Anyone who knows Rand's works, plus her students', knows that Rand never avoided hard questions.  Look at the conversation following her epistemology in Intro to Obj Epistemology and numerous other sources.

Professor Machan,

You wrote: "At a recent event I took part in a panel discussion and Virginia Postrel declared that she, for one, believes in the 'empirical' approach."  From the outside of the academy, occasionally looking in, I see a lot of use of "the empirical approach" cropping up in arguments.  And I sense that it goes beyond a simple reaction to the poor 'thinking' that has resulted in the psuedo-sciences, but that it is an attack on reason that substitutes group approval - peer reviewed studies - for critical thinking. That it is, at times, a strawman argument.  

Person A:  We should move towards any system that provides greater liberty.

Person B:  There is no empirical work to support such an assertion.

It has the feel of much of what I encounter in Progressive's arguments which are attacks on an epistemological approach that is implied to invalidate whatever my argument is. An example being, approaching morality as relative to a culture and therefore any attempt to use moral values to serve as a foundation for a political principle is treated as naive.

Have you written on this use of standing on "the empirical approach" as an inadequate argument or epistemological problem? Or read anyone else who is seeing this phenomena?

Deontological v. Consequentialist

Tibor R. Machan

When working out what should guide public institutions and policies in our lives and human communities, those who chime in from ancient to contemporary times have advanced various proposals and they have often been divided into two groups.  Members of one of these advance certain basic principles that ought to ground the institutions and policies, while those of the other suggest that the way to decide is by focusing on the anticipated consequences, never mind any purportedly firm principles (which tend, in any case, to become obsolete or misapplied).

In the United States and in other developed countries the former group is called deontologists while the latter consequentialists.  (In the history of political ideas Immanuel Kant is deemed to be the quintessential deontologist while John Stuart Mill the most prominent consequentialist.)  Deontologists try to identify principles by which we ought to live and guide our public affairs--for example, a set of basic rights everyone supposedly has and which may never be violated; this will, argues the deontologist, insure justice and other good things in community affairs. For the consequentialist the idea that should govern is whether some policy most effectively promotes what is desirable--for example, spend whatever is necessary so as to eliminate poverty and sickness, never mind if anyone’s rights are violated in the process since those rights mostly tend to be obstacles to what needs to be done.

Is this a good, useful distinction?  I have my doubts.  For one, no one can tell for sure what the result or consequence of a course of action or public policy will be down the line, not certainly in any detail. And when it is possible to tell, it is because we have discovered that following some principle is likely to bring forth a given result.  The actual actions or policies are not available for inspection until after they have been tried.  So if we are to be guided by anything, it cannot be the results, which lie in the future and are mostly speculative.  It would have to be certain rules or principles that we have found to be helpful in the past when we deployed them.

On the other hand, principles are always limited by the fact that they were discovered during the past that may not quite be like the present and future or, even more likely, the scopes of which are limited by what we know so far. Thus, for example, take the U. S. Constitution that contains a set of principles (especially in the Bill of Rights).  It is subject to amendments in part so as to update these principles in light of new knowledge and new issues in need of being addressed. Once amendments are seen as possible, even necessary, strict reliance on the principles is admittedly hopeless.

So then what about the two kind of approaches, deontological versus consquentialist? Neither is really adequate to what human beings need to guide their lives.  Yes, they will have to identify certain ethical, political, legal and other principles--e.g., in medicine, engineering, or automobile driving--but once they have done so they will still need to keep vigilant so as to make sure they aren’t missing some good reason for updating these.  However, focusing entirely on the consequences of their actions and policies will not do the job either since those are not yet here to deal with.  They will have to ease up to them with the help of the principles, more or less complete, that they have found to be soundly based on their knowledge of the past.

         Fortunately, although our knowledge is rarely complete--and never final--about anything that surrounds us in the world, the world itself tends to be fairly steady and predictable (once one has studied it carefully, without bias or prejudice such as wishful thinking).  It is not possible to escape the need to balance reasonably well established principles and expected consequences. With these in hand, many of our tasks and challenges are likely to be managed pretty well although we need also to be prepared for surprises.  There is no substitute for paying close attention.

Eva:

I wrote:

It's not clear why anyone in America regards following the USSR onto the trash heap of centrally planned command and control 'the' economy running is such a hot idea, unless those someones were once deliberatly crippled by an intellectual onslaught left over from a once global conflict for domination of two contrary ideas:  free association/individual liberty vs. forced association/the state uber alles(and all of its trivially distinguishable variants.)

You wrote:

"Not even Warsaw block countries followed the USSR into state command systems. Your slippery slope isn't interesting."

I replied:

>>>It's good to learn that central planning was not a significant economic feature of the failed Soviet Union, >>>

You replied:

So have you taken your medicine today? 'State command and central planning are synonyms.

So have you swallowed your instruction today? 'USSR and USSR are not synonyms, they are the same identical thing; as well, and on this I am almost certain,  as I am not totally up to date on the swill being spoon fed at today's Dust Bunny Us, but did you know? America is not a former Warsaw Pact nation, nor has ever aspired to be one.   At least when this was a free nation.

This is fun.  Tell me about Estonia(Germany, and even Sweden) backiang away from the abyss, I'm all ears.  Yes, America would be made of up of complete idiots to not do what even former Warsaw Pact nations like Estonia were not suicidal enough to do, which would be, lurch towards that abyss.   I not only agree, it was my exact point.

Where should the Rand estate send the check?   How can we keep you spouting these excellent arguments?   Are they available in other languages?   Would Rand's estate get a quantity discount if they preprinted in bulk? 

Oncle F.

OK, I guess I'm getting over my head in terminology that I'm not familiar with.  Here's my thoughts on Machan's latest post about Deontological versus Consequentialist:

People going by principals tent to be traditionalists, who go by rules and are afraid to break the rules because they don't understand why they are following the rules in the first place, and they wouldn't understand why doing something different than the rules might be better or worse.

New principals are found by making hypothesis (anticipating) about the consequences of a kind of action, and then experimenting to see whether they are correct.  Unfortunately people focusing on anticipated consequences can make mistakes about cause & effect.  And if they fail to understand or identify the previous experimentation and conclusions that caused the currently effective principals, then they may very well deviate in action from those previous principals and fail.

Having people who don't understand the reason why the current effective principals are policy, and who make mistakes in conclusions about cause & effect...  can have terrible consequences.

People who want to manipulate others take advantage of these problems, and even encourage it by making it seem like they believe invalid ideas and preaching invalid ideas.  Take Alan Greenspan for example.  Ben Bernanke.  I read press releases where I know they must know they are spewing out 1984 doublespeak...

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/03, 1:20pm)

On youtube:

"Share" tab, "Embed" tab, copy: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V4UEwdZAPsA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

On RoR editor:

Insert->"Insert Video"->"Embed" tab, paste.  Click OK.

By the way, on the mac, I think the mac might have a different button than windows machines for the "Ctrl" button, if you want to use the keyboard shortcuts to copy and paste (ctrl+c & ctrl+v).

Yes, it's like me joining a discussion blog among communists only to post constantly against communism.  Not very subtle way to attempt sabotage.

Implicit in glamour is gradient; "a sense that one's life is lacking in some way."    The power of glamour is to flash a signal of attraction to meandering, struggling humans dealing with gradient in the universe.   Here is a vision of a path of less resistance to some sense of well being.    It is a powerful signal.    It is an abusable signal, politically.

regards,

Fred

Dean:

I also especially enjoyed that panel discussion.   A couple of observations stood out to me.

1] Tibor M, commenting on the attempts to maintain a kind of 'modest tone'; never harsh or angry, a civil tongue, and so on, and ending that with the lament "Unfortunately it takes two to tango."  (around 36:35)

Implying, to fight an ideological battle from a kind of behavioral -- reasoned -- high ground.   I understand that, and admire it, and am also grateful for it.   But there is a name for rape victims who politely resist rape: 'the raped."    There is a name for slaves who politely resist slavery: "slaves."    And there is a name for free people who politely resist alternatives to freedom: "the un-free."     In the 60s and 70s, those harsh comparisons would be sensational, inflammatory, hysterical, hyperbole to be laughed at.   Probably in 2014, too.    But that begs the question; then why the lament above, and the implicit message, which is, that highroad has failed so far to quell the rout?

2] There was a celebratory discussion of some kind of 'libertarian moment' in this nation.   In this nation?   The very fact that in the 60s and 70s, a movement focused on 'liberty' would be considered 'fringe' and 'nascent' should set the hair on fire of those who suddenly wake up in this political context.    It is a victory of some kind, today, after the avalanche of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60's and 70's and a resurrection from the arctic of national thought that libertarian ideas are so well established -- as a new foothold in -this- nation -- that both parties of power equally despise and trivialize and attack those ideas from the fringe.    But that is not a celbratory victory, it is a bare existential victory.     From my point of view, it has been a near rout.   We can celebrate the 'near' but it is still a rout.  The damage is deep and fundamental and thickly woven into this nation's character today.    The TeaParty is presently a sand bottom blow up doll for both parties of power to take turns setting up and knocking down.    If the goal is limited government for the last 50 years, then the nation is moving precisely in the wrong direction.    It's as if, no matter which party of power has the ball, they are both scoring in the same endzone.   At this point, it is clear that this nation is not going to be poltiically convinced, by argument or debate, to be turned around from its hundred year course; it is simply going to expand the once federal government until it fails, even as it brings the nation to its knees.. 

If there is a sign of success, I think it is the following:  that libertarians are equally demonized by both parties of power.   They are taken seriously enough as a political threat to demonize today. 

3] I could be wrong, but I sensed a certain boredom in Tibor when the panel went off into a 'remember when?' discussion of the glory days of Ventura Publisher/GEM days and early markup.   The discussion was almost as long as the historical period when that platform was dominant.  (I also remember those days; I used the same tools to self-publish technical manuals for my products.)    It seemed a little like folks distracted by "Hey look! A squirrel!" ... and Tibor kind of uncomfortably looked like he wanted to get back to the evolution of the ideas, not the mechanics of formatting of the ideas in 1986.   No wonder he took off to Europe.  But, in fairness,  the panel topic was the formative years of a print publication.

4] "That's a little like saying we don't understand 'astrology;' macro-economics is a phony field"  (42:00 to about 42:45)  Should be a quote.  Hallelujah.   Arguing in terms of macro-economics is already losing the debate; the GOP has long lost the debate.

5] I am disappointed that Tibor is long no longer a more frequent contributor(especially after hearing his spirited assertion in 4.])  I hope to rediscover archived issues.   But I was encouraged enough to subscribe, if nothing else, as an anti-dote to what comes pouring over the transom daily.

regards,

Fred

Steve:

We discussed this before, but to me, one of the most manipulative(and effective)examples of Madison ave Glamour was/is Apple's core marketing campaign, summarized as, the projection of the image of acceptance into a non-existing community of cool that, it is implied, can be achieved simply by purchasing Apple's latest.    Not only can't that be achieved by purchasing their latest product, but, that community in fact does not actually exist, except in those dreadlocks flinging silouetted ads.   Because the itch is never scratchable, the itch forever remains, and the attempt can only be made again and again and again, lather, rinse, repeat.

Marketing genius, and when the crappy undersized yet stylishly micro sized connectors inevitably fail after only 3 months of use, a twentysomething 'genius' at their storefront will hand out begrudging forgiveness and evem renewed approbation -- realizable only by buying the latest.  

What did you do to your Key to The Community, you graceless fatfingered beast?

It's OK; the Community will always forgive you.  Here is your new key.   Try not to break it this time.

It's a variant of other marketing campaigns, but none have ever done it better than Apple.

regards,

Fred