TOC watch

Adam,

Thanks for the hyperlink.

Andrew,

I truly appreciate the feedback.  Wouldn’t it be amazing if somehow we could get Objectivists to spend less time denouncing each other and more time working together to change the world?

Charles,

As I said before, you do a good job of representing your point-of-view, and I too have enjoyed and profited from the exchange.  Even so, I remain convinced that we are not going to win without making the case for a rational morality.  It will not help for us to induce partial agreement on nonphilosophical issues if people do not grasp the more fundamental premises.  We are just buying time and postponing the inevitable.clash that will emerge when they must choose between reason and faith, self-interest and altruism.

And I disagree that most people believe philosophy is boring.  The sales of Ayn Rand’s novels have disproven that.  The critical issue is that of how we present a rational ethics.  For a long time, I have advocated an approach that strikes me as potentially much more appealing to the average person.  Let me explain it this way.  

In May, 2002, I saw David Kelley debate Dinesh Desousa on the topic of rational selfishness at a F.E.E. convention in Las Vegas.  Desousa defended the view that altruism was compatible with capitalism.  As it happens, Nathaniel Branden was in the audience.  My impression was that Desousa succeeded in convincing the audience of libertarians that selfishness encouraged irresponsibility.  Desousa promoted the conventional view that greed would never be culturally acceptable as a foundation for capitalism.  Kelley’s answer seemed to be that selfishness should not be misconstrued as greed.  Instead, he argued that selfishness was basically just taking care of your personal needs.  Desousa countered that taking care of your needs was not a moral issue, but a purely practical one.

Let me say that I am working purely from memory here.  I cannot claim to be sure that my recollection is entirely accurate.  I apologize in advance if I am misrepresenting either side.

Kelley has attacked the notion of greed from an ethical perspective in other articles, including a REASON magazine article some years ago in which he and a co-author analyzed myths about the Reagan years.  I frankly do not understand that approach at all.  To most people, greed is indistinguishable from selfishness.  I strongly believe we should defend both as perfectly rational with no implication of exploitation or malevolence toward others.  But Kelley seems inclined to accept the premise that it is wrong and to distinguish it from genuine self-interest.  This, to me, amounts to apologizing for a single-minded dedication to self-interest—for the attitude that you will do whatever it takes to make your life what you want it to be.

 Interestingly, John Stossel’s ABC special on ‘Greed’ featured interviews with Kelley.  At one point in the program, Stossel says to an interviewee, ‘So greed is good?’, but, as I recall, this was not during the discussion with Kelley.  The distortions in the conventional perception of greed as somehow inherently evil was the overall theme of Stossel’s excellent show.

Nathaniel Branden was a keynote speaker at the F.E.E. dinner that evening.  Early in his talk, he made the point—quoting his friend, Charles Murray—that “people don’t understand the meaning of self-love.” Murray had recounted an incident where a store owner was shocked that he had returned a bottle of wine that was more expensive than the one he paid for.  Without saying so directly, I think Branden was making a comment on the Kelley-Desousa debate, suggesting that the proper way to defend selfishness is from the perspective of pride—i.e., to show the profound idealism of taking a reverent attitude toward one’s own life.

That’s what really needs to happen—we need to reframe the debate over self-interest to demonstrate that it consists of an attitude of idealism toward your own life.  But evading the issue because it is too “radical” or offensive—or offering some watered down version of self-interest that apologizes for the legitimate, non-exploitative human drives of greed and lust---will not work.  If we do not address morality, and indicate clearly that the proper foundation for morality is the exact opposite of the conventional view of selflessness, we are wasting our breath.

I remain convinced that we are not going to win without making the case for a rational morality...The critical issue is that of how we present a rational ethics.For a long time, I have advocated an approach that strikes me as potentially much more appealing to the average person. Let me explain it this way. In May, 2002, ... at a F.E.E. convention in Las Vegas...Nathaniel Branden was a keynote speaker...Early in his talk, he made the point—quoting his friend, Charles Murray—that “people don’t understand the meaning of self-love.” Murray had recounted an incident where a store owner was shocked that he had returned a bottle of wine that was more expensive than the one he paid for.  Without saying so directly, I think Branden was making a comment on the Kelley-Desousa debate, suggesting that the proper way to defend selfishness is from the perspective of pride—i.e., to show the profound idealism of taking a reverent attitude toward one’s own life. That’s what really needs to happen—we need to reframe the debate over self-interest to demonstrate that it consists of an attitude of idealism toward your own life.

By embodying in your self what you want to see in the world, you are making a sort of artwork out of your life, actions, character. You are, in the terms of Rand's definition of "art," selectively re-creating reality -- taking the raw material of your mind, values, past experience, present context, future possibilities, etc. and fashioning them into a microcosm of what you find most significant about reality. You then, just as much as (perhaps more than) an external embodiment of your worldview (artwork), become a living symbol of that worldview. You are practicing what you preach -- or, more deeply, what you believe. You are being congruent in action and character with your deepest principles. (Integrity.) Moreover, I think that this relates not only to esthetics, but to the psychology of friendship and romance -- what Nathaniel Branden calls "visibility." What happens when you perceive an embodiment of your deep values and world perspective in another's character and actions is like what happens when you perceive it in an artwork. You are understanding that other person in the same profound way that you are understanding an artwork. And when the other person gets the sense that you are understanding them in that way, they have an externalized sense of the reality of what they are embodying in a way similar to the externalized sense of that reality when they perceive it in an artwork. So, it works for both the perceiver and the perceived! And I think that's why it's so powerful.

Roger,

I enjoyed the quote from your article on ethics and esthetics. An interesting perspective. Thanks for posting it. 

Charles (and others following this thread),

The issue of how we can best promote Objectivism in today’s culture was addressed by Stephen R.C. Hicks, one of the best intellectuals associated with TOC, in his talk entitled “An Introduction to the Philosophy of History.”  He ended the talk with an anecdote about two shoe salesmen visiting a foreign country to explore new markets for their shoes.  One of them said, “Forget it.  There’s no market here.  Nobody wears shoes here.  It’s pointless.”  The other one says: “Send more salesmen.  Nobody here has shoes yet.   There’s unlimited potential.”  Hicks went on to say that, in the current U.S. cultural climate, we have a well-educated customer base, open to argument, and we have something they need.  Quite simply, using his words, “it does not get any better than that” for any entrepreneur.

The “nobody wears shoes here” approach sounds an awful lot like saying that we cannot sell radical philosophal ideas to a culture drunk on pragmatism and a religion-based value system.

And the best way to dramatize what we have to offer is by showing the potential value of a radically new approach to ethics and what this can mean for motivating a person to make the most of his life.  Demonstrating and emphasizing the different ways that a rational morality of self-interest applies to issues of the day is to me, the most important topic for any Objectivist op-ed.  Or, for that matter, any Objectivist publication primarily aimed at fomenting large-scale societal change.  To some extent, David Kelley dealt with this in his book on the welfare system, A Life of One’s Own.   That is one terrific title, although the book itself did not underscore the relevance of pride in the way I would have liked.

With respect to foundational arguments, the full philosophical proof as to why self-interest is a virtue would not be appropriate for an op-ed.  The purpose of the op-ed is to get the reader’s attention and to motivate him or her to look for the full explanation elsewhere in the Objectivist literature.

Of course there is room for a diversity of approaches, but toning down the philosophy to make it appear less radical will not work.  It might give the appearance of gaining some marginal agreement on superficial issues, but, in the long run, this is worthless.  I do not believe we should waste our energy on those who will turn away at the first hint of our radicalism.

That “well-educated customer base” must come to see that the Objectivist ethics offers something totally unique—a kind of personalized idealism thoroughly grounded in reason and reality.  The alternatives must be defined as clearly as possible.  We cannot muddy the water by making it look as though we are not all that different.  We must spell out the full nature of that difference--and people will then be in a position to make their choice.  Camouflaging the choice by making it seem less controversial strikes me as pointless and self-defeating.

Again, I want to reiterate that this is a very valuable and important interchange. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and insight.