A Few of Rand's Contradictions

In the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand defines “axiomatic concepts” as true independent of any particular context and therefore beyond specification in terms of attributes or characteristics. Consciousness is one of those axiomatic concepts. Then, she says, “Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action…”

In Textbook of Americanism, p. 12, Rand says, “When you begin making conditions, reservations, and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion.” Then, she defines the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as “man’s right to live for himself …so long as he respects the right of others.” This seems to be the conditionalizing of a right. (Personally, I think if everyone has a right to live for himself, this logically already prohibits violating the rights of others.)

In the “Intellectual Ammunition Department” of The Objectivist Newsletter in July of 1962, Rand said, “There can be no compromise on moral principle.” There is always a good or bad, a black or white, answer to any question. To deny this is true is, in itself, an immoral gesture. However, she violates this principle when she says, “Under a two party system, the voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely the lesser of two evils.”

She also says that compromise is only defensible where two people are in agreement on basic moral principles. Politics is always contingent on prior philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth and value. She violates this principle when she says, “One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials)…if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.”

bis bald,

Nick

Post 1

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:58am

Nice try, Nick.

============================
In the “Intellectual Ammunition Department” of The Objectivist Newsletter in July of 1962, Rand said, “There can be no compromise on moral principle.” There is always a good or bad, a black or white, answer to any question. To deny this is true is, in itself, an immoral gesture. However, she violates this principle when she says, “Under a two party system, the voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely the lesser of two evils.”
============================

Recap:
There can't be compromise on moral principles.
There will always be a compromise in 2-party politics.
=========================
Therefore (assuming 2-party politics is all that can ever be possible to a nation-state), compromise is inevitable.

Rand merely said that -- under the current and improper, 2-party system -- we are forced to vote for maximized expected utility. We are forced to vote for a lesser of 2 evils. This, however, would NOT be the case if instant run-off voting were allowed (if your original pick didn't garnish enough votes -- you could pick the candidate, most-likely a Libertarian, who would receive your vote by default).

Nick, don't you get tired of knocking down straw men?

Ed

Post 2

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 4:51am

Add that as consequence, Rand didn't vote on many occasions.....

Post 3

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 7:09am

No viable political candidate can agree entirely with Rand. Most are religious. However, Rand did support Goldwater. Barbara Branden said, "a rational advocate of capitalism can cooperate with religious people who share his political principles, but only...in a movement that does not claim relgion as the base and justification of its political principles."

Rand strongly denounced Libertarians, even though many of them are good Objectivists. Peikoff denounces Kelley for working with them.

BTW, Ed, I notice you didn't touch the other three examples I listed. You attempt to refute only one and then imply that they are all straw men. No, that's a bit of an unsupported generalization. Are you getting tired?

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/17, 7:12am)

Post 4

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 2:55pm

Not tired, bored.

Ed
[perhaps more, later]

Post 5

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 3:02pm

I understand. The Bigot at the Bar got bored too. No insinuation meant.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 6

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 7:51pm

Nick,

... Rand defines “axiomatic concepts” as true independent of any particular context and therefore beyond specification in terms of attributes or characteristics. Consciousness is one of those axiomatic concepts. Then, she says, “Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness ...

What Rand was saying is that the "true-ness" of the axiomatic concepts was beyond (or not contingent in any way upon) any precise specification of attributes. Another way to say this is that reality isn't really real IF AND ONLY IF grass is REALLY green -- it's real regardless.

For example, when Rand identifies that "content" is a part of consciousness, she is merely restating the fact that consciousness is identification. In this respect, the fact that consciousness has content is not so much a specification of attribute -- but an immediate corollary of the fact that consciousness is identification (ie. identification REQUIRES content).

Rand says, “When you begin making conditions, reservations, and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion.” Then, she defines the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as “man’s right to live for himself …so long as he respects the right of others.” This seems to be the conditionalizing of a right.

What Rand was saying is that folks who put arbitrary conditions on rights don't "get it." In contrast, what you are talking about is the exercise of rights (rather than the rights, themselves). The rights themselves are "right" because of our nature -- and nothing and no one can make that "rightness" go away. For illustration, imagine the opposite of what Rand said in the second quote above:

"man's right to live for himself ... even if he tramples over the rights of other men."

Sound funny, Nick?

The issue hinges on "the exercise" of rights vs. "the rights," themselves. We have rights because of our nature. We get to EXERCISE those rights only when we refrain from violating the self-same rights of others. In a just society, rights-violators are locked away -- effectively taking away some of the exercise of their immutable, individual rights (for a while).

Another way to say this is that you do not have the right to do wrong to others. And any other viewpoint than this -- is patently absurd. There IS NOTHING that stands above the existence of man's rights -- though there can be things (eg. crime) that condition his EXERCISE of those rights. Do you get that, Nick?

Rand said, “There can be no compromise on moral principle.” There is always a good or bad, a black or white, answer to any question. To deny this is true is, in itself, an immoral gesture. However, she violates this principle when she says, “Under a two party system, the voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation ...

What Rand was saying is that one ought naught ever sell-out one's (knowably superior) convictions. In this case, the obfuscation is between the right means, and the right ends. True compromise is when you stop fighting for what's right, not when you fight in the right manner with the right means.

There can be no general compromise (ie. no moral "cease-fire"), but the very means available -- to those right ends that you seek -- can still be quite sub-optimal. In a certain sense, there IS a "specific" compromise then (ie. you would have done it another way -- if you COULD have). But, within the democratic system, there is -- for now, anyways -- only this one method (voting) available. But instead of criticizing the voting procedure (as a poor method for attaining one's aims), you go after Rand. Go figure.

She also says that compromise is only defensible where two people are in agreement on basic moral principles. Politics is always contingent on prior philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth and value. She violates this principle when she says, “One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy ...

What Rand was saying is that any true "compromise" between folks with discordant moral principles benefits the evil. And keep in mind what true compromise is. It's not even a compromise to choose the lesser of 2 available evils. You're not giving up a higher value for a lesser -- you were not in possession of a greater good; when you voted. You were utilizing the direct means available -- to maximize good and minimize harm.

The issue here hinges on an equivocation between the right ends -- and the right means to those ends. Your reasoning here arbitrarily detaches and isolates the value that action should aim at, from the right means to the end in mind. The end in mind when voting -- to remind you -- is to effect a political change. Rand was saying that there may, politically, be times to utilize others (even those philosophically inferior) for our purposes -- ie. to achieve a superior social system within the current political framework.

Get it, yet?

Ed

Post 7

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 9:06pm

Nick wrote,

In the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand defines “axiomatic concepts” as true independent of any particular context and therefore beyond specification in terms of attributes or characteristics. Consciousness is one of those axiomatic concepts. Then, she says, “Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action…”

Nick, if you expect us to respond, then you need to quote Rand directly and provide citations for the context. If you simply paraphrase her and then neglect to footnote the source, you can't demand an answer from us, even if some people might be willing to give you one.

In Textbook of Americanism, p. 12, Rand says, “When you begin making conditions, reservations, and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion.” Then, she defines the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as “man’s right to live for himself …so long as he respects the right of others.” This seems to be the conditionalizing of a right. (Personally, I think if everyone has a right to live for himself, this logically already prohibits violating the rights of others.)

Here you say that Rand is conditionalizing a right by claiming that one is obligated to respect the rights of others. Then you say, in so many words, that this does not amount to conditionalizing it, because a right "already prohibits violating the rights of others." So, which is it?

In the “Intellectual Ammunition Department” of The Objectivist Newsletter in July of 1962, Rand said, “There can be no compromise on moral principle.” There is always a good or bad, a black or white, answer to any question. To deny this is true is, in itself, an immoral gesture. However, she violates this principle when she says, “Under a two party system, the voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely the lesser of two evils.”

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a compromise of moral principle, since that's the best one can do under the circumstances.

She also says that compromise is only defensible where two people are in agreement on basic moral principles. Politics is always contingent on prior philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth and value. She violates this principle when she says, “One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials)…if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.”

Again, this is not a compromise of moral principle, since one has no better alternative. Any other choice would be worse.

- Bill

Post 8

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:26pm

I’ll respond to William first:

Nick, if you expect us to respond, then you need to quote Rand directly and provide citations for the context. If you simply paraphrase her and then neglect to footnote the source, you can't demand an answer from us, even if some people might be willing to give you one.

You’ve been telling me how little I know about Rand’s philosophy, as if you are the great expert. If you are, you should recognize these statements or be able to find them with little effort. I gave you enough information in the text to find them. I don’t think it should be necessary to use APA or MLA citation conventions to point out exactly where these statements are unless you challenge me, unless you say, “No, Rand didn’t really say that. Prove it.” And, I’m not demanding an answer from anyone. If you want to answer, you can. I’ve posted several things on the forum which are critical of Rand and of Objectivists which are not being answered by anyone.

Here you say that Rand is conditionalizing a right by claiming that one is obligated to respect the rights of others. Then you say, in so many words, that this does not amount to conditionalizing it, because a right "already prohibits violating the rights of others." So, which is it?

It is a fact that she says unalienable rights need no conditionalizing. However, when one says X is the case “if Y,” the “if Y” is the conditional for X. Technically, Rand is putting a conditional on an unalienable right. Now, I do that too, just to clarify that if everyone lives one’s own life, it already means that nobody is violating someone else’s right to live his or her own life. It isn’t logically necessary, though, to add the condition. It is implied. It would not be possible for “everyone” to live freely if some people are initiating force against others. I just don’t preface my redundancy by saying unalienable rights are unconditional. I just say they are natural rights, conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a compromise of moral principle, since that's the best one can do under the circumstances.

It is still voting for an evil. If there is no solid good or bad, black or white answer, Rand shouldn’t have said there always is one.

Again, this is not a compromise of moral principle, since one has no better alternative. Any other choice would be worse.

If you are forced to compromise, it is still a compromise.

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/17, 11:30pm)

Post 9

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 12:01am

What Rand was saying is that the "true-ness" of the axiomatic concepts was beyond (or not contingent in any way upon) any precise specification of attributes. Another way to say this is that reality isn't really real IF AND ONLY IF grass is REALLY green -- it's real regardless.

For example, when Rand identifies that "content" is a part of consciousness, she is merely restating the fact that consciousness is identification. In this respect, the fact that consciousness has content is not so much a specification of attribute -- but an immediate corollary of the fact that consciousness is identification (ie. identification REQUIRES content).

She says “content and action” are two attributes that are fundamental Conceptual Common Denominator of all concepts pertaining to consciousness… Check ITOE, 38.

What Rand was saying is that folks who put arbitrary conditions on rights don't "get it." In contrast, what you are talking about is the exercise of rights (rather than the rights, themselves). The rights themselves are "right" because of our nature -- and nothing and no one can make that "rightness" go away. For illustration, imagine the opposite of what Rand said in the second quote above:

"man's right to live for himself ... even if he tramples over the rights of other men."

Sound funny, Nick?

The issue hinges on "the exercise" of rights vs. "the rights," themselves. We have rights because of our nature. We get to EXERCISE those rights only when we refrain from violating the self-same rights of others. In a just society, rights-violators are locked away -- effectively taking away some of the exercise of their immutable, individual rights (for a while).

Another way to say this is that you do not have the right to do wrong to others. And any other viewpoint than this -- is patently absurd. There IS NOTHING that stands above the existence of man's rights -- though there can be things (eg. crime) that condition his EXERCISE of those rights. Do you get that, Nick?

Yes, I get that, Ed. I agree with it. Check the answer I gave to Bill. Also, if you want, read my post on Natural Rights. However, all that you said does not counter that Rand said unalienable rights should not have conditions, and her “if” phrase, “so long as he respects the right of others,” is a condition.

What Rand was saying is that one ought naught ever sell-out one's (knowably superior) convictions. In this case, the obfuscation is between the right means, and the right ends. True compromise is when you stop fighting for what's right, not when you fight in the right manner with the right means.

There can be no general compromise (ie. no moral "cease-fire"), but the very means available -- to those right ends that you seek -- can still be quite sub-optimal. In a certain sense, there IS a "specific" compromise then (ie. you would have done it another way -- if you COULD have). But, within the democratic system, there is -- for now, anyways -- only this one method (voting) available. But instead of criticizing the voting procedure (as a poor method for attaining one's aims), you go after Rand. Go figure.

She said black and white answers are always possible. She should have hedged on that a little.

What Rand was saying is that any true "compromise" between folks with discordant moral principles benefits the evil. And keep in mind what true compromise is. It's not even a compromise to choose the lesser of 2 available evils. You're not giving up a higher value for a lesser -- you were not in possession of a greater good; when you voted. You were utilizing the direct means available -- to maximize good and minimize harm.

The issue here hinges on an equivocation between the right ends -- and the right means to those ends. Your reasoning here arbitrarily detaches and isolates the value that action should aim at, from the right means to the end in mind. The end in mind when voting -- to remind you -- is to effect a political change. Rand was saying that there may, politically, be times to utilize others (even those philosophically inferior) for our purposes -- ie. to achieve a superior social system within the current political framework.

I disagree with you here. Rand would not justify using other people as means to an end. This is one place where she agrees with Kant and Sartre. People should be treated as ends, not as means.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 10

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 12:33am

Nick,

===================
She says “content and action” are two attributes that are fundamental Conceptual Common Denominator of all concepts pertaining to consciousness… Check ITOE, 38.
===================

Right. But I fail to get your point (and you, apparently, fail to get mine).

===================
However, all that you said does not counter that Rand said unalienable rights should not have conditions, and her “if” phrase, “so long as he respects the right of others,” is a condition.
===================

To repeat, the rights themselves do not have "conditions" per se (ie. inalienable means absolute). However, the exercise of the rights that you have (which you have because of the kind of creature you are) IS contingent on your chosen behavior.

If you decide to try to trample on the rights of others -- then you will be jailed; effectively stifling the exercise of your individual rights.

The conditional is not about whether you have rights or not -- it's about whether you will be allowed to exercise the rights that you do have (because of the kind of creature you are). Criminals ought not be able to exercise all the rights that they have (at least, for a while). It would be unjust to allow them to do so.

===================
She said black and white answers are always possible. She should have hedged on that a little.
===================

While black and white ends (answers) are always possible, black and white means (means to the black and white ends) are not always self-evident, let alone self-obvious. Objective ends for human action are knowable, objective means somewhat less so. When we justifiably bicker about politics -- we're justifiably bickering about the means; not the ends.

The correct ends are knowable through right reason -- to any man willing to engage in intellectually-honest discourse.

===================
Rand would not justify using other people as means to an end. This is one place where she agrees with Kant and Sartre. People should be treated as ends, not as means.
===================

When you vote for someone, Nick, are you really "using" them in the manner of which you speak? This seems quite a stretch. You are giving them your sanction, affording them the power to rule (somewhat). How is that equivalent to "using" them? If you grant me power -- I won't feel used. There is a reason for that.

The proper sense of being "used" is when one gains no power from the process. Let's say, for instance, that a man "uses" a prostitute (for sexual gratification). In that instance, she gains no power. It is the absence of power-gain that is essential to "using" someone.

When you use someone, you benefit at their cost. Voting for a right-wing conservative (because he's for lower taxes; while his opponent is a socialist pig) is NOT using him.

Ed

Post 11

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 8:58pm

After reading your first paragraph, I decided it has nothing to do with anything relevant to going out in the real world and living your life. Useless dissent follows. Instead of attacking details about as worthwhile as your big toenail, try attacking Rand for something meaningful outside of concept about an axiom.

Post 12

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 11:43am

LOL!

Oh, man, Dustin...you're new around here, aren't you? :-)
Welcome!

Erica

Post 13

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 1:08pm

Right. But I fail to get your point (and you, apparently, fail to get mine).

I get that “true-ness” of axiomatic concepts is beyond specification of attributes and that content can be an attribute of consciousness because it includes identity which includes content. This explains content. It doesn’t explain action. And, this still seems inconsistent with the talk of how axiomatic concepts, unlike contextual absolutes, are ultimate abstractions and therefore have no identifiable attributes which allow for further analysis or specification. They are supposed to be irreducible and terminal concepts. This apples not just to their true-ness.

To repeat, the rights themselves do not have "conditions" per se (ie. inalienable means absolute). However, the exercise of the rights that you have (which you have because of the kind of creature you are) IS contingent on your chosen behavior.

If you decide to try to trample on the rights of others -- then you will be jailed; effectively stifling the exercise of your individual rights.

The conditional is not about whether you have rights or not -- it's about whether you will be allowed to exercise the rights that you do have (because of the kind of creature you are). Criminals ought not be able to exercise all the rights that they have (at least, for a while). It would be unjust to allow them to do so.

I agree that you have, by virtue of being human, human rights, conditions of existence for the flourishing survival of humans. I also agree that we must imprison some people to secure the rights of people in general to freely exercise their rights. Not to do so would be to allow some people to violate the rights of others. This is not the same, though, as saying one has a right to pursue happiness so long as one respects the rights of others. One has the right regardless. It’s just that criminals ought not be allowed to exercise those rights. It would be unjust to allow them to do so.

While black and white ends (answers) are always possible, black and white means (means to the black and white ends) are not always self-evident, let alone self-obvious. Objective ends for human action are knowable, objective means somewhat less so. When we justifiably bicker about politics -- we're justifiably bickering about the means; not the ends.

The correct ends are knowable through right reason -- to any man willing to engage in intellectually-honest discourse.

Means and ends often become blurred. It would be a utilitarian end for the greatest good to go to the greatest number. However, communism is not the greatest means to get there. It sometimes becomes the end, forgetting the individual ends of the individuals who make up the collective.

When you vote for someone, Nick, are you really "using" them in the manner of which you speak? This seems quite a stretch. You are giving them your sanction, affording them the power to rule (somewhat). How is that equivalent to "using" them? If you grant me power -- I won't feel used. There is a reason for that.

The proper sense of being "used" is when one gains no power from the process. Let's say, for instance, that a man "uses" a prostitute (for sexual gratification). In that instance, she gains no power. It is the absence of power-gain that is essential to "using" someone.

When you use someone, you benefit at their cost. Voting for a right-wing conservative (because he's for lower taxes; while his opponent is a socialist pig) is NOT using him.

You are the one, Ed, who talked about using people. “Rand was saying that there may, politically, be times to utilize others (even those philosophically inferior) for our purposes…”

Post 14

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 1:23pm

Nick,

You are treating our discussion as if it were a pissing contest. In order for two people to have a rational argument that has any hope of being productive, there has to be mutual good will, which means a willingness to interpret the person's remarks in context and to provide reasonable quotations and a easy way for the respondent to check these for their accuracy. I'm not getting that from you. Instead, all I'm hearing are what appear to be misrepresentations of Rand's ideas in order to attack her. Apparently, your goal is not to understand Objectivism and, if necessary, to make reasonable criticisms. Rather, you seem to be on some sort of crusade to discredit Rand's philosophy, given the sheer volume of your posts and the fact that they're nearly all directed towards that goal. But, so far, your criticisms fall flat, because they largely misinterpret what she's saying. If you're trying to convince us, then you need to demonstrate that you understand Objectivism before presuming to criticize it.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/18, 1:24pm)

Post 15

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 6:27pm

You are treating our discussion as if it were a pissing contest. In order for two people to have a rational argument that has any hope of being productive, there has to be mutual good will, which means a willingness to interpret the person's remarks in context and to provide reasonable quotations and a easy way for the respondent to check these for their accuracy. I'm not getting that from you. Instead, all I'm hearing are what appear to be misrepresentations of Rand's ideas in order to attack her. Apparently, your goal is not to understand Objectivism and, if necessary, to make reasonable criticisms. Rather, you seem to be on some sort of crusade to discredit Rand's philosophy, given the sheer volume of your posts and the fact that they're nearly all directed towards that goal. But, so far, your criticisms fall flat, because they largely misinterpret what she's saying. If you're trying to convince us, then you need to demonstrate that you understand Objectivism before presuming to criticize it.

You talk of mutual good will, yet you don’t miss an opportunity to ridicule me or denigrate me in some way. Your constant remarks about how I need to read so and so in order to understand Rand and Objectivism better are offensive to me. You know that, so you continue to treat me as if I am someone who doesn’t know or understand Objectivism. You tell me that my criticisms fall flat, but you haven’t even approached many of them. You refute them by avoiding them and accusing me of misinterpreting Rand. This is the same thing religious people do when I point out contradictions in the Bible or present fallacies or counter-arguments to their arguments for the existence of God and theistic morality. I won’t say that I think you won’t be convinced that I understand Objectivism until I agree with you entirely and hold Rand up as the some omnipotent authority that can never be wrong. I think you disagree with her in some places too. In some places, you struggle with what she said. However, you still get pissed that people like me have the audacity to criticize her over and over again. Well, if you think my arguments fall flat, refute them. Focus on the arguments, not me or your opinion of my knowledge of Objectivism. Don’t just ignore them and make unsupported accusations. Show some good will.

Tell me exactly where you think I misrepresented Rand and prove it.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 16

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:22am

Nick, I have shown good will, and I have dealt with your arguments time and time again by showing, among other things, that you don't understand what Rand is saying. So have others on this list. You are obviously conversant with the ideas, but being conversant with them doesn't mean understanding them.

Nor do I get a sense that you want to understand them. In interpreting her remarks, you consistently ignore the wider context of her philosophy, and draw conclusions that are so obviously at variance with what she intended, it is difficult for me to believe that you are being a sincere and honest critic.

I don't object to a person simply because he or she disagrees with Rand. But if you are going to criticize someone responsibly, you need to show evidence that you've grasped what the person is saying, and that you are making an effort to give him or her a fair reading. You haven't done that. So, it's difficult for me to take you seriously. You are the other side of the true-believers you criticize: A clueless, dogmatic and knee-jerk opponent of Objectivism.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/20, 5:15pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/21, 12:41am)

Post 17

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 12:45pm