RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Benefactors versus Malefactors

Wednesday
June 22, 2005

Benefactors versus Malefactors by Luke Setzer

Assessing the character trait of benevolence in others provides the fastest way to size up those others as worthy of your time and effort in building productive relationships. This holds true regardless of how they may identify themselves. Other qualities, such as their capacity to reason effectively, certainly deserve attention. However, developing a large pool of benevolent network contacts with whom to form more concrete and productive relationships will best serve your life. Relationships with malefactors deserve swift terminations regardless of their sophisticated objections. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (34 messages)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:32am

Gee, just stick to the ideas and arguments. You stated a lot of truths, but the bottom line is: negative and authoritarian. Ad hominem rather than reason. Let the bad boys and girls be what they are; their arguments will speak for themselves. Out of that: character.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 6/22, 1:39am)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:40am

Luke:

A fascinating article. Given the recent interpersonal rancor here at SOLO, it's wonderful that you've written an article which will pull us together in a common cause.

Identifying malefactors seems like the ideal cause.

With your clear list we'll have no trouble identifying malefactors. They're the ones who just want to be right, right? They shouldn't be hard to spot on SOLO, because so few people here show evidence of wanting to be right!

I can't wait to get started. Our mission is clear. Let's get the evil bastards.

I'm delighted that SOLO is "send[ing] well-grounded moderators on 'search and destroy' missions for damage control of such louts." Two questions:

Where do I sign up for this activity?
Who's on the hit list?

Unbelieveable. Will people never learn?

Nathan Hawking

.

(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 6/22, 1:51am)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 2:01am

Boy did you hit the nail on the head, Luke.

Kudos.

This forum is all about Sense of Life, so setting some criteria to determine the sense of life of whom we interact with is extremely beneficial - especially at this moment that Solo has been going though.

I can almost hear the objections of some starting to rumble in the distance...

"You can't judge or measure Sense of life. You can't ever identify it, not really. I have my rights. I am rational and you are rationalizing!"

(For this last word you can choose "evading," "dishonest" or a few other assorted Randroid bromides.)

I have no qualms about letting views that are counter to Objectivism have their say here. But as this is an Objectivist forum, obviously if these are in the majority, the purpose gets shot all to hell.

And, as you so rightly stated, if the joy dies, the benevolence, then what are we doing here? Providing a free soapbox to those who would kill it?

Good analyses like yours are the powerful intellectual ammunition we need to expose and trounce hidden agendas.

Bravo.

Michael

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:09am

MSK wrote:

I can almost hear the objections of some starting to rumble in the distance...

"You can't judge or measure Sense of life. You can't ever identify it, not really. I have my rights. I am rational and you are rationalizing!"

(For this last word you can choose "evading," "dishonest" or a few other assorted Randroid bromides.)

Ah, yes, the "clever-dick smart-ass word-play wankers posturing as philosophers who ... simply try to tear apart the stated positions of others."

To them, I offer five words that spell my own liberation: I do not need you.

They have the right to express themselves to the extent that the forum owners let them. I have the right to ignore them.

They have the right to accuse me of "evading." I have the right to ignore them.

They have the right to accuse me of "fearing" them. I have the right to ignore them.

I do not need them.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/22, 5:10am)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:59am

Wonderful article, Luke. Excellent timing as well.

There is something to be said for looking at quality rather quantity of the people you let into your inner circle. As objectivists, the criteria is tough to make it past the gatekeeping question, "do I need you?" Many people do have their own agenda, which usually becomes pretty apparent after awhile. Sometimes, as in the case of the anarcho-libertarians, it runs counter to what this forum is about. Others just try to wear the others down with their turbo-charged analness... by splitting hairs, trying to write rules and picking apart everyone elses words. I neither have the time or patience for that kind of stuff. I have better things to do with my time like selling my house and moving to Florida. ;-)

Thanks Luke, I will keep this stuff in mind when I am trying to make new friends after I move.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:41am

Luke,

Great article. Goodwill is easy to spot. Someone who argues benevolently will try to find points of agreement to work from. Those lacking goodwill will make sure those points of agreement never exist. They will make lateral move after lateral move avoiding any point of agreement. Let them play catch by themselves.

"I do not need you."

Very well put. You are the "personal flourishing" Master.

--grasshopper

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:52am

A mistake (using your term pseudo-objectivists) make is failing to distinguish between benevolence and altruism or, sometimes, even to acknowledge that benevolence is a virtue.  This issue gets lost in the rugged individualist, rational self interest agruements that are so often misconstrued as favoring social Darwinism. Altruism is other focused, an unearned debt. Benevolence is self focused and voluntary. It is okay to be kind, it is not okay to be a slave to kindness.

Men are social 'animals' as well as individuals.  They want to be with and interact with others, yet are often annoyed by the other. When others don't behave as self does or as self thinks they should behave, there is a tendency to 'enlighten' or even force conformity.

When one's pearls of wisdom are rejected some bestowers of wisdom choose to be offended.  "How wise I am, they say to themselves, how dare this other reject my glorious council? I have been demeaned." But, as reality is my witness, this is not what has happened, and this is where benevolence comes in.

If we are in control of our emotions i.e., other's do not cause them, taking 'offense' is not productive.    If you lead a man to 'wisdom' and he doesn't buy it, why should it offend you? You may be wrong or he may not be ready.  A man can not be reasoned out a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. Should he be punished simply for failing to appreciate your prescription for his welfare, and prevented from approaching wisdom on his own and in his own time ? I think not.

"It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of knowledge or with human evil. . .when one deals with irrational people, where argument is futile, a 'mere I don't agree with you' is sufficient . . ." AR ONL 4/62.

This quote from Rand should be kept in front of us as we post:

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of 'saving everyone's soul'--nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. --ibidem

Even Objectivists are entitled to a vacation.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:08am

Luke, I agree with your article. Often it is tempting when one is "new" to Objectivism to try to attack and take apart the arguments of those that disagree with you in a malevolent manner. We probably have all gone through that phase. It's sort of a process of growing up intellectually. Maybe some never grow out of it.

However, I want to raise a related point.
I am reading the "Six pillars of wisdom" at the moment. And one point NB misses so far is that feelings of insecurity or inadequacy can have positive as well as negative effects upon us.

How many men and women have been driven to achieve great things with a feeling they have to prove something either to themselves or others? Someone that is completely contented and has a high self-esteem may as a consequence lack motivation and ambition in their life.

I would be very surprised if there was one person on this earth, including NB, that didn't have some feelings of insecurity or inadequacy about themselves. However, it is how we deal with these that defines our success. I am not saying it is all one, or all the other. It is a balancing act obviously.

What do you think?

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:51am

Marcus asked:

How many men and women have been driven to achieve great things with a feeling they have to prove something either to themselves or others? Someone that is completely contented and has a high self-esteem may as a consequence lack motivation and ambition in their life.

I would be very surprised if there was one person on this earth, including NB, that didn't have some feelings of insecurity or inadequacy about themselves. However, it is how we deal with these that defines our success. I am not saying it is all one, or all the other. It is a balancing act obviously.

What do you think?

I agree with this observation. People like Martha Stewart, Anthony Robbins and other high achievers never rest on their laurels. They have an inner fire of the sort that Howard Roark manifested. Others act more like the mother of Peter Keating -- content with themselves despite their own medicority yet feeling entitled to have others pay them unearned attention.

The worst of the lot, the pseudo-Objectivists, judge their worth according to their beliefs rather than their achievements. This observation explains my statement, "I know some Christians who come closer to the Objectivist ideal than do some self-styled 'Objectivists.'" Most of my co-workers seek to achieve worthwhile goals and also practice Christianity in the typical American way -- going to church on Sunday, etc. They act in the tradition of the Protestant work ethic. They succeed in this world despite their belief in an afterlife, not because of it. By contrast, I met at least one young "Objectivist" who lived like a moocher on both his parents and the state and had a high pseudo self-esteem because of the "rightness" of his ideas. I need to write an article called "Hazards of Benevolence" documenting my failed attempts to mentor him at his invitation.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:03am

By contrast, I met at least one young "Objectivist" who lived like a moocher on both his parents and the state and had a high pseudo self-esteem because of the "rightness" of his ideas.

That's an excellent point. I look forward to your article.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:07am

Ironically, Luke, your constantly citing �clever-dick smart-ass word-play wankers posturing as philosophers� does not come off as particular benevolent or good-willed to me.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:15am

Please suggest some better names for them, Hong. Just because I advocate benevolence does not mean I will not also evaluate characters based on their actions, good or bad. It just means that I will not engage them after I identify them as malefactors unless I absolutely must.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:31am

Great article Luke, lots of good ideas here.

I certainly agree with these observations:

The worst of the lot, the pseudo-Objectivists, judge their worth according to their beliefs rather than their achievements. This observation explains my statement, "I know some Christians who come closer to the Objectivist ideal than do some self-styled 'Objectivists.'"

Ironically, while some religious people can as you say succeed inspite of their religious beliefs, it seems to me the "pseudo-Objectivists" often treat Objectivism as a religion rather than a philosophy, so being "doctrinally" correct then takes on a greater importance than actually being out and living their lives.

As for "clever-dick smart-ass word-play wankers posturing as philosophers", doesn't "pseudo-Objectivist" about cover it? :-)

MH

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:44am

Luke,
Tell me who are "them" specifically, and I'll tell your my honest opinion about them, and the bases of my judgment. By evaluating a malefactor or identifying an malevolent act, which can be committed by an otherwise benevolent person under extraordinary circumstances, we don't have to go on the offensive and become malefactors ourselves.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:56am

Agreed, Hong. Incidentally, I generally refrain from the colorful metaphors Linz uses when directly engaging individuals here. He has much more finesse in that skill than I do. In public, I prefer, as you suggest, to label an action or a person as "malevolent" and to proceed from there.

That said, I found the Linz line catchy enough to color my article for the sake of those who read it and say, "Oh! I know someone just like that!"

Based on our private e-mails, I think you and I both do know someone just like that who shall remain unnamed here. ;-)

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/22, 1:11pm)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:57am

Marcus:

I am reading the "Six pillars of wisdom" at the moment. And one point NB misses so far is that feelings of insecurity or inadequacy can have positive as well as negative effects upon us.

I'm thinking you meant the book The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem . (?)

I don't know if we could say he's missing it. For one, I guess it depends how you argue the values of insecurity or inadequacy in general- I've seen evolutionary psychology-type arguments that I thought were pretty depressing.

My take on it is that he comes from the position that those feelings do not possess any value in and of themselves. To paraphrase him, emotional information is important and needs to be checked out. His pillars are practices, several of which can be applied to those feelings. Also of great value, of course, is his exploration of those feelings in terms of his two-parted self-esteem model. I look at those feelings as things that need to be checked out, and then either acted on in some way, or mitigated in some way if they are discovered to be unfounded- which they can be.

I could do without those feelings, because they make me uncomfortable, unhappy, and unproductive- they mess with my feng shui. :) My job is to not (again as NB has said) "deny and disown," but rather to check out what they're about, and then take action. NB did us a great service by pointing out (and you can't point it out too much) that happiness is an appropriate, desirable, natural state for people to be in.

All this does speak to a deeper point relevant to the article, if you believe that a substantial number of behaviors can be traced to a person's level of self-esteem.

As to why we seem to at least talk a lot about certain behaviors being unproductively present within the Objectivist community, that's always been a $64,000.00 question. Everyone has theories. One of mine revolves not around the general, intense effect that has always been talked about when, say, first reading Atlas, but more in the nature of it; how and when it happens to people, who those people are, and so on. That comes from a mixture of my personal history with it, and observing others. In my case, I know that my life was forever changed for the better by it. On the other hand, I also know I was a Class A prick to a lot of people for a long time, when I shouldn't have been. It has the ability to temporarily wreak havoc with your social skills while you're sorting things out.

I guess one reason why I've always kind of scratched my head about any of the negativvity that has ever come up about NB, The Split, etc. is because if it weren't for coming into serious contact with his work quite a way into all this, I probably would have chosen to end my contact with O'ism, even though I loved the work. Instead, I was able to kindle a greater appreciation for it, and affect some significant changes in my life.

Another thing I think about when discussing the state of this philosophical movement is that it is very unique not just in what it is, but that it's relatively young, with its creator still pretty fresh in history. That kind of thing always accounts for some churn.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/22, 10:01am)

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:47am

Brant:

Gee, just stick to the ideas and arguments. You stated a lot of truths, but the bottom line is: negative and authoritarian.

You've identified something important about Mr. Setzer's article.

While I agree that we should not enter into discussion with any and all comers, that we have to make judgments about the value of any dialogue, Mr. Setzer's formula can just as easily become a rationalization for evasion.

Suppose we're defending a position, and we find ourselves confronted with unfamiliar ideas or arguments to which we don't know how to respond. Declaring the other person a "malefactor" with "hidden agendas" is a wonderful way to insulate ourself from having our ideas challenged.

Ad hominem rather than reason.

But... but... the other person IS evil, otherwise he or she would agree with us, right?

Let the bad boys and girls be what they are; their arguments will speak for themselves. Out of that: character.

I think what you just said is benevolent. I think Mr. Setzer's "search and destroy" idea is malevolent.

How ironic.

Nathan Hawking

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:17pm

Great article Luke. I'm glad you're part of Solo.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 2:05pm

I'm thinking you meant the book The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem .

Oops yes I do. That must be a Freudian Franklin Covey slip. The seven steps to happiness ;-)

Thanks for the info. I guess I will have to finish the book to comment further.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:00pm

Maybe instead of these inside argumentations and half-explanations that nominal outsiders like myself do not understand, someone could please explain WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?? I beg.