RoR: Forum

Ted:

I am neither a "pacifist" nor an "abstainer" and I have not only denied both of these claims repeatedly, but I have gone to great lengths to explain myself in response to your accusations. However, each time I raise my objection to your characterization, you simply refuse to respond and let the discussion die. Then you come back a few months later and continue to make the same claims. It's tiresome.

"I haved (sic) never once disputed the meaning of your words. Please link to any instance of my playing

with you."

And I thought that the point of your post #196 was about formulating an awareness of the other people on this forum and then taking that awareness into account as a proper context for interpreting the meaning of their writing. If it was simply about semantics, then I'm not nearly as impressed.

"That you don't like me identifying the moral implications of views

What as hoot! Even though I think you are an intelligent and very well-read individual, your "moral pronouncements" on my character are not something that I take seriously enough to bother me. I'm only concerned with your misrepresentation of my positions. I would grant you, just as I would anyone else here, considerable leeway in possibly misunderstanding anything that I have said, but I have in fact responded each time I disagreed with your interpretation and provided a fuller explanation of my intent. So your statement that I have not denied your incorrect views is simply not true.

Regarding the claim of "pacifist", this most recently came up in the poll discussion titled "How to Kill Six Million Jews" where I selected the choice "Violence solves nothing" and then identified myself in Post #2 as the person who made that choice. Without any other knowledge of me and my beliefs, I could certainly understand how having made that selection might indicate that I was a pacifist. But when both you and Jim Henshaw registered confusion about this, I explained why I made that choice in Post #5 which you then conveniently ignored. This is an example of why I have given up trying to have an interactive dialog with you on this forum.

Regarding the charge of being an "abstainer", it is true that I have not voted in recent elections; a choice I make from a very principled position and one which I have explained elsewhere. So if not voting is the definition of "abstainer", then I proudly stand guilty as charged. However, the definition of abstain is:

to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice

so, to me, the implication of this unqualified charge on a philosophical forum seems to go much further and implies that I am a person that abdicates responsibility for my life. With this I could not more vigorously disagree. And even in the limited realm of politics, I act in many ways to register my views of disagreement for our current situation and work to try to move this country towards a more proper state. I just happen to believe that voting under the current system is not just ineffective, but actually counter-productive to achieving a more positive outcome. I see the act of not voting as a positive action, not one of abstaining from action, and therefore, I find your charge ludicrous.

"Congratulations on once again, scoring a point, rather than making a point, and hence proving my point."

It is comments like this that makes me think that, despite your intellect, you are a petty and small-minded person.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 201

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 5:23pm

�When I read that, I see something more substantial to discuss than "moral perfection" - which seems so thin in comparison.�

�which seems so thin in comparison.�

I was just thinking something similar, regarding a comparison between the man who never commits a wrong and the man who does commit them and repair them and resolve not to re-commit them.

Bill would have to accede to identifying the former as more perfect than the latter, and yet we know substantial, morally meaningful things about the latter man: He admits when he is wrong, he repairs his wrongs, etc., �these are things we do not know about the former man.

We can�t know whether the former man could even rise up to such things�he�s never been tested! (And on the admitting part, depending upon how old he is, I have my doubts.)

Post 202

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 6:18pm

Jon writes,

Bill,

One man strives toward committing no breaches of his moral code and commits no breaches.

Another man strives toward committing no breaches of his moral code and commits many breaches, breaches which he acknowledges and does his best about.

Now, if we like �perfection� as a concept in ethics, to which man should we apply it first? The former one certainly, yes?

Now, if we say that the latter man is perfect, too, it looks like an outrage if you�re the former man. And it makes no sense. Glaring MORAL differences exist between the two men.

If you want to hold to using �perfection� in the sense of what we see from the latter man, then don�t we need yet another term to describe the former man? Perhaps �Premium Perfection Deluxe�?

Obviously, to the extent that the second man commits moral breaches, he is not morally perfect. As I said in Post #188, "suppose you cheat on your wife. To that extent, you're not morally perfect. But you can resolve to become morally perfect from that point on by (among other things) never cheating on her again." If you commit no moral breaches from that point, then from that point on, you are morally perfect.

Steve, there are two senses in which one can talk about "morally perfect" here. One is adhering faithfully to a false moral code, and the other is adhering faithfully to a true moral code. Obviously, we were talking about the latter, since we were discussing this issue in the context of the Objectivist ethics. Since you had to know this, I couldn't understand why you would introduce the Nazi example as if it were a serious rebuttal to my argument. That is why I said you were being obtuse. You were dropping context.

- Bill

Post 203

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 7:05pm

Bill, I hoped you would address that point, thanks.

But you haven�t answered my question.

You write �If you commit no moral breaches from that point, then from that point on, you are morally perfect.�

Got it.

But the question is: How do we differentiate, in the terms we use, between these two men:

Man A strives for no breaches and commits no breaches.

Man B strives for no breaches and commits breaches�which he acknowledges to himself and seeks to repair as best he can.

As you would have it so far, both men, on Saturday December 20th, 2008, are �morally perfect.� This will not do, because a glaring, MORALLY SIGNIFICANT difference exists between them.

You have decided to describe Man B as �morally perfect.� So, what is Man A? You said moral perfection means never violating one�s code. I trust you therefore acknowledge the superiority of Man A on the �moral perfection� score. So tell me how we should describe Man A so as to capture the fact that his course was one that exceeded �moral perfection�?

This isn�t difficult. If carpenter B never does anything right the first time, and you want to call him a �Practitioner of Perfect Carpentry,� then I want to know what to call the carpenter who does everything right the first time.

If it seems to break down into a reductio ad absurdum at this point, don�t blame me.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 12/20, 9:54pm)

Post 204

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 7:16pm

Jeff, it was inaccurate of me to call you an abstainer - which is how I think of your refusal to vote for a candidate with a chance of winning an election, and your advocating that others not do so either. It was wrong because you do actually vote, just never for a winner. I view elections simply as the method of determining what individual will actually hold office. I see there being a difference between electing your average republican and your average democrat. So, even though I may not find the Republican ideal, I find voting for him in the chance that he will beat the Democrat as reasonable. (Prdeictably, you sneared at Joe the Plumber for this under the thread where I quoted him about McCain. I didn't find your remark then worth comment - but I bring it up now as further proof that what I say here is based on long observation and fact, not some crack about Nazi's or a refusal to understand the meaning of a five syllable word.) You see elections about expressing your principles. You don't want to vote for a better candidate, unless he is a perfect candidate. You don't want to have his sanction on your hands. Hence, you refuse to vote Republican, even if the vote is fifty-fity. This is why I called you an abstainer. You would not want to cast the determining vote to keep a democrat out of office. Your being able to say you didn't vote for X is more important than keeping Y from winning. I happen to think that this is cowardly a moral cop-out. A way of maintaining your "innocence" and allowing the blame for what happens to fall on all those other evil voters who vote for the socialist. It is the electoral equivalent of pacifism. You can claim you didn't violate your principle. Others will do the dirty work for you of say, trying to prevent a sixty Dem majority. But this is a mistaken view of voting. Voting has nothing to do with your moral purity. Nothing a candidate does in office is under your control. Your only choice is, will you try to influence who wins or not. You refuse to do that.

Of course, I've said all this before. And you may not like my interpretation. But you can't pretend I'm playing word games, can you?

Post 205

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 8:02pm

Ted,

It would be wrong to sever political principle from a political act - like voting. When you explain why you vote as you do, you are arguing the principles as you understand them. You say that you see a big difference between the republican candidate and the democratic candidate and that your understanding of vote as no more than the practical mechanism of choosing A or B logically compels you to vote as you do. Jeff, and I, see those candidates as very similar, and we see the biggest difference is between them and a free market advocate. We believe that a candidate need not be perfect, but must be closer to the principles we all share to receive our vote. And we have detailed reasons for that position.

It is NOT the case that only one approach to this issue is morally right and all the others are but load noises of unprincipled bounders. There are errors here, but they are in how to apply the principles we all agree on, how much to value the educational value of a vote, ones belief that a vote for someone too far from moral political principles constitutes a sanction of evil, ones belief that a vote for a third party candidate is the only way to keep alive a long term solution that may never arise in a major party.

It isn't my intent to hijack this thread but just to suggest that the attack on Jeff isn't worthy of you - too much ad homiem - too much denying of his expression of honestly held principles - too much psychologizing.

Post 206

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:56pm

I wrote, �If you commit no moral breaches from that point, then from that point on, you are morally perfect.�

Jon replied,

Got it.

But the question is: How do we differentiate, in the terms we use, between these two men:

Man A strives for no breaches and commits no breaches.

Man B strives for no breaches and commits breaches�which he acknowledges to himself and seeks to repair as best he can.

As you would have it so far, both men, on Saturday December 20th, 2008, are �morally perfect.� This will not do, because a glaring, MORALLY SIGNIFICANT difference exists between them.

Of course, a morally significant difference exists between them. Man A has been morally perfect his entire life. Man B has been morally perfect only since his last moral breach. Big difference.

You have decided to describe Man B as �morally perfect.� So, what is Man A? You said moral perfection means never violating one�s code.

I said that moral perfection consists of never deliberately choosing an evil action. So if, after cheating on his wife, the husband never deliberately chooses another evil action, then he is morally perfect from that point on.

I trust you therefore acknowledge the superiority of Man A on the �moral perfection� score. So tell me how we should describe Man A so as to capture the fact that his course was one that exceeded �moral perfection�?

I wouldn't say that his course exceeded moral perfection. You can't exceed moral perfection. I would simply say that Man A was morally perfect his entire life, whereas Man B was morally perfect for only part of his life.

This isn�t difficult. If carpenter B never does anything right the first time, and you want to call him a �Practitioner of Perfect Carpentry,� then I want to know what to call the carpenter who does everything right the first time.

Well, as long as Carpenter B never leaves his mistakes uncorrected, I would say that although his initial work isn't perfect, his completed job is. As for the carpenter who does everything right the first time, I would say that his initial work is perfect as well as his completed job.

- Bill

Post 207

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:15am

Ted wrote:

"Prdeictably, you sneared at Joe the Plumber for this under the thread where I quoted him about McCain."

I don't ever remember making any comment about Joe the Plumber. I did a site search and I did not find any relevant posts by me on threads where he is mentioned. Let me know what you are talking about here.

As to the rest of your comment, no I never said you were playing word games. I do disagree with your interpretation, but carry on with your crusade against me. And good luck voting your way out of our current mess. I'll be watching your progress and rooting you on. (If this were a cartoon, I'd represent myself as the cowardly lion, down on my knees with my hands clasped together in prayer and a little word balloon saying "Please please save me Ted!" Thanks for making me laugh.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 208

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:38am

�Of course, a morally significant difference exists between them. Man A has been morally perfect his entire life. Man B has been morally perfect only since his last moral breach. Big difference.�

Big difference. Good.

�So if, after cheating on his wife, the husband never deliberately chooses another evil action, then he is morally perfect from that point on.�

Meaning that Man B, who cheated on his wife an hour ago, is equally �morally perfect� as the man who has never committed a wrong. Got it.

�I wouldn't say that his course exceeded moral perfection. You can't exceed moral perfection. I would simply say that Man A was morally perfect his entire life, whereas Man B was morally perfect for only part of his life.�

Man A has been moral. Man B�s penis isn�t even dry yet.

Even though Man B was cheating one hour ago, you say, �he is morally perfect from that point on.�

Well, here we are an hour later, and you are being agnostic in the moral perfection contest between the two. In a contest you yourself say �consists of never deliberately choosing an evil action�! Since we are �on� from �that point on,� our cheater with the wet penis is �morally perfect,� and so is the guy reading Architectural Digest.

Post 209

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:56am

I wrote, �So if, after cheating on his wife, the husband never deliberately chooses another evil action, then he is morally perfect from that point on.�

Jon replied,

Meaning that Man B, who cheated on his wife an hour ago, is equally �morally perfect� as the man who has never committed a wrong. Got it.

No, he's not as equally morally perfect as Man A. He's morally perfect only for the brief time in which he hasn't erred, whereas Man A has been morally perfect his entire life.

- Bill

Post 210

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 1:25am

�He's morally perfect only for the brief time in which he hasn't erred, whereas Man A has been morally perfect his entire life.�

OK. �Man A has been morally perfect his entire life,� while Man B has been morally perfect �only for the brief time in which he hasn't erred,� which pardoned time includes the last five minutes since he hasn�t cheated in the last five minutes.

You are saying that, at this moment, Man B is �morally perfect.�

You wrote �No, he's not as equally morally perfect as Man A.� So you concede that that Man A�s moral performance exceeds that of Man B�s, where the contest �consists of never deliberately choosing an evil action� (Your words.)

Then answer the question! If Man A has been more perfect than Man B (as you have conceded,) while Man B is nevertheless perfect (as you have insisted,) then what shall we name this �more perfect than perfect� advantage that Man A has?

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 12/21, 3:22am)

Post 211

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 5:20pm

Jon,

What kind of a game are you playing here?? This is getting to the point where it's obvious that you're no longer seriously interested in understanding my answer, but simply enjoy pestering me with smart-alecky questions.

You keep asking, how one can be more morally perfect than perfect, as if it's some kind of paradox, even after I've patiently pointed out over and over that Man A has a better track record of moral perfection than Man B. Obviously, you can't be more morally perfect than perfect within a given context. But the contexts of moral perfection are different for the two men. Man A has been morally perfect for his entire life, whereas Man B has been morally perfect for only part of his life. So in that sense, Man A is more virtuous than Man B.

What more do you want me to say? You can continue replying if you want, but don't expect me to continue answering you!

- Bill

Post 212

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 8:59pm

Bill,

Here�s the thing, was I smart-alecky when I asked if there exists a limit to the number of breaches a man may commit while �moral perfection� still applies? No, I wasn�t. You ignored that and many other questions. I suppose that while this remains the case, you are correct that we can�t continue.

Post 213

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 9:52pm

Well, I can�t find the reference I had in mind. But my memory of it is more detailed now. It is not exactly about perfection.

In case anyone is interested in trying to recognize what I remember, maybe they can help as to where it is. This was most likely on audio, maybe The Raymond Newman show. I will paraphrase it from memory as best I can recall, (I haven�t heard it in about fifteen years.) Trust only the gist of the following.

Peikoff is asked whether one lie or a pattern or something else is required to find someone �dishonest.�

He answers that �one whopper will do.� That�s a dishonest person.

In another exchange he is asked about the appropriateness of forgiveness.

He answers that forgiveness is appropriate, but only if the person recognizes the wrong, does everything they can to correct it, and in effect becomes a different person, a person who couldn�t even do that wrong again.

He goes on to say that if you are, say, a Ballerina, and someone breaks your legs, then it is appropriate to never forgive that person. Even if they meet the requirements from above, she can say, �I personally will never forgive you.�

�Needless to say,� he goes on, If Hitler comes to you and says �I�m sorry, I take it all back��

Post 214

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 2:37pm

Does anyone praise this book without delighting in its "feet of clay" message?

Post 215

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 2:45pm

No. The only reason anyone even looks at the pictures is to take malicious delight in its deliberately dishonest, evil-intentioned trashing of Rand. See Valliant and Hsieh if you don't believe me.

Post 216

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 2:56pm

If there is anyone who is dishonest and evil intended, it is Valliant...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?s=eca5dbd59d5f4f6e555decf1209b7e37&showtopic=2597

Post 217

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:05pm

On the contrary. The book is of interest because it was the first to explain to its audience the reason why Rand broke with Branden.

I just read the book again this holiday for the first time in 22 years. It in no way denigrates Rand, and only those who have some bizarrely worshipful view of Rand could think that it in any way embarrasses her. The woman suffered, and those around her treated her badly by being her sycophants. Branden is most fair and obviously truthful. One can easily distinguish between the facts and Branden's interpretation of the facts.

The purpose of the book is not enjoyment, but understanding. It succeeds brilliantly.

As for Valliant, methinks the laddy doth protest too much. His book sets up a straw man and proceeds to embarrass itself by throwing the kitchen sink at it. Neil Parille points out the flaws in Valliant's work.

Post 218

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:19pm

I'm pretty sure Peter was being sarcastic in post #215 and expected to be taken so on this forum. Right Peter?

Post 219

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:23pm