> Paul Kirby Here
>
>JIM  wrote << I know everyone here is just about sick to death of the 'who
>is a
>philosopher?' and Rand threads......>>
>
>Not at all, thank's Jim, for  exposition on Rand which  is a  helpful
>challenge to pre-conceprions .  I , for one,  had accepted the received
>wisdom that she was an apologist for rightwing megalomania. So a pause for
>thought. (but can I trust your editorial and interpretation yet?)
>
>More generally:
>May I ask an open question? How does  trade  between happy creators
>compare with "contractarianism"  and does it not share the defects that
>the critics of this ethic offer. That is, not all those affected are a
>
>party to the "contract"  (externalities again) and can a trade be just if
>there is an inequality of power, knowlege, opportunity etc? Can "informed
>consent" betewen a layperson and a specialist ever truly exist for example?

Hi Paul,

I think this is a good and interesting question.  There's a good short
entry for social contract theories at
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm for a starting point to
these questions.

>From what I've seen so far, I think that Rand does base her thinking in
some type of natural law approach--i.e. the "right to life" is fundamental
(the "biocentric" aspect Merrill addressed?), and other rights stem from
this natural right.  So there are important affinities between Rand's
natural rights thinking and political thought in the social contract
tradition.

On the other hand, many if not most contract theories (e.g. Hobbes) have
depended on a view of humans as selfish (little "s") egoists--and are thus
closely linked to a view of human nature that sees humans as fundamentally
depraved.  Rand is interested in human perfection, so egoism in her
(Aristotelian) framework truly is what is good for everybody, in an
important sense.  She condemns Kant e.g. for his emphasis on an ethics of
duty; Rand feels that the only thing we owe others is a respect for their
freedom to live out their own lives in ways of their own choosing.  But
since it is in humans' rational self-interest to achieve excellence and to
strive for perfection--i.e. to "flourish" in a Randian or Aristotelian
sense--her view implies a society of self-strivers whose individual acts of
self-improvement (moral, economic, etc.) will have the effect of
*facilitating* all other peoples' freely chosen and independent roads to
moral and economic self-improvement as well.

Now . . . at least that's the theory . . .  whereas I sense your question
is geared more toward, "How realistic is Rand's view?"  e.g. your question,
"Can 'informed consent' betewen a layperson and a specialist ever truly
exist for example?"  I'm not sure I can fully answer that in a short email;
but I don't see why not, at least in principle.

My own view of Rand is that she seems fairly naive about what philosophers
in the last 20-30 years have come to refer to as "moral luck"--those
accidents of birth, background, and upbringing that have an enormous
potential to determine and/or effect who we are and what we become.  Not
everyone can grow up and become President.  On the other hand, Rand is no
apologist for making excuses about accepting our lot in life: if we find
ourselves in a social system that allows for forward movement individually
on the various moral, social, and economic planes, then we only have
ourselves to blame for not taking advantage of those opportunities.  The
problem, as your questions suggest, is that not everyone in the world is
granted equal opportunity in the first place . . . but I think Rand would
be of the opinion that a free market situation at least offers people the
best *odds* for improving their lives.

Again, that's the theory--I'm just trying to understand Rand and why she
raises peoples' hackles so.  Rand is definitely a product of her times; she
wrote in response to the moral, political, and social exigencies of the
day.  She would have benefitted perhaps from the last thirty or so years of
"postmodern" thinking that has drawn attention to issues of power and
inequality (although there's probably good reason to believe that she would
have been highly critical of these intellectual 'fads').  Who knows.  But I
do think there's some interesting stuff there, at least in her nonfiction
writings--and I definitely think she has been misinterpreted, perhaps
widely so.

Well, I'm not sure if I've really addressed your questions adequately, but
perhaps others will have something to add as well.

Jim






>
>
>
>Kind regards Paul K



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%