Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
You don't see it because you blatantly haven't read Rand's work. All her work is about reconciling utilitarian goals using an individualistic morality, as opposed to an altruistic morality.
Maybe you should pause for a moment and make sure you know what utilitarianism is. After all, you seemed to have moral absolutism wrong, so it is not unreasonable that you're saying one word, but the meaning you wish to endow it with is something completely different.
Specifically, it's far from clear that the "utilitarian goals" being reconciled are the utilitarian goals that you've established. You are measuring utility by "usefulness to the species." That does not appear to actually be the same goal that Rand is pursuing.
Quote:
How does she do it? Using three important notions of (1) personal integrity; (2) need for achievement and the all important - (3) personal liberty. It is not only possible but apparent that people can and do reach utilitarian goals through individualistic and selfish motives. America has been doing it since Rand's very influence on corporate america and Alan Greenspan and hundreds of other millionaires and billionaires that were borne out of Rand's inner-circle.
This seems to be pointing very directly at the usefulness to a society, not usefulness to the species. So I'm not sure what you're saying.
Also, you've used the term "utilitarian goals" and I'm still not sure what goals you're referring to. Since you've talked about John Mill and suggested that you're coherent with his views, it would seem that you would be trying to talk about utilitarianism in the following sense:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/
Quote:
Ultimately, he will want to prove in Chapter Four the basis for the principle of utility—that happiness is the only intrinsically desirable thing—by showing that we spontaneously accept it on reflection.
This doesn't sound anything remotely close to a utilitarian goal of "usefulness to the species." In fact, it seems to stand directly opposed to it. As does Rand's view.
I'll admit to not having read deeply in this area. But what you're saying appears to be in conflict with what I understand. So I'm waiting to see the dots connected in a meaningful way.