trc@houca.UUCP (09/21/83)
A response to Larry Cipriani's note: (Rand's failings) Mr. McKiernan suggests I owe the net an apology for saying "I hope that Mr McKiernan is not making the mistake of accusing others with differing views of being closed-minded simply because he is not able to convince them." And equates this with: "I hope that Mr Craver is not making the the mistake of accusing women who reject his propositions with being sexually dysfunctional simply because he is unable to seduce them." The two are not comparable for several reasons: mine was relevant to the context of discussion; Mr McKiernan had accused Objectivists of being closed-minded - I have not accused any women of being sexually dysfunctional; He apparently has tried to convince Objectivists to his point of view - Mr. McKiernan certainly has no evidence that I have attempted to "seduce" women. As for Mr. McKiernan's points: 1.) Rand's imputing of foul motives: If he means their claimed purposes of action, yes, Rand does think that her opponents have foul purposes, and that "good intentions" dont make up for this. 2.) Unless he has a different definition of teleology than I do, Rand did not use teleology. Teleology is the practice of searching for evidence in nature of some "grand design" (which design would presumably provide the basis for "should"). Rand reverses this process. She looks at nature and says "the fact that a living entity *is*, determines what it *ought* to do" (directly). There is nothing mystical about this - she is declaring that it is not appropriate for a living entity to act like that which it (fundamentally) is not. 3.) I could not find anything that seems to say that Rand took a Utilitarian stance on pollution. I did find, in my quick search, statements that there are existing laws that should be enforced, and a suggestion that pollution is wrong when it harms people or property. Her solutions to similar questions (eg the airwaves) are certainly not Utilitarian. She did suggest that it is foolish to attack a technology when the benefits people gain from it so out weigh the damage done. However, this was not her justification of her stance, but rather one attack on the view that we should give up progress for the sake of the environment. 4.)Why is it important that Rand didnt make a philosophyical distinction between the legislative and executive branches of government, (if she didnt)? 5.) I am not sure how a) or b), if correct, are failings as a philosopher, so much as mis-understandings as a scholar. His charge in c) is more serious - he is essentially claiming plagiarism. I must agree with Dr. Peikoff - it seems absurd to believe that Rand would think she might get away with plagiarizing from a source like Locke. However, I would be willing the look at the evidence. Has anyone access to his article, or to both Locke's and Rand's works? I do not have enough information to answer his comments on Nozick or Childs. Tom Craver houca!trc