Friday 20 June 2008

No conflicts between men...?

Diana over at Noodlefood opened the comments of one of her posts for whatever wild hairs happened among the crowd.

I didn't have the most eloquent (nor most grammatically correct) comment, which could be summarized as asking the question whether conjoined twins would violate the supposedly objectivist idea that there are no conflicts between men. Burgess followed up with (my paraphrase) "watchyoutalkinboutwillis" ? With Diana's permission, I'm bringing this discussion home where it can have "top level" visibility.

Let me start by setting the record straight. OPAR pg 236, "there are no conflicts of interest between rational men". This is clearly not the same thing as the wording I used for the preceding idea: "no conflicts between men".

Having stated the semi-officially accepted view of at least one champion of objectivism, back to the original comment and why I found it interesting. Are there conflicts of interest between rational conjoined twins? (more disclosure: I am not suggesting any connection whatsoever between the Hensel twins and objectivism, nor trying to say anything about their personal, philosophical, or political beliefs -- I don't have any clue where they stand -- I did find their situation to be very thought provoking as a means of exploring the world, concepts and terminology around me).

I don't have an answer to the question, but here's my thinking so far. First some definitions / context:
  1. Assume capacity for full human rationality exists independently in each twin. "man qua man"
  2. Assume for biological system reasons the twins don't want to be or cannot be separated. (this may need to be considered independently)
  3. Recognize that even "identical" twins have differences in wants, desires, abilities and goals.

Can there be a conflict of interest between them? Depends on what you mean by "conflict of interest", maybe? Rand wrote John Galt in Atlas Shrugged "I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." By that interpretation and the prior context, for each independent conscious entity to pursue their own interests, it can be expected that the interests will not always perfectly align, it is then a question of who yields their interest. (deliberately implied conflict)

Conjoined twins have a special relationship to the world and reality, that of two independent consciousness entities and one physical entity. Those of you who will claim that I am separating the mind and the body to create a mind-body dichotomy or dualist approach should stop now for that isn't my intent -- it really is a single physical entity with two independent consciousnesses, two independent sets of sensation and perception, two independent consciousnesses (faculties of perceiving that which exists). If one head turns right and the other left, no knowledge will be shared between them of the perceptual level nor conceptual level of the scene they each see. It is not until they communicate externally that the knowledge is transmitted. It isn't quite "man qua man" instead "conjoined-twins qua conjoined twins". (I will grant exceptions for chemical processes in a shared circulatory system, but awareness of a racing heart is not knowledge of the perceptual/conceptual cause). Whisper a joke to one, and the other will not be able to repeat it.

As ct-qua-ct, it would be rational for each to realize that the best flourishing possible for the physical entity will be to use the individual skills and abilities of the independent parts to best effect. This may include an imbalance in skills utilization. It also is in the best interest to not allow any part of the physical entity (including the other consciousness) to suffer neglect or abuse -- this for the same reasons rational (non-twin) entities don't cut off fingers or toes, or neglect personal sanitation.

What would seem to be a potential for conflict between "consciousness entities" must be resolved as what is best for the physical entity and both consciousnesses as a whole. While this may entail some debate between the minds as to what constitutes "best", the overall solution, it should be possible to resolve this as a discussion of goals, not an inherent conflict in interest. (deliberately denied conflict of interest)

What about a substantially unequal distribution of skills and abilities between the twins? Let each contribute according to their ability. This is not much different than the distinction of independently physical entities. Each person does what is in their rational best interest to the best of their ability. Due to their special form, conjoined twins have a special relationship to reality that will make some of their rational decisions different than those of non-conjoined twins or other independent individuals in similar circumstances.

Ultimately, I think objectivism's view of "no conflicts of interest between rational men" is upheld. The nature of some of the definitions change ("qua man" vs "qua conjoined twin"), but the overall principle of rational egoism definitely still applies.

rootie

No comments: