RoR: Forum

Laj, you said:

--------------
"I am not convinced that a singular focus on intentions apart from results or results apart from intentions can capture morality. I think that the agreed upon standard captures the intentional part, but devalues the result-oriented part. I have seen individuals whose best in specific situations wasn't good enough, and while I can laud their efforts, I cannot argue that they really deserved more. And I'm sure that they would be far more happier if I could have helped them improve their performance to get the job done than they were when I congratulated them on the content of their character."
--------------

Laj, you bring up a point about intentions vs results. To be sure, there is a wild card of circumstance that steers results in different ways--sometimes contrary to intentions. But there is absolutely nothing that one can do about random circumstance--it is amoral (morality deals solely with volitional aspects of reality). Throwing in circumstance (results), without adjusting for a moral agent's rational reflection on said results, is a mockery to morality--morality is about growing into virtue through time, it is not about instant results in endless circumstances.

Aristotle spoke to this when outlining the formula for happiness [paraphrased]: the marriage of a persistent focus on virtue AND good fortune. Just because one good man has failed to be rewarded in kind does not IN ANY WAY detract from the rightness of his action (we can only play odds in life; and the best "bet" is the rational self-interest; ie. the morality, outlined by Rand).

Robert B., you said:

--------------
"How can one know that he is being completely rational in any given circumstance?"

"On any given issue, is one more minute of diligent thought possible? Desirable? How much time do we devote specifically to career pursuits? Can more time be taken out of a hobby, sleep, some other diversion? How much? What is the balance of productive thought to other values? To one's mate, family, dog, recreation? Given the importance of philosophy, how much time does one put in studying Objectivism? And what, then, constitutes 'context-dropping'?"
--------------

Robert, your very tenacity to question these things IS what moral perfection is--ironically, you have answered your own criticisms. We have to persistently ask these questions--THAT'S what morality is all about--persistent mental diligence in the matters important to human life and happiness.

Ed

Post 181

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:19pm

Ed,

Let me go ad hominem a sec:

Robert, your very tenacity to question these things IS what moral perfection is--ironically, you have answered your own criticisms.

What a wonderful way to say what I have been saying.

I don't agree with the "ironically" though. He was merely addressing another "slant," one that has caused a lot of grief.

Knowing Robert, he will emphatically agree with your quote! //;-)

Nice, dude.

Michael

Post 182

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:54pm

Michael, you said:

"What a wonderful way to say what I have been saying."

And there are no less than 2 ways to take this statement!

1) That I've found a truly wonderful way to say the things you've been saying.

AND / OR

2) That I'm a second-hander--groping for unearned credit by merely standing on the shoulders of intellectual giants--and stating what I see, and for all to hear (yes MSK, I view you as one of the intellectual giants abound).

I think that you meant a little of both--but while you may be a little "pissed" at "number one" you may feel "crappy" about "number two" (pun intended).

What I've noticed around here is that there is a select group of people that keep me honest--and that you are among this group.

Michael, I thoroughly enjoy your seemingly care-free, though counter-intuitively persistent, focus on reason and "right"-ness. If you would kindly pardon the gracious pun, you seem to lift the "heaviness" of an argument, as if you were an Atlas or something (e.g. holding up the world; so that it can rotate properly).

Your light-hearted "right"-ness is awfully refreshing to me. But that's enough about the merits of you--what about that criticism of yours, about irony and slant.

Please expound on these 2 things. I think I get the picture (EXCESSIVE analysis leads to operational paralysis), but I'd like to hear it from the Grand Observer, himself!

Ed

Post 183

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:39am

Fred,

Yes indeed!!! I had done the search (on the CD-Rom), but made the decision to try to argue the case in my own words.

Thanks.

Tom

PS a technical point. Did you high-light the text on the cd and copy/paste to the post or what? Just send me a PM so we don't take up the thread.

Post 184

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:03am

Abolaji,

I think I did misunderstand you, and I'm sorry for that. My goal here is two-fold, 1) to get rid of any remnants of the notions of "original sin" and the altruist standard for "moral perfection" and 2) to define as clearly as possible the Objectivist standard.

In that regard, may I suggest that you check the premise behind the idea that "nobody's perfect" can mean "knowing your limitations." Doesn't perfection, properly understood, include working within one's limitations? For man, for example, omniscience is not a standard of perfection BECAUSE man's mind is limited. See the quotes from AS given in Fred's post, above.

Tom Rowland

PS I, to, think that the phrase "I did my best" is roughly the same as "nobody's perfect." As a teacher I often hear both. I usually say something like, "well, let's work on getting your best, better, OK?"

Post 185

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:04am

I've been a little perplexed trying to follow this thread. It seems like the subject gets so interwoven that I eventually get lost.

I will take it as an initial assumption that a persons intentions are to act perfectly morally as defined by Objectivist standards. Given that, it seems to me that moral actions (defined as actions with a moral purpose that work to maximize the achievement of that moral purpose) depend on a combination of three things:

1. Knowledge:
Our knowledge of all the facts in a given situation is rarely perfect. We must make decisions based on what we know, knowing we don't have perfect knowledge.

2. Reasoning skills:
I suppose it is possible for a person to hone their reasoning skills to perfection. I know my reasoning skills could use improvement.

3. Native intelligence:
I don't know if there is a standard for "perfect intelligence". We measure intelligence on a bell curve, I don't think there is an absolute standard or a perfect score on an intelligence test.

I conclude that even with perfect intentions there cannot be perfect execution of moral acts. But, we behave morally when we constantly strive to improve our knowledge and understanding, identify our mistakes when they happen and refine our goals. If we ever measured our own morality as "perfect" we would cease to strive to improve it. It is more valuable to try to measure and improve our own morality than to measure the morality of others because our achievement of our goals is much more dependent on our actions than it is the actions of others.

Post 186

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 10:57am

Ed,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Thank you for such nice compliments. Atlas holding up the world to make it spin easier? Hmmmm... where in earth did you get that metaphor anyway? Second hand maybe????

//;-)

Joking aside, YOU are definitely not second hand. Long winded at times (as I tend to get), but the wind is all yours, be it breath, burp or fart.

(Ooops, sorry... can't seem to resist a wisecrack...)

On the issue of irony and "slant," Robert Bidinotto has had a long history of watching the Objectivist movement from the inside. He reports, as do many, many others that I have read, that "moral perfection" has not been used as a serious concept by some core individuals (and other not so core ones), but instead as a whip to keep people in line and/or crucify them with. It has turned into the Objectivist cross, similar to the Christian cross, both a torture instrument and symbol of "love" (er... "love of reason" for us).

(Ahem... that last line just sort of popped out all by itself... I kinda like it...)

This whole discussion about moral perfection has had the subtext of trying to get the concept away from such misuse and putting it back into the realm of serious ideas.

So did Robert answer his own criticism by being morally perfect on analyzing the validity of it? He sure gave one hell of a good example, but "ironically" he did not crucify himself.

Others sure are trying, though.

//;-)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 4/29, 10:59am)

Post 187

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 6:06am

Mike,

You referred to "other" facts. Since you now admit that there were no "other" facts...

I wrote:

A fascination with "moral perfection" is pathetic.

I meant that the fascination is pathetic because it often detracts from the real question of what should actually be done in specific contexts, which is the much harder question. If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't apologize for making that statement. However, if you take it that I meant that anyone discussing moral perfection is pathetic, then I see no reason why I am not pathetic by such a standard - after all, I chose to join this discussion. I don't enjoy self-abasement either.

Ayn Rand was fighting a specific standard of moral perfection when she wrote, a standard that was in dire need of a worthy opponent. The standard she fought against was allied with communism. This moral standard claimed that the good that an act does for others (or even the intention that an act will do good for others and not oneself) makes it a virtuous act. Rand popularized and to some degree, discovered a standard that allowed self-interest and self-realization to be seen in moral terms in their own right. I think that to some degree, her polemics seem to overstate the case against helping others, but given the nature of communism and the widespread belief in socialism, I think that a good deal of her truculent style was definitely required to create and spread an American subculture that embraced individualism. The way a message is conveyed is often as important as message and I think that Rand's conviction was more helpful than detrimental to her cause. If I was to assess Rand's writings as being more a fascination with moral perfection than an attempt to transform the culture, I would probably call her writings pathetic too in that respect.

As for the personal reasons that motivate my posts, they'll have to remain personal for now.

Post 188

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 7:31am

Brendan,

I believe that by "realistic", you mean "practical". I agree. That's what I think that morality should really be about. How would moral perfection look like in practice? How do we tell that others are not exercising that standard?

Robert B,

Thanks for your enlightening comments on balance.

Ed,

I understand the context in which Aristotle was speaking, and I have no serious quibble with it. Has what Aristotle written helped you decide what the right thing to do in a particular circumstance is? Or has it given you a standard by which to judge your actions?

I have no doubt that Aristotle's writings can inspire you to do what you think is right when others with obviously base motives tempt you to do something immoral. In that sense, standards of perfection are inspirational and can foster resolve, and that is why I think that they are important. However, I think that the important question of what to actually do and how to do it (to achieve this or that value or goal) is often ducked by those who who discuss abstract and impractically motivated standards of moral perfection.

Post 189

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:41am

Tom,

PS I, to, think that the phrase "I did my best" is roughly the same as "nobody's perfect." As a teacher I often hear both. I usually say something like, "well, let's work on getting your best, better, OK?"

These are my precise sentiments. "Let's work on getting your best better" is the attitude I admire. I would also appreciate some specific guidance on how to make my best better and some possible results that I may use to see that I am making progress and I would value this more than the general statement that I am not doing my best. Of course, that's just my empiricist bent. If the fact that a person can do better requires a standard of perfection, then that is a good reason to have such a standard, but like I've said a few too many times, I think many people like to have the standard just to moralize and have little to contribute towards the goal of helping others.

In that regard, may I suggest that you check the premise behind the idea that "nobody's perfect" can mean "knowing your limitations." Doesn't perfection, properly understood, include working within one's limitations? For man, for example, omniscience is not a standard of perfection BECAUSE man's mind is limited. See the quotes from AS given in Fred's post, above.

Omniscience is another one of those abstract words that needs practical qualification. I don't think anyone I've read has ever used omniscience as a practical standard for decision making - the claim that there are lots of things that a person doesn't know that may and often do improve person's decision making process (when they are known) is sufficient to make the point. However, my specific thoughts on different perspectives of the nature of knowledge and belief are immature, so I don't want to tie myself in knots with expositions of unclear thinking.

I agree that perfection can also be properly understood as working within one's limitations, but of course, to apply that standard, we need to move to the harder question of what those limitations are in practice and how to deal with them. At what point does one find the balance between thinking and acting? Can you answer that apart from a context? And what standard would you use?

Post 190

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:56pm

Laj, you said:

" ... we need to move to the harder question of what those limitations are in practice and how to deal with them. At what point does one find the balance between thinking and acting? Can you answer that apart from a context? And what standard would you use?"

Laj, I answered this problem in post 180 (response to Robert B.)

Sorry to interrupt here, Tom. I hope I haven't preempted you from responding--I thoroughly enjoy your talent and all-around magnanimity.

Ed

Post 191

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 11:23pm

Abolaji.

You referred to "other" facts. Since you now admit that there were no "other" facts...

Whazzat?

I don't get what that means. You specifically asked me to point out any other factual mistakes in your first post. I saw no other facts and said so. Whaddya mean "referred to other facts" or "admit that there were no other facts"?

Hmmmm...

Are you one of those dudes who likes to get into the I Said - You Said types of discussion instead of actually talking about the ideas in themselves?

I find a fascination with I Said - You Said discussions to be pathetic.

Do you get the feeling now that I am speaking about you.here? I wonder why? I can always argue later that I never said "you" in that statement and bla bla bla.

That's exactly what you did dude. And I ain't biting.

You also gave your own opinion of why Rand wrote her works. I find it incomplete.

I personally will stick with her own stated purpose of presenting the ideal man in her fiction. As to nonfiction, it varied a bit, but in general it was to elaborate on the philosophy presented in her fiction. Fighting against Communism/Socialism, other standards of moral perfection and so forth were consequences and important, but not the main reason of her writing. The main reason (nonfiction) was to erect and solidify the grounds of a a new philosophical system.

Also, I remember her giving a personal, more emotional reason for all of her writing. It was to pay tribute to the spirit behind the American skyscrapers and life she saw in movies while in Russia, then later the spirit of the founding fathers of the USA.

Definitely not the I Said - You Said approach. More like the Build From The Ground Up approach.

Michael

Post 192

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:27am

Laj,

I think Ed's #180 reply to Robert B. in which he says that "persistent mental diligence" is the general standard, is correct.

But I sense that you want something more specific, am I right?

I'm not sure that something more specific can be had, at least from philosophy. You ask, for example, "at what point does one find the balance between thinking and acting?" And I think you're right -- that is completely context driven. That's where the specifics are possible with respect both to the limits and the standard. James and I had a good exchange on that point, where he talked about the need to set parameters within his field. The same could be said for mine.

In my field, such things as "native mental capacity", size and shape of hand, finger repetition speed and duration, exposure to music, hand-eye coordination, basic personal premises about teachers and authority figures, attitudes toward "perfection", work ethic, and many more, are part of the context that I have to think about and take action on, every day that I teach.

All philosophy can do (and all it should do) is say "keep thinking until you are satisfied that you have enough knowledge to take action, without expecting omniscience." YOU, in the final analysis, are the ultimate arbiter of action. Reality, of course, is the final arbiter of whether you were right.

Tom

EDIT PS: I want to emphasis that the "intention" to think is not what I'm advocating and not what Objectivism advocates, in my judgment. It isn't the intention to think that counts (the "I want to think") but actually thinking. In addition, the thought occurs to me that you are using the word "intention" in a more technically philosophical sense (along the lines of Kripke and Putnam?) to mean something along the lines of "the act of directing one's mind toward an object of thought". Is that where you're coming from?

Further edit. No, I don't think that's where you're coming from on re-reading your post. In fact I think you're asking philosophy to do something it can't do -- set standards for good results within a specific context that go beyond its scope qua philosophy. From a moral standpoint, the requirement is simply that one turn on one's mind. The results one gets are going to depend on how good one is at that -- how knowledgeable and practiced a thinker -- but philosophy can't set "results standards" for specific contexts beyond that.

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 4/30, 6:38am)

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 4/30, 6:51am)

Post 193

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 11:53pm

The nub of Tom Rowland's reply to Robert B is here:

Rowland:
>I suppose that the first question that needs to be answered is: in all of my 62 years, 43 in close proximity to Objectivists, including a few of the leading names, have I ever met a morally perfect person? My answer is yes, I think I have..

Now, *there's* a sensational claim for you! Think about it: moral perfection is something people have sought for centuries, rather like the philosopher's stone or a perpetual motion machine. Robert Bidinotto's essay sensibly debunked this notion as equally impossible. But wait: here's Tom Rowland offering hard evidence that such things do actually exist - that he has personally encountered morally perfect people (they are Objectivists, he hints, perhaps even "leading names" of the movement). Of course, such evidence would destroy Bidinotto's argument immediately, without any more philosophical to-do, just as a perpetual motion machine would rewrite the laws of physics. So naturally we're keen to see it!

>...but I’ll refrain from listing them.

Oh, right. In other words, Tom has a perpetual motion machine in his shed. Several of them in fact. Had them for ages. But for various reasons - he'd prefer to focus on discussing the philosophy behind them apparently - he can't let us actually see or examine them!

But while Tom is allowed to make evidence-free philosophic discussions, apparently Robert is not. Only a few paras later, we have this:

Rowland:
>..Objectivism “saddles people with…the pressure of moral perfectionism?” Cases, Robert, cases. You say that “the message…is 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.” Cases, Robert, cases...

Seems to me like you've got no choice but to live up to your own standards of argument. In which case we must insist: cases, Tom, cases...?

- Daniel

Post 194

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 10:18am

Daniel,

You are quite right to insist that I present cases. And I'll provide one case below.

When I started this project I started with a basic disagreement with Robert Bidinotto's generalization that "nobody's perfect" as it applies to morality. I believed, and still believe that we cannot legitimately discuss the cases before we are in agreement on the meaning of the terms. And I believed and still believe, that the standard of morality on this forum ought to be the one set down by Ayn Rand: the commitment to rational thought in every aspect of one's life on a daily basis.

Getting to some kind of agreement on just that and getting to some understanding that such a commitment doesn't eliminate errors, but that it does confine those errors to errors of knowledge, has taken some time. It still isn't clear to me that we are all in agreement on these points.

I find, in looking at the threads here, that some people are very quick to wave the moral bloody shirt, but leave a lot of the philosophical work undone. They are outraged -- perhaps justifiably -- and that is enough to set them off, throwing around moral evaluations in wild abandon, like cats playing with catnip, but going in circles none the less. They point at the bloody shirt, jumping up and down in anger, as though the bloody shirt was evidence of murder, when a defense attorney might not be so readily convinced.

I am not so readily convinced. I am in the process of writing a couple of articles arguing my case that will be posted on my site when it is up, and the links provided here at SOLO. The series will detail my case for the usual targets and against the standard arguments (including Kelley's). It is a necessarily long and demanding task, so I trust everyone will grant me some slack.

In the meantime, I do know a couple who I believe is the epitome of moral perfection. I was in their home on a weekly basis, sometimes twice a week. for a period of two years. I doubt, quite honestly that they would be called "leading Objectivists" by most. But Charles and Mary Ann Sures were, in my judgment, examples of "turning on the brain" in every aspect of their lives, to the best of my knowledge, on a daily basis. To get a sense of their style (which is not the same as morality) I recommend their memoir "Facets of Ayn Rand." Not only will you get a chance to see them and Ayn Rand close up, but I believe that it will (or should) go along way toward overturning the notion that "turning on the brain on a daily basis" is in any way an impediment to doing whatever it is you are doing -- from writing a novel to collecting stamps. Thinking, I believe, is the most natural thing in the world -- not automatic and not infallible -- but natural. Man is defined as the rational animal, after all.

Tom Rowland

"All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things."
-- Aristotle, Metaphysics Alpha, Ross translation.

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 5/02, 10:22am)

Post 195

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:11am

Well said - I was beginning to consider that I was the only one to which thinking was a natural thing for one to do [one needs training on how best to do so, but it is as natural as breathing - which also, by the way, one needs often training on how best to do]...

Post 196

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 6:31am

Mike,

Your original post in response to my post said:

You should check your facts (at least about Ayn Rand if you are too lazy to do the others) before tacking something like that on at the end of dumping on everyone

You ascribed a fairly common error to laziness. So I wanted to see the basis of your inference and find out whether you had some other evidence based on what I had written.

In any case, you are right - there is nothing to be gained from these back and forths.

You also gave your own opinion of why Rand wrote her works. I find it incomplete.

I didn't think it was complete, nor did I intend it to be. If you have a problem with what I specifically stated apart from its completeness, feel free to share.

Cheers,

Laj

Post 197

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 7:41am

Tom,

Yes, you are right that I want something more specific. My point is this: I don't think that most of the difficult problems in life are philosophical if philosophy cannot tell you what to do and how to do it in a way that isn't so vague that it cannot be used to distinguish the process behind one act from the process behind another. Rand went far beyond that and prescribed specific actions as being appropriate in specific circumstances.

I assess a person's character from some combination of what I know about the person's motives (based on my psychology of human behavior) and what I know about the results that the person consistently achieves in his life. Sometimes, I might factor in the specific context in which the person behaves. However, I think everyone does this. If philosophy advocates this, then we don't have anything of serious value to teach another person here. If philosophy gives specific standards that we can use to differentiate the moral value of one act from another in whatever context, then we are on to something.

I treasure my practical experience in judging people and their motives over whatever philosophical basis I may present for such. When I first heard people talk about how honest they were before I did business with them, I would take them at their word. Eventually, I realized that such words as "honest" took on different meanings for different people.

So when I talk to people, I take moral statements about "honesty" very loosely, and I recommend the same to other people - honesty has a clear meaning, but its standard is so high that it will not tell you what a person will do in one circumstance as opposed to another. Whether a person thinks that he is honest or not will never tell you whether he is honest or not, or whether he is a good basket baller and a lying philanderer.

So what do I do? I look for a track record of excellence. Check credit ratings. Ask about a person's employment history. Test and/or challenge the person and see what the person does. I don't care if a generally bad employment history is a result of an inability to think or breached rationality, no matter how defined. I've found that it is often easier to see that some people are meeting practical standards and that some other people are not than to teach people who are not meeting practical standards how to meet those standards or to guess why a person is not meeting a standard. I think that is the reason why some people like to discuss perfection in the abstract.

You wrote:

In my field, such things as "native mental capacity", size and shape of hand, finger repetition speed and duration, exposure to music, hand-eye coordination, basic personal premises about teachers and authority figures, attitudes toward "perfection", work ethic, and many more, are part of the context that I have to think about and take action on, every day that I teach.

Ultimately, I find these things more important than standards of perfection, more so because they are based on your practical experience in the field using theories that have served you well.

If, to use a quote from you:

The results one gets are going to depend on how good one is at that -- how knowledgeable and practiced a thinker -- but philosophy can't set "results standards" for specific contexts beyond that.

then I don't think that philosophy is dealing with the difficult questions.

Post 198

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 9:36am

Tom Rowland:
>And I believed and still believe, that the standard of morality..(is)...the commitment to rational thought in every aspect of one's life on a daily basis.

>...such a commitment doesn't eliminate errors, *but that it does confine those errors to errors of knowledge*...(emphasis DB)

>I do know a couple who I believe is the epitome of moral perfection..Charles and Mary Ann Sures...

Thanks for following through with that, Tom. I'm sure the couple in question would be flattered by your assessment. The key question is therefore: would they agree? After all, it's a pretty big call to say that one only made "errors of knowledge" in one's life, and always reasoned - process-wise at least - perfectly and without error. If they wouldn't agree - and they would know, I guess - then I'm afraid you don't have an example after all.

Personally, I'm not sure they would. I think humans, marvellous as they are, are fallible in both ways. To *err* is human.

However, it's also clarified your position nicely, in that it's clear you consider errors of reasoning to be *moral* failures (we can exclude errors of fact, as this is not the thinker's fault). In short: to err is evil. I can't say I agree with that at all- in fact I think this sort of idea would lead to precisely the psychological problems that Robert B describes in his article.

Don't you see what happens when you change "to err is human" to "to reason infallibly is human"?

- Daniel

Post 199

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 1:49pm