RoR: Forum

Kat and Michael,

Am I too touchy? Yeah, probly. So no need to apologize.

But I'll deal with your presentation later, 'K?

BTW, my wife Julie and I are nothing but embarrassing to our kids and grandkids because of our constant purring and PDA. Personally, I like cats.

Tom

Post 221

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 11:25am

Thanks, Tom. I'm glad you brought up "context." That is what all this talk of perfection relates to. It is the context of virtues to values, with happiness as the goal -- not perfection, per se.

And I like your discussion of the perfection of one's (broad-based) philosophy for use in one's specialized pursuit of everything else in life.

Post 222

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 3:34pm

Tom Rowland:
>Here is my explicit definition: "moral perfection (for Objectivism, in a healthy adult context) is the disciplined application of reason (given one's current knowledge of the process) to every issue that one deals with, on a daily basis."

>Given that definition, do you think that it's "loose" and "too vague" and "not severe enough"....

Actually, the above is not one whit tighter than "It's good to have your mind turned on in everything one does" or anything you've said before. If anything, it's even looser, as it now includes a couple of qualifying clauses! This definition is simply another broad generality which everyone would agree with, including Robert I am sure. But a "remorseless, implacable standard" it ain't. And it shouldn't be.

Now, I happen to like "remorseless, implacable standards". They give me something to strive for, and are extremely useful even if I don't exactly achieve them - that is, if I can't get 4 colour printing to exactly match Pantone 216, I'm still far better off for using the standard as a goalpost to shoot for. (Hell, I may even decide I like the 4 colour approximation better!) But - here's the rub - I don't kid myself that I need to apply such standards to every waking moment of my life to be a moral person, or that the successful application of such standards is the *only* basis for morality (Robert is absolutely right to question this). In fact, I consider this a highly dangerous notion that needs to be thoroughly criticised, as Robert has done. Look, I'm sure you approach this with the best of intentions. But ideas have consequences as you know; and they may be consequences you didn't intend. Because its criteria are so vague, yet you insist on "remorseless and implacable" application of them, I fear that what you're proposing ends up as an accidental recipe for Randroidism. Something like this perhaps:

"I must exercise Aristotelian logic correctly in every thought I have - even my subconscious ones, which I must consciously reprogram to be consonant with Objectivism. Further, every action I take must conform to my corrected thoughts. When I achieve this, I will be 'fully integrated'. *The degree that I fail to achieve such integration is the degree of my moral failure*".

Of course, this is completely impossible - as impossible as becoming Superman by going to the gym. Thus rather than a method for avoiding massive "moral failure", this becomes a method for guaranteeing it! And with all the personally destructive consequences that entails. But when you try to treat a well meaning generalisation as if it were something far more exacting - trreating a thing as if it were something else - isn't this where it leads?

- Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 5/06, 12:14am)

Post 223

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 10:54am

MSK wrote:
>Brendan - the golden rule? LOL...

>Daniel - Humans are fallible. Anything infallible is, therefore, not human.

>LOL...

>I gotta get to bed - it's really late. But it will be good to conk out with these delightful thoughts on my mind...

Well I don't know about Brendan, but I didn't really consider this one to be one of my funnier lines...Happy to be of service, however...;-)

- Daniel

Post 224

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:19am

Daniel,

You say that this is what I'm saying:

"I must exercise Aristotelian logic correctly in every thought I have - even my subconscious ones, which I must consciously reprogram to be consonant with Objectivism. Further, every action I take must conform to my corrected thoughts. When I achieve this, I will be 'fully integrated'. *The degree that I fail to achieve such integration is the degree of my moral failure*".

Since I have explicitly denied saying anything of the sort, have given numerous examples of both real life and fictional heroes who may or may not have known Aristotelain logic, and have at least pointed to context -- including such issues as age, degree of intelligence, and the relative complexity of the decision to be made -- I have to ask, what thread have you been reading?

Indeed I have to ask, what in the world is the value of Objectivism to you if you snidely dismiss the value of integrating it into your life? Calling it "Randroidism" isn't an argument and doesn't answer the serious questions I've raised. Agree or not, but that sort of crap is unworthy of any person who takes ideas seriously. Or isn't that what we're all doing here.
If it isn't, I'm outta here.

Now, here is a question for you, should you care to answer it. What, again, did Ayn Rand say was the theme of Atlas Shrugged?

Tom Rowland

PS I guess you mean "everyone on this forum" when you say "everyone could agree with my definition" But you seem to be the exception. Or are you? And what about everyone else in this culture? Do you think they would agree? If so, Objectivism must be a lot more influential than I see any evidence of.

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 5/06, 4:25am)

Post 225

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 10:14am

Tom,

As far as I can see:

1) we agree that a person cannot set a standard for perfection apart from a specific context.
2) we agree that self-improvement is a good thing.
3) I am not clear where you stand on the point that often, getting better at one activity almost always involves getting worse at another activity, depending on how the two things involve the utilization of specialized physical and mental resources.
4) you think that the concept of self-improvement requires a standard of perfection, while I do not - I think that all self-improvement involves is an empirically motivated standard for better or worse (again, with the caveat that often, improving some activity or aspect of character often involves worsening another activity or one aspect of character).

Perfection is a Platonic (and often subjective) concept. Leave the desire for perfection to poets and the Platonists. Greatness doesn't require perfection.

You wrote:

Standards of perfection in piano-playing apply to other areas very little, if at all. Standards of perfection in morality apply to everything about which Humans have to make choices.

I repeat my main point - the standards which apply to everything rarely differentiate the novices from the experts in modern society. Standards of perfection in morality have diverse applications in diverse contexts, so the difficulty is rarely in knowing whether the standards apply, but more in knowing how to apply the standards. As Daniel has argued, the vague nature of your prescriptions doesn't help.

Post 226

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 6:14pm

>Daniel wrote:
"I must exercise Aristotelian logic correctly in every thought I have - even my subconscious ones, which I must consciously reprogram to be consonant with Objectivism. Further, every action I take must conform to my corrected thoughts. When I achieve this, I will be 'fully integrated'. *The degree that I fail to achieve such integration is the degree of my moral failure*".

Tom Rowland replied:
>>You say that this is what I'm saying...I have explicitly denied saying anything of the sort...

Well, Tom, I'm trying to discover just what exactly your vehement disagreement with Robert B's article is?

You've said it's good to "turn on your brain" in every aspect of your life on a daily basis.

Robert agrees with this. I agree with this. Many people do. (If you want to call this "moral perfection" that is fine too, if a little grandiose for such commonplaces).

But it's beside the point. You see, Robert's article attacked an entirely *different* target - the "enormous psychological pressure: the pressure of moral perfectionism" inside the Objectivist movement.

He is using "perfection" in a different sense, which he clearly defined as follows: the idea that "that any failure of consistency, to any degree, on any issue, in any circumstance, no matter how trivial, is tantamount to the complete betrayal of their soul and their self-esteem...*and forever*."(emphasis RB).

So let's be clear: *that* is what he's criticising.

What's not so clear is what *you're* criticising about Bidinotto. You call for "remorseless, implacable" standards, yet when pressed for specifics give only vague generalisations that he would - equally vaguely - agree with. And when I try (above) making these vagaries a little more "remorseless" and "implacable", you don't appear to like it.

So...where's the beef? Surely you aren't *defending* the notion that "..any failure of consistency, to any degree, on any issue, in any circumstance, no matter how trivial, is tantamount to the complete betrayal of their soul and their self-esteem...*and forever*."? Are you?

Tom continued:
>Indeed I have to ask, what in the world is the value of Objectivism to you if you snidely dismiss the value of integrating it into your life?

Firstly, I'm not an Objectivist. Secondly, what Robert is criticising he doesn't view as being properly part of Objectivism. Thirdly, I don't see the value of integrating the attitude RB is criticising into my life, or anyone else's.

- Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 5/07, 8:03pm)

Post 227

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 11:15am

Daniel,

Ultimately I am attempting to clarify what "moral perfection" is in terms of Objectivism, in order to see if RB's "definition" has any relevance to anything that Objectivism actually teaches, in order to access the value to be placed on any such claims that RB makes that "nobody's perfect."

I have noted several times that lots of people seem to be very angry here about this or that "pressure" that they feel to be "perfect," a pressure that Objectivism and it leaders at ARI supposedly exert without argument, context or appeal. I have felt no such pressure, I know that Tara Smith (a friend for over 20 years, even during my TOC days), feels no such pressure. So I, being a curious sort, wonder what anyone could possibly mean when they claim that 'nobody's perfect'. What standard is being used? Who is this 'nobody'? If RB agrees with me and my definition, that's fine, so my only criticism is that he doesn't say, quite plainly, "Objectivism doesn't teach what you think it does, stop feeling this unfounded pressure, I retract everything I've said about being perfect, some people are perfect by the standard that I now see is the correct standard" Not bloody likely? So you tell me why not.

And while you're at it, what would satisfy you in terms of specifics that doesn't appear in the extant literature and lectures available to anyone concerned with this issue? Since the subject of my article was an answer to RB's original assertion that 'nobody's perfect' that was and is my only concern.

Tom Rowland

Post 228

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 8:16am

Tom:
>I have noted several times that lots of people seem to be very angry here about this or that "pressure" that they feel to be "perfect," a pressure that Objectivism and it leaders at ARI supposedly exert...

There seems to be plenty of evidence for the existence of this sort of "perfectionist" pressure, from old essays like N Branden's "Benefits and Hazards of The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand" through to Lindsay Perigo's more recent "Romance and Rationalism". It's not just the ARI either - it appears in the original movement in the '50s and '60s. It's well documented. Are you saying these stories are all completely untrue?

Now, you could put these problems - assuming you think they exist - down to the incorrect application of Objectivism, rather than something fundamental to it. And this is what Robert B's essay does too, so you do have considerable common ground. And this may be turn out to be right.

However, from my perspective, I tend to think there's a basic intellectual engine behind this problem that keeps making it crop up time and again.

Simply put, she said the goal of her fiction was the description of the "ideal man" - the theoretical "perfect person". She also said that there is *no difference between theory and practice* - that such a differentiation was "evil".

Put those two together, and aren't you going to get problems of exactly the sort Robert B et al are describing?

- Daniel

Post 229

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:24am

Daniel,

There are two questions. My answers: No, No

Tom

Post 230

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:52pm

Daniel:
>>There seems to be plenty of evidence for the existence of this sort of "perfectionist" pressure (in Objectivism)... Are you saying these stories are all completely untrue?

Tom replied:
>No...

OK, so you agree there *is* some truth to them then. So why do you demand Bidinotto produce examples of this problem (..."Cases, Robert, cases"..) if you already accept they exist?

Daniel:
>Put those two together (presenting fictional humans as theoretically ideal, then denying a distinction between theory and practice), and aren't you going to get problems of exactly the sort Robert B et al are describing?

Tom replied:
>No.

Well why not? It would seem to follow. What's your alternative theory then for the cases of '"perfectionist" pressure' in Objectivism that you've encountered?

- Daniel

Post 231

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 8:29am

Daniel,

I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea why some people feel whatever it is that Robert B. or you mean by "perfectionist pressure."

If you mean some person or persons fear that the ghost of Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff's spirit avitar is going to send them to Objectivist Hell because they refuse to agree with either of them, surely you jest. If people are worried about such things they haven't got a clue.

If you mean that some person or persons feel an "unwarranted" need to be moral by Objectivist standards, there are lots of questions that could be asked. But most of them are psychological questions or have to do with the person's understanding of the standards. Once the standard is understood the only remaining question is, "What do you mean by 'unwarranted?'"

And these questions and issues apply to any morality, they are not exclusive to Objectivism. Lots of people ignore philosophy altogether. Some people mouth the slogans of a moral code and feel no real need to live up to the code. Some people take their moral code, whatever it is, seriously.

Now, in Objectivism, as in most moral codes, there are exemplars, fictional or real, that provide guidance to putting the moral code into practice. In addition, as far as I know there is no moral code that allows for a break between theory and practice; Objectivism is not unique here. It is what those exemplars exemplify that makes all the difference. And the symbolism of the two biggies here in the States is quite remarkable -- end up on a cross or end up with a happy life. If the combination of exemplars and no dichotomy between theory and practice leads to "perfectionist pressure" and you object to that, fine and dandy, but don't blame Objectivism; it is in the nature of the morality beast.

It appears that what Robert B and you and some others who claim to be Objectivists want is a moral code that doesn't want you to take it seriously. If that's what you want, ARI is not the place for you. I don't know of any place that would be (maybe TOC?). But I would argue that any moral code that doesn't want you to worry about whether you are living up to it is unworthy of the name.

If what you want is to "just live your life" without worrying about whether you are living it well, my understanding of Objectivism says that's a contradiction in terms.

My answers remain "no, I don't think the stories are completely untrue" and "no, I don't think that Objectivism is the cause in any sense that is either immoral or unique."

My guess is that what people feel about "perfectionist pressure" is related to the relief they feel in escaping from the moral code of their childhood. And they relate it to some specific thing they were told not to do (smoke, drink, have sex outside marriage, etc.). And they relate it to the nagging voice of their mother or father who was the morality cop. So when they reject that and they see that Objectivism says, "live for your own happiness" it feels like such a relief -- like taking your tie off at the end of a hard day at the office -- they're surprised and disappointed that there's a moral code here, too, that people expect them to live up to. Because of their background, they expect it to be hard and demanding in some way that resembles wearing a hair shirt and flogging themselves. And they mistake Ayn Rand for their mother and father -- the morality cop. So when they hear Ayn Rand say that Thomas Wolfe doesn't have a good sense of life and then explain why they think so, instead of hearing a rational person talking to another rational person, they hear "DON'T LIKE THOMAS WOLFE OR ELSE." Taking the love away, like mom and dad did, or appeared to do. And while I despise the way most parents raise their children, don't confuse that with the adult world of a rational moral code.

When people expect you to live up to the moral code you profess, there is every chance that if they think you are not living up to it, they will confront you about it. Depending on the context, the discussion may be long or short. It may result in their cutting off their relationship with you. Do you really expect anyone to take their moral code so lightly that it wouldn't matter? Is "forgiveness" your stock in trade? I want to suggest that you are in the wrong place, if you are talking about Objectivism.

Tom Rowland

PS My wife, Julie, who tends to be direct and to the point, said, as I was reading this to her, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Yep.

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 5/14, 9:58am)

Post 232

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 2:50pm

Writes Tom:

It appears that what Robert B and you and some others who claim to be Objectivists want is a moral code that doesn't want you to take it seriously. If that's what you want, ARI is not the place for you. I don't know of any place that would be (maybe TOC?). But I would argue that any moral code that doesn't want you to worry about whether you are living up to it is unworthy of the name.

If what you want is to "just live your life" without worrying about whether you are living it well, my understanding of Objectivism says that's a contradiction in terms.

A couple of words in response: "Straw man."

Come on, Tom. We've been civil so far, but this crosses the line.

Anyone who knows me will not recognize as legitimate criticisms, or even plausible speculations, the insinuation that I am seeking "a moral code that doesn't want you to take it seriously." That's a gratuitous insult. Same with the insult that I am among those who "claim to be Objectivists." Same with your smear against those associated with TOC -- for "smear" is what that is, too.

Besides offering gratuitous insults, would you really care to match your personal history as an advocate and defender of Objectivism against mine?

In addition, your post simply adds evidence for my thesis here. Anyone seeking a moral code that would (as you put it) "want you to worry about whether you are living up to it" -- or "worrying about whether you are living [your life] well" -- is precisely the anxiety-driven, deontological, platonic perfectionism that exemplifies the psychological harm I was warning against. No? Then why the repeated use of the term "worry" as part of one's attitude toward morality? Accidental?

And how can an abstract, disembodied moral code "want you" to do anything -- as in the preceding quoted passage, or in your insulting remark that people like me want "a moral code that doesn't want you to take it seriously"?

This is moral platonism writ large. It is the view of morality as some nebulous, disembodied Code hovering over your shoulder like a stern perfectionist mother, watching your every move and "wanting" you to Measure Up and be her Perfect Little Boy or Girl -- and policing you by instilling the guilt and "worry" that you are not.

Let me make my meaning very clear and simple:

Please go to your book shelf. Extract your probably well-thumbed copy of Philosophy: Who Needs It. Turn to the chapter titled "Causality Vs. Duty."

Read it.

Read it again.

Take some time to absorb Rand's painful descriptions of the duty-bound attitude toward morality, its psychological manifestations and its consequences.

That was the point of my warning. I provocatively titled my essay "Nobody's Perfect" precisely to draw duty-bound types out of the woodwork, knowing full well that they'd provide abundant examples of the very malady that Rand described.

It appears to have worked.

Through all these posts, I'm still awaiting a clear answer to the question:

Why are some of you so determined to salvage the vague, woozy notion of "moral perfection" when it (a) is not subject to any meaningful objective measurement, and (b) adds absolutely nothing to practical ethical guidance that's not already contained in the concept of "integrity" -- a virtue which I emphatically endorse?

A further question:

What, exactly, is it about the notion of "perfection" that is so all-consumingly important to you -- so much so that you are willing to condemn, as not "serious" about morality, anyone who simply asks you for an intelligible explanation and referent for the notion?

You appear to be claiming that if I act with integrity, but so much as question the intelligibility or usefulness of the idea of "moral perfection," I cannot be "serious" about morality, or Objectivism.

If so, please defend that.

And please clarify if you really wish to stand by your insulting insinuations.

Post 233

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:52pm

Robert,

In the paragraph of mine that you quote, I said "It appears that what you...want..."and "If that is what you want..." I don't think I was forcing the shoe onto anyone's foot that thinks they shouldn't be wearing it. Evidently it was not you I was insulting. But the insult was intended for anyone for whom the shoe is the right size. So was the smear.

And the comment about comparing our "dedication" to Objectivism? If number of articles and public visibility are what count, you win. OK?

Now let's get to what I said. I believe what I said is different from the way you interpreted it.

I am sorry that my word choice in the paragraph was inexact. You are quite correct to point out that the phrase "moral code that doesn't want you to worry about whether you are living up to it" personifies the moral code, and seems to making it into a Platonic ideal. (doing so, doesn't, by the way, automatically entail any "worry" about it; I can choose to ignore a platonic ideal or try -- against all possibility of achieving it -- taking it seriously. I'll have more on this later.)

So let me once again (I did this before, but it bears repeating) try to concretize what that sentence stands for in my mind. John Galt, Howard Roark, Hank Readen, Dominique Francon, Dagny Taggart, Charles and Mary Ann Sures, dare I say Ayn Rand. Do you see them going off in a corner, worrying about morality? No way, you say.

SURE!! What you see them worrying about is how can I get Dagny to join the strike, how can I achieve a career in architecture without sacrificing my integrity, how can I reconcile my affair with Dagny and my marriage to Lillian (OPPS. This looks like a moral question, hmmmm. OK maybe I should skip that), how can I reconcile my love for Roark with my belief that genius is doomed, how can I help Tom stay our of the draft without lying about his belief in god, how can I make myself bear to hear the truth I've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.

Are they worrying? Sure. Should they be? Sure. Are these moral questions? I think so.
Simple question, Robert. Is this what you decry?

NO, I don't believe it is. And yet despite my saying over and over again, and Miss Rand saying over and over again, that thinking (the basic standard of morality) is what is required and that doing so consistently is the measure of moral perfection, and moreover that such thinking, while it does require effort, is man's natural state (not a Platonic ideal) and not a duty (not deontological) and that the only thing hanging over your shoulder is reality -- despite all of these points, made over and over again -- you continue to see this MOTHER, watching over your every move, watching to see if you are measuring up, in everything we say. I submit that the mother is in your head. If it isn't, then not to worry, I'm not talking to you. If she is, get her out, she doesn't need to be there to satisfy "moral perfection" in Objectivism. Ayn Rand is not your mother, never was, never wanted to be. Neither is Leonard. Neither is ARI. Neither am I.

Now to some finishing up points about your post.

Since I don't see myself as a deontologist I won't feel insulted by your "drawing out of the woodwork" remark. Although if making it was merely provocative, that would indicate that you might be exaggerating a bit to 'make a point.' Were you?

As for my 'obsession' with "moral perfection", I wouldn't have given it a second thought, if you weren't obsessed with proving that "nobody's perfect." I thought it was important that if "nobody's perfect" we be clear about what this "perfection" is that "nobody" lives up to. If you didn't mean it, well, we've both wasted everybody's time. But I insist that if you claim that nobody's perfect, it isn't enough to say that the reason for this is that "perfection" doesn't exist. Besides, I don't think that's what you meant.

My idea of "moral perfection" is fairly straightforward, not deontological, and not a Platonic form of the good. Neither is it a mother looking over your shoulder.

But it is measured by a very simple standard -- daily commitment. This is mostly an internal measure, one that only you -- and each individual -- can judge. There are, I'm convinced, contexts in which we can and must make a judgment about whether someone can honestly claim that commitment. But it's you and reality alone that are the final arbiters. And isn't that the way it should be? Not me, not your mother, not god, not society. You.

If what I've just argued for is "perfectionist pressure" and that is what you decry, make the most of it.

Tom Rowland

PS. Barbara Branden once gave a ten-lecture course called "The Principles of Efficient Thinking" for those of us who 'worry' about such things as whether we are being moral (thinking) well or badly. In lecture 2 she talks at some length about the various levels of mental focus -- a measure of how well we are doing at this moral task of thinking, as I see it. You might ask her if her course is relevant here. Wait, I'll ask her. Barbara, is your course relevant to the measurement of morality that is at issue here. Please, if you disagree with anything I'm saying here, I'd truly like to know. Thanks for any time you want to give to this.

Post 234

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 6:35pm

Tom R,
I have a question, which I hope you will take as neutrally as possible and not an attempt to trap you into error, contradiction or anything of the sort.

In the examples you cite:
Do you think their goal or purpose in wrestling these dilemmas was to
do the right thing and/or achieve their goals, avoid unjustly harming another, etc
Or was it, rather, to ensure that their characters were unblemished or that they satisfied some rule. (Even if the rule were, say, a good one.)

I get the impression from his posts that Robert B is suggesting, that if one's goal is to lead a happy life, one's focus is properly on the former (most of the time) rather than (obsessively) on the latter.

I think what bothers Robert B, I know it has me from time to time, is that all too often Oists choose the latter under the mistaken belief that they MUST if they are to consider themselves moral. It is this that he seems to be trying to warn against. I have to say I have seen precisely that sort of thing many times over two generations now. One has to think there is some driving force behind this other than some simple minded 'well, people treat it like a religion and they shouldn't because it isn't'.

(Note: I'm not arguing that these two alternatives represent some inevitable or false dichotomy and that one should choose one or the other. I'm approaching the questions from the perspective of trying to understand their psychology, not from the stand point of making an unanswerable philosophical argument.)

Your thoughts?

Post 235

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 5:15am

Jeff,

An absolutely wonderful question, in my estimation.

The straightforward answer is the former. I certainly meant for them to be examples of doing the right thing, achieving their goals, avoiding treating others unjustly, etc.

Here's the problem as I see it. As soon as I say "do the right thing", "achieve your goals", "avoid treating others unjustly," etc. people hear an arbitrary rule. That's because, if we're thinking about such things as we grow up, that's what the rules our folks lay done are -- arbitrary.

I was raised a Southern Baptist; my Dad was the son of missionaries to India. It was considered wrong to go to movies on Sunday, play cards, drink, smoke, dance "too close", and certainly it was wrong to have sex outside marriage. Not to mention more secular rules (not part of religious dogma) like, come to the table while the food is hot no matter what other, more interesting thing, you're doing; don't read at the table; don't talk with your mouth full, don't talk to strangers, and on and on and on. Please, I'm not saying that some of these rules weren't well intended, and based on valid points. What I'm saying is that at the receiving end, to a child not yet of the age of reason, they all felt like Arbitrary Rules -- obviously intended to take away from my enjoyment of life.

And then there is GOD!! Not only are the rules arbitrary, but they are handed down -- even the ones that were not based on religious dogma -- by GOD. And you know what GOD is, don't you? He's ALL KNOWING, ALL SEEING, ALL POWERFUL. So here's the situation most of us (perhaps unavoidably) grow up with: There's a bunch of Arbitrary Rules, Handed Down by GOD, Who KNOWS everything you do wrong, SEES everything you do wrong and who is going to ZAP you into HELL if you don't obey the rules. He has delegated his authority to MY PARENTS and TEACHERS. And if I asked "why?" I was told (maybe you were, too) "because I said so, that's why." Sound familiar?

My parents rarely spanked or slapped me. But they didn't have to. And by the time I was 11, I was ready for rebellion. Ayn Rand was my escape. Thank god she was available.

But given the kind of upbringing I had, or anywhere near it, it is very hard to NOT hear "rules" as soon as the word "morality" is mentioned. I had "authority figure" issues for a long time. Even though I came to believe that drinking was OK, I felt a twinge of uneasiness every time I went into a bar for a long time. And I was, of course, not a little intimidated by Ayn Rand when I met her.

BUT...I was far enough along and smart enough to know that wasn't Ayn Rand's problem, it was mine.

What set me up to figure this out? Two things my parents did right, and for which I will always love and revere them. They let me read anything I wanted and they taught me that "doing the right thing" was important. You see, they had the combination right. They realized that if they taught me the importance of doing the right thing, they could trust me to read anything I wanted and eventually I'd figure it out.

As a result, at about the age I was ready for rebellion, I realized that I had to separate out my mother's and dad's tone -- the sense of the arbitrariness of it all -- from the content. I had to consider whether what my mother and dad said was TRUE separately from how I felt about it. So my entire "rebellious period" (which was huge and sometimes stormy) was about the TRUTH of what my parents said, not the fact that THEY said it.

I think a lot of us, when dealing with Objectivism, get caught right at this point of rebellion. And it is difficult to sort out.

And, from some of the examples reported to us, Ayn Rand was not always sensitive to this. (I have some reservations about this, however, that I will talk about in another post.)

Having said what I think about where many of us get stuck, I'm going to close for now (breakfast to eat) and post again later.

Tom Rowland

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 5/15, 5:29am)

Post 236

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:54am

Jeff,

Sorry to take so long getting back.

Several questions have been the focus of my thoughts since yesterday. First, for those that get stuck, what is really going on? And where is Robert actually getting it right?

I've come to the conclusion that they are two aspects of the same issue, which I want to reduce to the concept of "social-metaphysics."

"Social metaphysics" is a kind of automatized second-handedness, a thinking process that is focused on the views of others, rather than on reality. A good example is the graduation scene in The Fountainhead, in which Peter Keating's entire focus is on the reactions to him of the people in the crowd.

Another example is the attitude that I think is the focus of Robert's legitimate concern. When we come to Objectivism from a religious background, it is not so much that we have a "duty hangover" but that we have a "voice-telling-me-what-to-do hangover." In most ethical systems, with the notable exception of Objectivism, altruism puts "other people" in the drivers seat, not reality. "I must sacrifice my values to other people" and "I must sacrifice my judgment of reality to other people" are the same moral injunction. Our focus becomes "what will others think of what I am doing" and "I've got to look good, I've got to look like a good person to others."

When we come to Objectivism this becomes "what would Ayn Rand, or Leonard Peikoff, or David Kelley, or the people at SOLO, or whoever, think about what I am doing" I mention SOLO in this context, because it is rampant here in the efforts of many to avoid being a RANDROID ("randroid" being anyone who evidences complete agreement with Ayn Rand and/or ARI in an obvious adulatory way)

Those with this syndrome start to "worry about being morally perfect" not in the sense of being in contact with reality, but in the sense of obeying this little voice in their heads that is the residue of what they have come to believe is the essence of morality as such.

But a "voice-telling-me-what-to-do" necessarily entails an intrinsicist, deontological view of ethics. One can't get rid of the "because I (Mom, Dad, Society or God) said so" without getting rid of the voice itself.

As long as any remnant of that voice is there, morality, as such, means (emotionally at least, regardless of ones conscious convictions) being told what to do just because it's the right thing to do.

And the insistence on "moral perfection" becomes an "unmeasurable" "woozy" notion that "adds nothing to the practical guidance already contained in the concept of 'integrity'"

But while Robert has a legitimate concern that people stop worrying about Ayn Rand's voice in their head, that does not take away from the importance of defining what morality consists of or the need for moral ambition -- the desire and the effort to do the right thing -- all the time, in every issue that is part of one's life.

And, I submit, one cannot do that simply by saying that one has 'integrity.' "Integrity to what?" is the logical question. "One's thought" would be my answer. In other ethical systems it might be "my duty", or "God's voice" or " society's demands". It is not for Objectivism.

Indeed, I would say that if one is consistently true to one's consciousness -- true to one's first hand conclusions -- one is, to that extent, "morally perfect." And I would ask anyone reading this, why would worrying about whether one is consistently true to one's first hand conclusions be a bad thing? And why this obsession with the claim that "nobody's perfect?"

Tom

Post 237

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:50am

Jeff,

I realize that what I've just finished posting is a "people treat it like a religion but they shouldn't because it isn't" answer -- long but basically that.

There is a driving force behind the confusion between the two in the fact that both are systems of morality that claim jurisdiction over everything one does. Both Objectivism and religion insist on moral absolutism and on making judgments based on moral constraints on behavior. Both, seriously applied, are "black and white" systems.

The difference between Objectivism's moral absolutism and religion's moral absolutism is it's source. Objectivism's Moral absolutism comes from the absolutism of reality and the absolutism of reason. Religion's Moral absolutism comes from the absolutism of a mystic dimension (god). Objectivism says -- as a principle, not a rule -- follow reality by means of reason. Religion says -- as a rule -- follow god's (or society's or your neighbor's) whim by means of faith.

Objectivism's constraints are reality based. Religion's constraints are faith based.

Objectivism's constraints are motivated by self-interest. Religion's constraints are motivated by the desires of others.

To be "morally ambitious" in Objectivism is to worry about satisfying the needs of your life consistent with the facts of reality.
To be "morally ambitious" in religion is to worry about satisfying the needs of obedience to some rule handed down by the voice of god, or society, or one's next door neighbor.

To not treat Objectivism as a religion is not to give up "worrying about moral perfection" it is to recognize that worrying about moral perfection in Objectivism means worrying about satisfying the needs of your life consistent with the facts of reality. It doesn't mean "stop worrying and start living" , it means "worry about living."

"Just as, in epistemology, the cult of uncertainty is a revolt against reason -- so, in ethics, the cult of moral grayness is a revolt against moral values. Both are a revolt against the absolutism of reality." VOS, 99, pb 77

I really want to thank all of you that have contributed to this thread and thus to my own clarification of this aspect of Objectivism.

I'm done here.

Tom

Post 238

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 10:43am

Tom,
A few observations and then I, too, have said all I want to on this topic for the time being.

1. The choice of the term 'worry' is less than ideal. 'Think about', 'take seriously', 'focus on', might be better; but these are off the top of my head and I don't claim they are ideal either.

2. I suspect there are many cases where that 'voice in their heads' is neither Rand's, their mother's, their pastor's, or what have you. That voice, in many cases, is their own.

There is something about the way Oism has been presented, but more than that formulated and understood by even really intelligent and philosophically sophisticated individuals, that tends to encourage that voice to speak more loudly than it should. I'm far from understanding as well as I'd like what that is, but empirically the evidence is really strong for it's existence.

It's harder than some suppose to formulate a realistic but simultaneously correct ethical system, much less live by it. Particularly given the circumstances we all face day-to-day while attempting to live by it. It's hardly a surprise that few, perhaps no one, has it quite down yet. Historically we are a short evolutionary distance down a long road. Those who claim, because of their personal 'special' characteristics, that they are far advanced in that respect are probably self-deluded. I've met very few geniuses in my day.

Post 239

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 1:40pm