RoR: Forum

Tom,

Personal reproach. My main point with that word is that we should use the idea of moral perfection as a goal, not as a guillotine. We can reproach ourselves for not being perfect, but if our general attitude is to correct our errors, then we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much.

We can, of course, be subject to the reproach of others, but acting independently we would evaluate their comments -- with reality as our ultimate guide.

As far as how to live with the idea of moral perfection but not yet being perfect ourselves, my attitude is that we keep in mind the goal of one day possibly being perfect, but meanwhile enjoying the hell out of the happiness we've already richly deserved. I know that as long as I fall short of perfection, my own happiness must therefore suffer to that same exact degree. But I also know that I'm not the man I used to be -- and that is a good thing.

Post 41

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 2:26pm

We seem to be getting closer here. But I noticed something that is central to my concerns about the focus on "moral perfection."

David Elmore (post 37) writes:

If at some moment, we achieve this state of being (involving thought and action, as all virtues imply), then we are morally perfect.

You see, David, this is precisely where I have a problem with the concept of "moral perfection": the implication that the goal of morality is to "achieve this [perfect] state of being." The sense I get from these words -- perhaps not what you intended, but what they suggest to me -- is an image of overly self-conscious, inward contemplation of one's own moral status, and the need to "measure up" to a Standard.

I look at morality differently. I don't believe in excessive "Self"-monitoring -- worrying about the moral status of my soul. Rather, I look at the world around me, and my self-selected responsibilities, and try to apply the appropriate moral principle in the current circumstances, in order to achieve values that contribute to my long-term happiness. If a situation requires productivity, I work. If it requires honesty, I say what's on my mind. If it involves a matter of justice, I try to figure out what's fair. Etc. But I don't do so to Be Principled, or to Achieve a State of Perfection. I do so in order to achieve the things that will help make my life happy.

Now, after the fact, I might occasionally reflect on what I've done. Did I do a great job? Could I have done better? Did I screw up? If I've done well, I can take earned pride and satisfaction in it. If not, I can try to make amends (if the situation warrants), or determine to improve next time. I might even have done something SO well that I think I've been "exemplary."

But not "perfect." I just don't think in terms of having "achieved" some "state of being" -- let alone a "state of being perfect." The concept seems static, passive, self-conscious (in the negative sense) and an utter distraction from the active, moment-to-moment requirements moral living. It suggests to me that one's ultimate goal in life is to reach some "state of being" in which one can coast, going on automatic pilot, and just Experience Being Perfect, like some statue in a public park. Again, that may not be what you meant at all, but that's the sense I get from your choice of words. I do know that's the goal of many platonic sorts.

To Shayne (post 35), I don't agree that "moral perfection" is a useful redundancy. You say, "The point of the redundant word is to underscore the radical difference that Objectivists have with the conventional view." But there is nothing in either of the words "moral" or "perfection" that is unique to Objectivism, and nothing in the combined term "moral perfection" that distinguishes it from the Christian view of "moral perfection," or any other view.

So what do we really gain from tacking on the notion of "perfection"? Does it serve any practical or useful purpose?

To the contrary. In my (emerging) view, tacking on "perfection" actually diminishes "moral," because it tends to divert one's focus away from taking moral action in the world, and toward anxious self-monitoring of one's character -- in the manner I described above. It diverts us from "What is to be done?" to "I wonder how I am doing?" It diverts us from "What am I doing?" to "How am I doing?

I think a "perfection preoccupation" may be morally and psychologically damaging. Concern for one's "state of being" -- for the moral status of one's character, rather than moral status of one's deeds -- can lead easily to a duty-bound outlook on life: to worrying constantly about how one is "measuring up to the standard." In this regard, I again urge everyone to go back and reread Rand's "Causality Vs. Duty." Read the brilliantly insightful description she provides of the "self-doubt-centered" duty-bound personality.

Then ask yourself whether a "perfection" focus is really that useful, or benign. I fear it is not.

I believe someone said here that when Rand was asked about whether she was morally perfect, she answered that she just didn't think about herself in those terms. Nor should we. The concept of "moral perfection" has valid uses for philosophers, and for artists who may attempt to project images of perfection in their work. But not, I think, in the choices we must make in daily life.

Post 42

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 2:51pm

Robert: I don't think I or anyone else defending the concept of "moral perfection" has a "perfection preoccupation" disorder of some sort; I think you just constantly miss the point. You also tend to substitute insult for argument.

I haven't been following this thread too closely for a while, it's getting kind of boring.

Post 43

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 3:29pm

Hi all. I've been busy with preparations for SOLOC4, so haven't got into this thread until now. And I'm leaving shortly for the conference, so can't participate too much. I thought I'd put my own points out to see if anyone thinks they're useful.

First of all, I don't approach this topic by trying to define moral perfection. I want to go a step back to moral vs. immoral. In Robert's original article, I think he makes an excellent point that the virtues are tools for gaining values, and not rules to be blindly followed. I've discussed that in a few articles of my own, and will talk about it again at SOLOC4 on Saturday. It's easy to see, if you accepted the virtues as rules you must obey at all times, what moral perfection would mean. And I think that's why he connected the two in the original article. If you violate a rule, it's all or nothing. You've gone from acting morally to acting immorally. There are such clear boudaries to it. And since it's all or nothing, it's easy to talk about "moral perfection", which is obeying the rules all the time.

But I agree with Robert that the virtues aren't rules. My SOLOC 1.5 speech, Virtuous Living (which is available as a series of articles here on SOLOHQ), goes into a lot more detail. But if virtues aren't these rules that are either followed or broken, what are they? I think you can practice the virtues with varying degrees of effort. Rationality, the virtue, is not merely about not evading. It's fundamentally about correctly grasping reality. That means you can learn to think more clearly, learn more about the world (science), better integrate your knowledge, etc. Another example is independence. Obviously there are varying degrees of independence, both material and mental. You can see the difference between a person who lives with his parents and has no skills to get a job in a tight market, and someone who lives with his parents but doesn't have the skills. Which is more independent?

The process is similar to making value choices. What if you have two choices that are both very good, but you choose the lesser of the two? Are you immoral? Does moral mean always picking the best possible choice at all times? Has anyone watched TV when they had something more important to do, just because it was easier? Do you consider that to be immoral? Have you ever played computer solitaire, even though you know its a waste of time? Does your moral perfection mean always making the best possible choice, even when the choices are about the same? We can talk about obviously immoral things, like cheating on your loved one (yes...yes...only in some contexts...move along people!), and see how you can talk about being morally imperfect. But what happens when the choice is between two morally sound options?

In a way, the rule-based morality is far easier to imagine a morally perfect person. You've got a couple of rules you follow. The Objectivist-type rules would be "don't evade reality", "don't do things you don't agree with just to fit in" , "don't tell lies", "don't live your life for other people", etc. But that's pretty easy, really! The boundaries are on the line of pro-life and anti-life. They amount to "don't do anything that is destructive of your life".

But morality is not a set of moral rules to follow. Fundamentally it's about choosing between wildly different courses of action, each with there own costs and benefits. The tough choice isn't between building a skyscraper and jumping off of a bridge. It's between leaving a job you enjoy and pays well for a risky opportunity that might be far more satisfying. It's about whether you should wash the dishes tonight, or leave them for tomorrow morning. It's about all kinds of morally optional choices.

So I guess my problem with the whole topic of moral perfection is what it means to be morally imperfect. At one point there was a participant on SoloHQ who said as a child his mom told him he should never be bored, or he's a boring person. And he claims he never has since. I just picture a person desperately jumping from activity to activity, not acting because he wants to do those things, but because he's so desperately afraid of being a boring person.

That's kind of how I see the quest for moral perfection. See, sometimes I don't feel like doing any work, even though there's tons to do always. Sometimes I just sit and do nothing. Daydream, nap, play with Liberty the puppy, or whatever. I don't believe I need to constantly be doing things in order to avoid moral imperfection. If something needs to be done, I'll do it. But when I act, it's because I want to, not because I'm afraid of being immoral. Morality is supposed to be a tool for living, not an end in itself.

Well, those are my initial thoughts, anyway.

Post 44

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 6:46pm

Robert,

I'd really like to see you address Adam's point about character that he made in post number 32. I was thinking something along the same lines even before I read Adam's post.

To me (and I believe Adam as well), character isn't simply a kind of summation of past actions/choices. Character is something that is built, and has an identity. If you think of it as a building (sorry for the bad analogy), a structure may not be able to support much weight (stress) at various stages in it's "history" — as it is being built — but once (say) finished, it can withstand a great deal of stresses.

Of course, as outsider observes, we can't know the quality of the girders, screws, nails, and whatnot; we see only what it can take, and therefore have to infer its 'integrity' from such percepts. And similarly, we only can observe a person's moral choices. But that does not mean that the person's character is identical with the set of choices.

Seen in this light, a building could now be perfect even if, in the past, while it was being constructed, various mishaps occurred (unsupported wall fell over, etc.).

If this doesn't seem very clear, please go back to Adam's post!

Regards,
Kernon

P.S. Actually, I don't have "a dog in this fight" (vis-à-vis moral perfection), but I do disagree about the definition of character.

Post 45

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:58pm

Shayne,

I agree, but maybe what I'm writing (short and sweet, I think) will liven things up a bit. Should post over the weekend or early next week.

Robert,

There is something going on here that I can't quite get a handle on. And I'm not one to speculate on people's hidden motives. You've got, as Shayne points out, this notion that there is a bunch of people who are running around scared to make their next move because there is some Rand or Peikoff "jimminy cricket" sitting on their shoulder monitoring their every move. Well, we "ain't got no strings", but we still insist on being moral, perfect or not.

Tom

Post 46

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:30pm

You've got, as Shayne points out, this notion that there is a bunch of people who are running around scared to make their next move because there is some Rand or Peikoff "jimminy cricket" sitting on their shoulder monitoring their every move.

ROFL!!

Post 47

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:37pm

Joseph,

I really agree with most of what you say here.

I think you're asking some very important questions in paragraph 4. And my answer to all of them is: it's your show! It's your integrity. It's your understanding. It's your self-examination.

"Something more important to do"? Well, let's see, it is very important to finish my novel by the deadline tomorrow, but I'll watch TV instead? Yep, I think I tell myself not to do that, it's immoral.

But..Well, I've finished the outline which I promised myself to get done by tomorrow, so I'm ahead of schedule, and I've got the "squirms." I need to recharge the batteries, so I'll watch "Charlie's Angels" tonight. That's moral.

Even something as seemingly simple as your question is simple only if you remember to hold your own context and stay in contact with reality.

Tom

Post 48

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:25pm

Robert and Joe,

-----------
[Robert Bidinotto--post 41]

I think a "perfection preoccupation" may be morally and psychologically damaging. Concern for one's "state of being" -- for the moral status of one's character, rather than moral status of one's deeds -- can lead easily to a duty-bound outlook on life: to worrying constantly about how one is "measuring up to the standard."
-----------

Robert, while I agree with the disasters of preoccupation and duty. I disagree with what else you say here--regarding deeds and character. To your statement above, I merely retort that deeds are that which build character (a properly integrated focus on character ENTAILS a primary focus on deeds).

-----------
[Joe Rowlands--post 43]

See, sometimes I don't feel like doing any work, even though there's tons to do always. Sometimes I just sit and do nothing. Daydream, nap, play with Liberty the puppy, or whatever. I don't believe I need to constantly be doing things in order to avoid moral imperfection. If something needs to be done, I'll do it. But when I act, it's because I want to, not because I'm afraid of being immoral. Morality is supposed to be a tool for living, not an end in itself.
-----------

Joe, but leisure is a real human good, and therefore, leisure is moral (and I think Tom Rowland's post 47 above--speaks well to this aspect of reality).

Joe, while I do respect your thoughts and your character (I find you damn insightful and genuine) I disagree with you that defining moral perfection may not further the progress in this dialogue--and I offer this point about "the morality of leisure" as evidence to the potentially available, though heretofore unexploited, productiveness of this debate.

Ed

Post 49

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:06am

Kernon (post 44): I disagree with Adam's post #32, because there's no practical way to determine an individual's "character" without reference to what is "characteristic" of him -- i. e., without observing his habits and actions over time. How would I know your "character," or Adam's or anyone else's, without observing what they characteristically do?

To judge someone's "character" in the freeze-frame of the present is therefore impossible. It would be what we rightly dismiss as a "snap judgment."

Post 50

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:18am

Robert said something important here: "I look at morality differently. I don't believe in excessive "Self"-monitoring -- worrying about the moral status of my soul. Rather, I look at the world around me, and my self-selected responsibilities, and try to apply the appropriate moral principle in the current circumstances, in order to achieve values that contribute to my long-term happiness."

This is the crux of it. NOT focussing mental energy on being moral (or on *preventing* moral lapses, or *evaluating* moral states), but rather on value seeking.

This is especially useful in trying to overcome problems. I remember talking to someone about a his problem with pot. He was trying to quit. It was very difficult for him, and he was becoming obsessive about the *problem*, monitoring himself excessivelly, and actively pouring energy into *resisting* the urge. It occurred to me that instead of working *against* it, he might actively, energetically pour himself into seeking values which could *not* co-exist with the use of pot.

A similar thing happens when I focus on my values and my *flourishing*. The moral question becomes "is this thought, or action in MY best interests?" It turns out practicing certain virtues and not taking certain paths in life is in my best long term interests.

John

Post 51

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:41am

Wonderful comment John:

It occurred to me that instead of working *against* it, he might actively, energetically pour himself into seeking values which could *not* co-exist with the use of pot.

That is the only way to apply morality to addiction (from cigarettes to alcohol and hard drugs) - focusing on values that are more important than the substance and are incompatible with it.

I am currently writing something about precisely that.

But the funny thing is - it works...

Michael

Post 52

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:59am

Michael I will actively, energetically, encourage you to write on brother!

Post 53

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:14am

Tom,

Back to post 36. We are in reality 3 out of 4 because there is no real disagreement on "undeserved conceit." As I was listing the negatives, I left out the positives (like self-esteem and pride). And we seem to agree negative-wise.

We may disagree a little on Rand's view of herself, though. her comment about not thinking of herself that way (morally perfect) sounds good and was probably true most of the time. But that is pure speculation anyway. Something sure went out of whack in her life.

Just to speculate on her some more (all right, gossip maybe), I hold that all people are composites of different urges and values, not just one. They conflict a great deal of the time. I know I have conflicting urges and make conflicting value judgments all the time. Keeping a handle on all that is a full time job at times.

So is it possible for a person to hold a high degree of self-esteem and pride - and still have bouts of undeserved conceit. You bet it is. These things surge up when you least expect them also. I think that this (and other inner tugs) were part of Rand's make-up. Since she did everything on a grand scale, the negatives were grand too. But like I said, this is speculation on my part.

Actually, this inner conflict all the time - and resolving it - especially the part about aiming at happiness - and the ensuing triumphs - is one of the aspects I find that makes being a human being so damn interesting.

So now onto the "manipulation" category. I think our main difference will not be philosophical, but historical instead. The ARI-TOC thing. Or maybe the Rand-Brandens split. There is where I am out of it somewhat, as I have had very little contact with the main players - just Barbara - and I value her friendship more than I can express.

Dave Elmore - There is one thing that sort of bothers me in a post of yours above. It has nagged at the back of my mind for a couple of days now. You state that pride is a virtue. I don't define it that way. I see it as an emotion - the result of practicing other virtues - the feeling that indicates healthy self-esteem (and feels real good in the meantime). A virtue to me is behavior you practice that involves a choice, like honesty (especially self-honesty), commitment to principles despite inner longings to the contrary and outer adversity from other people, and things like that.

I think that is one of the reasons I had a bit of a problem wrapping my brain around some of the things you were saying.

Michael

Post 54

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:18am

Loose ends...

Jeff (post 22): thanks, and can't wait to read your thoughts on this important topic.

Tom (post 34): As you may have noticed (others have!), when attacked or insulted, I tend to respond in kind, so I've been harsh at times with some people here. But I get none of that feeling of rancor or condescending tone from you. I find you to be a gentleman and a very thoughtful and careful commentator. Whatever our disagreements -- and as this goes on, they really don't seem to be huge, at least in terms of premises -- it's been a pleasure to have these exchanges.

I do ask you to forego bringing up my older commentaries from the 80s on the topics of Peikoff or "Fact & Value." Raising those issues here would only become a distraction to the points we're grappling with, in the same way that bringing up John Cage has become a distraction from the more interesting philosophical issues over on Newberry's Mario Lanza thread. I'd be happy to discuss those issues with you, if you wish, but would prefer to do so privately.

In your post 45, Tom, you describe the malady of the platonic perfectionist wonderfully, and I especially smiled at the Jiminy Cricket bit, which is a wonderful descriptive metaphor. I never got the sense that you were advocating a concept of "moral perfection" that embodied that particular malady. I just can't quite grasp what your conception of it is, or understand what useful purpose it serves.

Shayne (post 42) seems to find in my posts on this topic insults that certainly were not intended. In post 41, I said "I think a 'perfection preoccupation' may be morally and psychologically damaging." [emphasis added] By describing, in cautionary terms, the psychological downsides that might arise from a preoccupation with moral perfectionism, I never stated or meant that those who defend "moral perfectionism" as a concept are psychologically damaged! This is also borne out where I stated (end of post 41) that I thought that the notion has valid conceptual uses for philosophers, and valid practical uses for artists -- but that I failed to see any practical uses in everyday life.

Post 55

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:32am

Thanks John and Michael for your excellent comments.

As some of you may know, I just quit smoking a little over a week ago. Michael and I had been talking on the phone and he told me something very important which helped me tremendously. We were talking about how I could quit when I got pregnant because I valued the health of my baby and so on. He helped me understand it from a completely different perspective. I quit smoking that night and I haven't smoked since.

Thanks Sweetheart. I love you. *purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

Post 56

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:39am

Robert: I suppose I was reading between the lines regarding the insult.

And because I've just been skimming this thread lately, I did miss your point about there being valid uses of "morally perfect" for philosophers. Thanks for pointing that out again.

I agree about there being no use for the term in everyday language (I've never said anything like "He's morally perfect.") However, I think the term is useful for anyone having a philosophic discussion about the issue, not just philosophers. Maybe that's just a quibble. Though maybe not, because I still have the same problems with your original article that I had when we started all this.

Post 57

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:46am

Kat, congratulations on the life change!!

Post 58

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:38am

Robert,

Virtues and values must go together like peanut butter and jelly, lobster and butter, Pamela and Tommy Lee. ;^)

When we talk of moral perfection, we aren't talking about it in a platonic disembodiment (without values), and we aren't saying that we must be obsessed with "excessive self monitoring." The monitoring should be neither too much nor too little -- to paraphrase Mozart's character in "Amadeus." And the monitoring must be correlated to our values, our pursuits in life. In fact, one cannot monitor one's virtues unless one has a context for monitoring. And that means having values to think about to give them context.

For example (to use examples given by Joseph and Ed), if we have an inclination to daydream or watch TV right now instead of doing, let's say, an important proposal for our work, then we might have dozens of concrete facts concerning our values (work and play) to consider. If we're being rational (monitoring), we'd have to ask: Can the work be postponed? If so, for how long? Can I play for an hour or even a day or something in between? Can I maybe veg or squeeze in 15 minutes of solitaire? Is the proposal too important for me to play? Can the proposal be backed up without causing me or my cohorts harm? If it did cause some discomfort to a cohort, would they mind or allow me to make it up some other time? Could I perhaps curtail the report in this case without hurting my chances at achieving what I need to achieve? If I must do the report now, then maybe I could work fast to ensure I get it done, and then I'll treat myself to some beer and TV later. How important is goofing off? Do I really need to play right now or am I just feeling lazy and perhaps just not wanting to do this report? Can I do this report now and then reward myself for weeks of hard work in which I've not taking hardly any time off? Am I feeling too overworked right now to do a good job on the report, and does that really matter if I have to do it anyway? If I play now and do the report later, will I have enough time for my wife/partner/child/exercise/avocation?

I don't think we have to go through such extensive considerations every time we want to play -- only when we have possibly obvious conflicts. Otherwise, if we've determined that other main values have been satisfied recently, then play is something that will come naturally -- though still with perhaps a brief evaluation of where one is at in his life to be sure the play is appropriate.

The guidelines enveloping these questions are values. How important is my work? How important is my play? How important are my other values? All of which constitute some of your time and may be affected by your decision.

The only time we could have "excessive" monitoring is if we overemphasize facts or opinions or issues that obviously do not correlate to our values and virtues. In that case, we would be acting irrationally and should simply focus on the facts. If we find ourselves fretting over such decisions, we usually don't have our values clear or perhaps have some psychoepistemological issues clouding our mind. (There could be an error of knowledge that we make in this scenario, but I'm referring only to those facts that a rational mind can make a decision on by focusing.)

We can be "perfect" in the above scenario if we've got our values right and if we're being rational.

Post 59

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:50am