can agree on that and still disagree about which candidate that is.  This is not a conflict of interests; it is a disagreement about likelihoods and strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Two rocks in space collide. (notice I did not say conflict). It's simply a description, an observation. They broke in a certain way. There is no value judgment, there is no right and wrong, completely amoral.

The moment you use the world conflict, you are inside the field of ethics. The word conflict describes something inside an ethical picture or realm or field.

It goes beyond the fact that a collision could happen, that it is possible. It should not happen. Should ... ought ... right and wrong etc. etc.

I will argue that "Use the word "conflict" and you're making an ethical statement, can't get around it".

Although I believe I have addressed this already, since I had something to add I felt responding to this might be appropriate.

Notice for "socialist" ethics (yes that is an anti-concept) or "communist morality", the field in question is akin  to the realm of what WE ALL must (notice invocation of force rather than choice) DO, which as judged by individual members of the body politic will often conflict.  This is in the sense of the ONE commune being forced to be of ONE mind, it cannot be split into myriad directions no matter how diverse its individuals.

Social metaphysicians, who almost ALWAYS think in WE and US, when thinking about relationships and the State... will always see collisions, because no matter what they think, they cannot on some level, know that the individual person IS free and independent in action and thought and is the unit by which to conceive of humanity.  The illusion of conflict is a result of their mystic notion of the ONE mob, the public good, and the State... that field in which "either or" arises.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Here, the field is no longer the air, it is the "abstract space" of paths, and the "either or" (conflict) is "crossed paths". Now random sets of paths generally do cross.  X proposes there exist smart paths the airplanes should take which never cross.  Note that this is not a statement about what paths seeing airplanes actually take but is primarily a statement about what paths they should take.

You seem to not like the simplicity of your analogies while I value it very highly.

I had initially put in this half baked question responding to your original post regarding "a field" and I took my question out, afraid of confusing the issue, but I was pleasantly surprised to see you are using the word "path" like I was drawn to it. I had written:

"For now, I am wondering if the field guiding your actions is a "field" of paths. A field of "methods". A field of "ways" (as in ways of doing). A field of possible actions which can also be seen as a field."

I included this because of amusement, you can ignore it, will respond later to your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I'm starting to wonder whether "conflict" should mean something more like "gives rise to a conflict"

Yes, I can't get around that. The potential, the possibility seems to be the key. Not the collision itself, but the possibility.

Certainly, in legal terms, when someone says "get rid of that conflict of interest", they mean, get rid of the possibility of the conflict.

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Normally it is in the interest of both drivers to avoid a collision.

All seeing air planes have as their interest to avoid collision.
    In that sense there is NO conflict "in interest" at all.

But Doug, shouldn't the phrase be "there is no difference of interest". Difference is different than "preventing possibility of conflict".

There is "avoiding collision" vs. "the interest in avoiding collision". 

All agents agree, on what "we should do", based on what "I should do to not crash"

That is the common (non contradictory/oppositional) rational interest. It is in the direction of preventing the possibility of for collision.

This interest is the SAME between all the agents. There is no DIFFERENCE in the interest.

(this is all based on non-suicidal agents for those who want to bring that up)

As an aside, this area of discussion is reminding me of praxeology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Notice for "socialist" ethics (yes that is an anti-concept) or "communist morality", the field in question is akin  to the realm of what WE ALL must (notice invocation of force rather than choice) DO, which as judged by individual members of the body politic will often conflict.  This is in the sense of the ONE commune being forced to be of ONE mind, it cannot be split into myriad directions no matter how diverse its individuals.

Reminds me of the Borg in Star Trek. To prevent conflict, we will assimilate you into the collective mind. You'll have a better life without your "own" mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

But the focus here is still on the paths themselves.

I'm pretty sure that "no conflicts of interest" refers to the ends of the path. Your analysis is fine as far as the path, but interests are the end of the path. All paths are resolvable (solvable if you want to use a computer science comparison)  as long as our ends are distinct. Since your particular end should be your own life, there is no way that those ends will conflict. We would have to occupy the same spot at the end if there is a conflict. You could argue that one end will be inferior to another, but you probably could defeat that argument through the power of human rationality as the power of creativity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm pretty sure that "no conflicts of interest" refers to the ends of the path. Your analysis is fine as far as the path, but interests are the end of the path. All paths are resolvable (solvable if you want to use a computer science comparison)  as long as our ends are distinct. Since your particular end should be your own life, there is no way that those ends will conflict. We would have to occupy the same spot at the end if there is a conflict. You could argue that one end will be inferior to another, but you probably could defeat that argument through the power of human rationality as the power of creativity. 

 

This is good, but you have jumped to the end... I am still in the exercise of working it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes, I can't get around that. The potential, the possibility seems to be the key. Not the collision itself, but the possibility.

Certainly, in legal terms, when someone says "get rid of that conflict of interest", they mean, get rid of the possibility of the conflict.

Not quite... the fields of the paths themselves are different from each other and from the field in which a conflict may occur by our following them.  For ease of discussion we can define paths (which technically cannot conflict with each other)as "conflicting" when they lead men necessarily into conflict, if followed.

Now of course if we simply define rational paths as all paths which do not lead to conflict we have not shown anything, we must look at what defines the paths (analogous to rational interests) and then determine if according to that, those paths do or do not lead to conflict.

 

Perhaps you should take us from here.  

Do we agree that "rational interests" are akin to rational guiding paths according to objective morality including ALL that implies (all of ethics and politics, rights etc)? 

Proceeding from there, In what ways could men, when following the their respective proper rational paths so defined, cause them to have a conflict?  If we can find instances of paths which give rise to this, we would have "conflicting" paths.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But Doug, shouldn't the phrase be "there is no difference of interest". Difference is different than "preventing possibility of conflict".

People with different diseases often need different treatments.  People with different tastes get pleasure from different things.  People in different climates have different clothing needs.  These are differences in interests, but not conflicts of interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

People with different diseases often need different treatments.  People with different tastes get pleasure from different things.  People in different climates have different clothing needs.  These are differences in interests, but not conflicts of interests.

Yes, SL showed a lot of those examples too. You can have certain interests with no possibility of conflict, as in non-interfering or non-intersecting paths.

Granted if vehicles could collide, they would in different ways, and different times, with different severities, but the overall interest is "I don't want to crash". It's universal, isn't it?

In the case of the collisions example, I was emphasizing that there is in fact a universal (identical) interest. It's the same interest in not-crashing". The interests can't conflict because they don't oppose each other. If one or more driver wants to crash, there is a conflict of interest. One interest is "don't crash" and the conflicting one is "do crash".

In the case of treatment, the universal interest would be "I want it cured". On it's face, there is not conflict with me having the same interest as you.

Also, in the case of taste, the universal interest would mean "I want it to taste good". (whatever that means at the time for the person)

I liking chocolate and you liking lemonade is not conflicting interest, but in combination with other things, they may in fact be an important causal factor. As with any rare item that is desirable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am organizing it this way in my mind right now. There seems to be 3 perspectives on "no conflict of interest"

1.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm pretty sure that "no conflicts of interest" refers to the ends of the path. Your analysis is fine as far as the path, but interests are the end of the path. 

I would call this "non conflicting goals".

2.

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Now of course if we simply define rational paths as all paths which do not lead to conflict we have not shown anything, we must look at what defines the paths (analogous to rational interests) and then determine if according to that, those paths do or do not lead to conflict.

It is vague, nevertheless it is a placeholder. Paths that can't conflict like different altitude example. We just don't know what altitude corresponds to regarding interest. I call this the "non conflicting paths"

3.

I would call this "non conflicting universal or the uniform interest". As in the "interest to avoid collision". The interest not to have conflict. The universal interest in "not doing what is wrong". The universal interest in "not getting hurt".

 

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Do we agree that "rational interests" are akin to rational guiding paths according to objective morality including ALL that implies (all of ethics and politics, rights etc)? 

yes

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Proceeding from there, In what ways could men, when following the their respective proper rational paths so defined, cause them to have a conflict?  If we can find instances of paths which give rise to this, we would have "conflicting" paths.

The only time is when "conflict" is the rational thing to do. If you say when that it is, it should correspond, right?

Is there any rational reason to have a conflict with a rational person??

In Objectivist terms, it would mean, is there a non emergency situation where you are faced with a zero sum game? You or they have to loose, one or the other.

In an emergency, of course, anything goes. (this may be a point of disagreement with a non Objectivist)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

I am organizing it this way in my mind right now. There seems to be 3 perspectives on "no conflict of interest"

1.

I would call this "non conflicting goals".

2.

It is vague, nevertheless it is a placeholder. Paths that can't conflict like different altitude example. We just don't know what altitude corresponds to regarding interest. I call this the "non conflicting paths"

3.

I would call this "non conflicting universal or the uniform interest". As in the "interest to avoid collision". The interest not to have conflict. The universal interest in "not doing what is wrong". The universal interest in "not getting hurt".

 

yes

The only time is when "conflict" is the rational thing to do. If you say when that it is, it should correspond, right?

Is there any rational reason to have a conflict with a rational person??

In Objectivist terms, it would mean, is there a non emergency situation where you are faced with a zero sum game? You or they have to loose, one or the other.

In an emergency, of course, anything goes. (this may be a point of disagreement with a non Objectivist)

We don’t need to go so far as purposefully seeking out conflict. 

What about when you unknowingly grab the same thing at the same time?  There is possibility of accidental “collision”.  Do we call it conflict? Does it depend on the rational paths are configured from the moment after this kind of unforeseen event?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

We don’t need to go so far as purposefully seeking out conflict. 

What about when you unknowingly grab the same thing at the same time?  There is possibility of accidental “collision”.  Do we call it conflict? Does it depend on the rational paths are configured from the moment after this kind of unforeseen event?

Accidental collision is not conflict of interest, it is simply conflict.

When you crash accidentally, your interest was still "not to crash". Your and the other guy's interest are still "I don't want to crash", and by implication, crashing is bad, wrong, shouldn't happen, requires compensation etc.etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Accidental collision is not conflict of interest, it is simply conflict.

When you crash accidentally, your interest was still "not to crash". Your and the other guy's interest are still "I don't want to crash", and by implication, crashing is bad, wrong, shouldn't happen, requires compensation etc.etc.

True.   An accident does not necessitate continual conflict.  I suppose principles of justice apply from that point.

Well what IS the closest thing to a conflict of interest we can come up with?

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to post
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...