Greg Nyquist's response

Greg Nyquist wrote:
'That's right, I'm touching on the issue of conflict of interests. The Randian assertion is that, provided that these interests are "rational," they won't conflict. The trouble is, Rand doesn't explain how to distinguish, in practical terms, a rational from a non-rational interest. And since ultimately, all interests are groundless, it is difficult to see how the term rational can be used, in regards to interests, in a way that does not reduce itself, ultimately, to a term of approbation. A "rational" interest, then, is simply an interest that Rand and her followers approve of (and think others should approve of).'

This can be broken up into two distinct arguments.

1. It is a complaint against Ayn Rand for failing to explain how to distinguish, in practical terms, a rational from a non-rational interest.

2. since ultimately, all interests are groundless, it is difficult to see how the term rational can be used, in regards to interests, in a way that does not reduce itself, ultimately, to a term of approbation.

I thought the first point was rather easy to answer. Two men are seeking a job, they are pursuing practical rational interests. Or, one man is seeking a job, another man is seeking public welfare, the second man is seeking, in practical terms, a non-rational interest.

The second point is slightly harder to answer insofar as it constitutes an assertion which is really a petitio. Asserting that all interests are groundless means they are not grounded in either reason or instinct, free-will or nature, duty or inclination. However, Greg has admitted that there is a such a ground in the approbation of the interest to which it is reduced.