How -Not- to Pronounce Moral Judgement

On the first, it's amazing how frequently intellectually-oriented people think they can use their deductive power to judge someone as a person "at a distance" without having actually met them, had an actual conversation, seen all the little things how they confront things right in front of them, react, how their mind works, whether they seem earnest or evasive, how they respond under pressure, etc.

That's true. :) But one can't meet everyone either, so I do think it is valuable to judge on what is *currently* known/shown-- what the person expresses; while knowing that there may be deeper aspects to the person that is not immediately (and probably, not ever) available. DH has a personal life that is fully within her choice to express or not. I am, basically, looking what she has written specifically on her website, as I look at how people write/express/behave everywhere.

So my comments simply cannot be a personal issue because frankly, I don't know if her website is only one *part* of her life or the entirety of it or somewhere in between. I take any words to be a *glimpse* into how people think as well as what they think. In addition, I realize that she's also a human being who's also in a process of learning; and I learn a lot from behavior as well as what is said.

As for how I viewed her one website (and how I view online and face-to-face interactions): I look at the means as well as the ends, from an individual to entire groups of people. I not only notice that people suggest books to me, but *what* books they suggest, and whether those books follow a trend or not. That clues me in into a person's thought patterns by the choices they make. Do people repeat, or do they feel free to disagree? If they disagree, *how* do they do so and what words do they choose? I look at reactions and what picks up and what doesn't. I look at what subjects people spend time writing on over others, everywhere. I look at arguments specifically but also as a whole across several platforms. I look at how *I* react to all these things (do I repeat? or do I think for myself? is that what they want me to think? why am I reacting this way? what do *I* think?) and how it ties into my own life (yes, I have my pet biases).

The reason why I likened that one statement to Satan/God is that the *way* it's written--even deliberately written-- has the capacity to turn off already individualistic people. Choices-- even word choices-- have consequences. In general, human beings are not *solely* intellectual creatures, there are emotional aspects as well that can work subtly.

I recognize this in myself whenever I come across words like "convert", "worship", "advance", etc. Likewise, other words such as "joy", "happiness", "love", "knowledge", "ideas", etc. bring out other emotions, even at a slight level. This isn't to say I'm some advocate of politically correct wording, but I'm trying to explain how approach (here I'm thinking along the lines of rational marketing) can make or break an interaction, and especially when this interaction can influence someone who is watching the interaction from a third-person perspective. :)

Post 21

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 6:57pm

Phil: "Please try to take the time to think through carefully what it means for an ethical concept (and how the concept is vital and why it is valid and necessary for life) to "fall under" or be part of a branch of philosophy, yet for its practical application in individual concrete instances to each particular issue or person, case by case, to be part of ("fall under") another area of knowledge."

So you're saying the moral concept of justice falls under philosophy, yet a specific moral judgment about the character of another person falls under psychology? If that's not what you meant by your response, please clarify. If that is what you meant, then I think you're still wrong. And I think it's a very strange claim.

When you make a moral judgment about a normal adult, you don't study that person's mental functioning (psychology). You simply measure that person's chosen actions against an accepted standard of value (philosophy). And acting consistent with one's honest conclusion is justice.

Post 22

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:27pm

> You simply measure that person's chosen actions against an accepted standard of value (philosophy).

Jesus, Jon, it's not something you robotically plug in that way!! "Simple" it seldom is.

I'm going to try one more time with you with a concrete example, then I'm going to give up (because you are just stringing one sentence floating abstractions together). Remember that the way to tell if your abstract principle is correct is to concretize it:

Suppose you want to tell whether a public or historical figure is honest in his mistaken political position which goes contrary to the laws of economics. You can't just deduce it from philosophy, as in "well, this is a serious mistake, and no one can make mistakes of that mistake innocently" [even that last is a -psychological- estimation!]. You have to arrive at some conclusions about that person's psychological traits, mental content, etc.. How intelligent is he? How does he explain his position? Has he ever studied any economics and was he a good student in that area? Is he rationalistic or subjective? Was he comprachico-ized? Has he been brainwashed in school with leftist ideas? Does he seem evasive when you talk to him? And maybe other questions. [In many cases you can't tell this on a one-shot basis, which is why one normally grants a certain benefit of the doubt, especially if one hasn't made the acquaintance of someone.]

Another psychological set of observations of people, if you've ever observed your parents or classmates or peers at work, is that they think *very poorly* on a highly abstract level! Which affects your ability to instantly judge their honesty purely from abstract philosophy, without getting your hands dirty. It's like people who can't add two plus two. So you can see, psychologically not philosophically, how they can make honest errors about things that an Objectivist, with all that training and Rand's help, couldn't entertain for ten seconds.

Notice that virtually -every- statement I've made in this post relies upon your having knowledge of psychology, a good understanding of people, of human nature. If you are, for example, a technical non-people person who tends to try to rationalistically *deduce* guilt or innocence from Galt's speech or abstract philosophy while blithely brushing aside the need to UNDERSTAND ACTUAL HUMANS then nothing I am saying will make the least impression on you!!

It certainly would be nice if you could judge a person's honesty by simply plugging in an equation without having to do the actual detailed work of investigation. Something like: action=destructive / therefore evasion /therefore immoral.

Now, this is the longest of my posts in response to you. You are going to take this one of two ways: You are either going to i) pick at the wording of the sentences in isolation if I didn't express one thing exactly precisely, or ii) you are going to step back and try to absorb the -whole-, the overall picture and complexity of the steps I've painted for you... and ask yourself if they are a series of steps that fall within the domain of practical psychology...or of simple philosophical deductions.

If you do the first, you are processing this rationalistically like a first-year Objectivist and I can't possibly reach you, so this discussion is over for me.

Remember that my original point was that analyzing someone's character falls under the detailed application of psychology and having knowledge of the person in front of you. Now, there are exceptions: you can catch someone in a direct lie right in front of you, watch them murder someone, etc. But those were not the kinds of examples that we were originally talking about in this thread, if you will recall. Nor should it be necessary for you to see the mistakes I pointed to in post 0.

That post was self contained and logically irrefutable. In fact, it was probably a waste of my time to spend all this subsequent time logically swatting down these silly side excursions.

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/24, 9:40pm)

Post 23

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 7:45am

Hello Hong. I see your question was heavily sanctioned. What happened? Nothing happened. I was never tight with Barbara. I praised some of her writings here- I think she is a wonderful writer, and posseses a keen intellect.

Because she may have prised an article or two of mine - very graciously, and received praise from me on some of her writings are not at all relevant to the bigger issue of pronouncing moral judgement.

The nature of NB and BBs relationship with Ayn Rand is not a pretty one. It was akin to flogging the horse one road into town on. That is my opinion. Some worship them, others revile them. For me they (the Brandens) are incidental to Objectivism. I did not discover Ayn Rand because of them, and I have learned nothing about Objectivism through anything they have written.

regards
John

Post 24

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 9:28am

John,

Ms. Hsieh's statement

The few honest people [associated with TOC] should read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

exemplifies the very tendencies that Phil was talking about.

As best I can discern, Ms. Hsieh's current view is that virtually anyone who says virtually anything negative concerning Ayn Rand's character or actions is dishonest. The same applies to anyone who criticizes the mentality prevalent at the Ayn Rand Institute, or the behavior of its leaders.

For those who read Jim Valliant's book and remain associated with The Objectivist Center, I am not sure what her condemnatory epithet would be--but surely it would have to be stronger than "dishonest."

As I previously noted on SOLOHQ, everyone who is concerned about Ayn Rand's character and actions, and the interpretation placed on them by those who equate respect for her ideas with worship of her person, really should read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. (Preferably beginning with Ayn Rand's journal entries, and saving Mr. Valliant's editorializing for later.)

Now what are the chances that Ms. Hsieh will credit anyone who reads PARC, and takes issue with Mr. Valliant's editorial positions, with making an honest judgment?

Robert Campbell

PS. I have read Mr. Valliant's book and will be speaking at the TOC Summer Seminar this year.

Post 25

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 10:15am

Ed Hudgins wrote:

...I don't follow Diana's posts but if [it] suggests that the Branden's are somehow integral to the running of TOC/TAS, that's pure nonsense and takes away from anything sensible that Diana might say. Silly stuff like this is one reason why I stay out of online fights with her about everything (and with others about the Brandens and personal stuff that doesn't relate to Objectivism).

Yes, we are trying to run our organization as an open and tolerant forum. That is why, in addition to inviting the Brandens to the Summer Seminar, we also invited Linz, in spite of protests from some of our members, because we thought -- and I know! -- that he would have been an interesting, thoughtful and passionate speaker. The struggle for applications of Objectivism that don't break down into bitter personal battles and denunciations continues.

It's always a pleasure to read Ed's comments here. In turn, it's always a black mark against ARI's leaders -- a mark of cowardice, weakness, and failure -- that they don't dare post on Rebirth of Reason.

The result of free, open, tolerant conversation and disputation in a given society is essentially identical to the result of free, open, tolerant reflections inside a given individual's mind: there's a great tendency for truth to defeat falsity and good to defeat evil. I think TOC should invite the best speakers they can find and engage in the most free, open, and tolerant presentation and debate that courtesy and profitable results allow. I think Linz, Barbara, and Nathaniel are all high-quality speakers with much to say. Until TOC can get even better people it should stick with these three, in my view.

Post 26

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 11:56am

Since this thread has been about how *not* to morally judge people, I would like to say how I *do* judge the "personal life/personal disputes" issues:

/World's Shortest Summary of the Rand-Branden Issues/

1. I have met and spoken to Ayn Rand, have seen and listened to her in question periods, and her own lectures, on TV, in Peikoff's living room, etc. I have been able to draw my own direct conclusions about her personality and character. I have a highly positive assessment of her character, and a positive (but with some flaws and errors, such as in the area of anger and judging people too harshly) assessment of her personality.

2. I have read some second hand material, reminiscences, posts. On that basis, I doubt, but can't be 100% certain, that reading second hand all of the three books would change my view of her in a significant way.

3. Having said this, I may read the books at some point, but to read and 'process' them in the depth to which I am accustomed would be time-consuming. Unlike many sloppy people, I would not be likely to "skim" them, looking for a quick fix on the truth. I have other intellectual priorities which are far more important to me than fine-tuning the details of my assessment of AR.

4. Moreover, I think close up personal contact with someone, if it is turbulent, or analysis of someone else's closeup contact, does not always lead to an objective assessment. It is quite possible for all three books to be wrong on something which is right in front of you. It has to do with emotional issues, misinterpretations, complexity of analyzing causality in regard to people.

5. I don't know if it is the case, but it is possible for Barbara, NB, and Jim V's books to ALL THREE -honest- even though in disagreement on a whole host of issues. The best way to see the points I am making in 4 and 5 is to think of a *bitter, messy divorce*: a couple has broken up and is in litigation and neither wife or husband has anything positive to say of the other. And their friends are asked to totally take sides. In the case of the spouses, it is possible to be so blinded by anger or loss, that one can no longer think objectively about the other party.l And neither one is deliberately, dishonestly reacting. The outsider may see some good in both sides, some woeful bad judgment in both, may still have respect for both sides.

The Rand-Brandens split seems to me to not be identical but to perhaps have some analogies to this. I wouldn't necessarily take either party as being completely objective. But neither would I conclude of two parties saying such opposite things (or their partisans), that either has to necessarily be willfully saying what they calmly know to be false. (I say necessarily because, again, I haven't read the books...and have only heard or seen excerpts or portions. But this sort of thing is often true of messy, emotionally-heated, personal matters....)

So in terse capsule: not need to read the books in the near future; still have respect for Rand and (in many cases) people who are adversaries in evaluating her; already think I understand her; view her as a role model in character, in many respects in personality, in some respects definitely not in personality.

Philip Coates

Post 27

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 4:13pm

Phil, I'm going to ignore the pedantic and exasperated tone and language in your last post and focus on the one point in dispute here. Then we can just consider this dicussion over.

You claimed that making specific moral judgments is part of psychology, not philosophy. I disagreed. I'm not saying that you can judge a person without considering his relevant knowledge. But I hold that considering which facts a person knows about a given case in order to make a just moral judgment is still a matter of philosophy, not psychology.

Psychology deals with analyzing a person's mental processing and emotional responses. That's not what making specific moral judgments entails. And making a specific person's wrong mental functioning part of moral judgment ends up as psychologizing.

Judging a person based on intellectual honesty is clearly tougher than judging someone based on observable actions. Even then, however, you don't need a psychological profile of a person to come to a just conclusion. You need to know what a person believes and the reasons why he believes it--if there are any.

As for it being a waste of your time, Phil, to be "logically swatting down these silly side excursions," I'll say three things: First, given the amount that you post to this forum, I doubt that you had to miss out on anything by responding. Second, you didn't logically swat down anything. Third, anything you honestly believe is a "silly side excursion" you're probably better off not answering at all.

Post 28

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 6:45pm

Psychology is a pseudo-science, no more accurate or relevant than astrology.

Post 29

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 7:20pm

Robert,

There is something wrong in what you say. Hong can tell me if I am wrong but science deals with facts. Philosophy, aesthetics, psychology have their own natures...and by the nature of them there is a lot of difference of opinion among their practitioners�as soon as value judgements have significance in method and content that complicates their science.

BTW, I have a very high opinion about how psychology can facilitate one�s mental health and joy.

...but, as with all things, make sure one is working with the best.

Michael

Post 30

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 7:36pm

Philip Coates comments on La Mertz over on her popular blog, with some cogent observations. Of course, Diana is also now active on Linz's site.

I read Noodlefood with a grim fascination. As a person who is not just yet quite ready to call himself an objectivist, I find I can't look away. La Mertz's factionalism exemplifies one of the 'ick factors' that keeps me from donning the robes . . .

My fascination turns to appreciation when I turn my dial to 'entertainment.' Then I imagine La Mertz as Empress of the Objectivist Universe, atop the castle ramparts pouring boiling oil on the evil TOC army below, and later, after reviewing the records of that days beheadings, slinking into bed with his Majesty Linz, and whispering "KASS me, you radical.'

At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rands 1968 bed for stains of evil.

La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All.

I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people.

As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy.

There is nothing like Valliant lapdog Casey Snarky-Face battling Evul and making friends with maniacs to remind me that objectivism is fun and getting funner! And Snarky-face probably hasn't had as much fun since he played Joe McCarthy's grinning stooge in his Grade Four drama fest.

Oi.

WSS

[Edit: removed redundant 'grimly fascinating' in favour of ' I can't look away.'

(Note to self: Always read Jenna's posts before hitting the button: she expressed my feelings without any of the snarl and narstiness. If I wasn't gay I would ask to bear her children and clean her cabin)

-- I salute Phil for his patience . . . as a professional educator, it must be hard to deal with dumbass sophomores who think they can beard the bear. I utterly disagree with Trager's misreading of "analysis" as "judgement" and his consequent descent into the swamps of Lower Semantica, but I must be fair:

Phil, Galt love you, I admire your stance and your persistence and the essential wisdom of all your posts (which I read carefully), but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions.

If I was your student, and was treated that way, I would write "Wonderful, wonderful educator, my favourite lecturer. Would attend his seminar even if held in a Bombay meat market's offal depot during communal rioting. Hat too tight. Needs to get laid. More than once."

- would someone please give the squabbler Orbit Davison a dang Atlas Point or two? I hate the frigging things, but he hasn't had one since gawd created the heavens (a mere 6000 years ago). Please have a bowel movement, Orbit. You are about to burst.]
(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 3/25, 8:17pm)

Post 31

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 7:45pm

WSS,

That was a fun read. Thanks for taking the harsh edge of the situation and introducing the entertainment aspect!

Post 32

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 7:57pm

Robert D,

I tell my Experimental Psychology students that the course doesn't cover all the skills that psychological researchers need to learn. Among other things, they'll need to know how to evaluate and compare theories in psychology, which the course doesn't get into because there isn't time.

But if I thought that psychology experiments were no more reliable a source of evidence about human beings than casting a horoscope, why would I be teaching anyone how to do them?

Robert C

Post 33

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 8:29pm

> Phil...I admire your stance... but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions. [WSS]

Ha! Ha! You have a point there!! I sometimes post when I'm pissed off, disgusted, exhausted, etc...then I delete the obscenities...but the tone sometimes still lingers!

I'll try to do better, since I don't like my own sort of arrogance when I see it in OTHER PEOPLE :-)

> Needs to get laid. More than once.

Good point. If I had a girlfriend, I'd spend less time on these goddamn posts. (And I wouldn't let things get under my skin!)

----Thanx for bringing me back down to earth...in a humorous and amusing way!----

Post 34

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 4:13am

WSS: LOL, wonderful post, your description of La Mertz and the SOLOPassion gang is perfect. It is indeed a highly amusing show about the dangers of becoming an Objectivist.

Post 35

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 6:48am

Mr. Campbell,

Since these theories of which you speak are arbitrary formulations it makes no difference what results from comparing and contrasting them. The truest thing Freud ever said was that 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'. A is A, but not just sometimes.

Post 36

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 8:33am

WSS- I actually like it better with your lead-in over on SOLOPassion. Jenna did the best job of telling how all these bloody schisms and feuds look, and nobody's going to accuse you of being a bridge-builder here - but, damn, that was funny!

EDIT: I'd praised+sanctioned your post immediately after reading since it did make me laugh. Thinking more about that I do regret it. Despite being funny WSS, your Diana/SOLOP/RoR comments are more fuel for the fire in the schisms. I've got to be a humorless voice saying "Can't we all just get along?"

(Edited by Aaron
on 3/26, 9:26am)

Post 37

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 11:47am

William Scott, you made my day, as usual. Wonderful, witty entertaining post. I think you probably outdid yourself this time. I know I'm going to hear about this from Diana, though, so I should probably temper my enthusiasm. Wait...she can't kick me off RoR, can she? Well, can she?? God, I'm getting paranoid! [g]

I will say in all seriousness, that I do respect her philosophical acumen and her passionate commitment to ideas, if not her sense of proportion in dealing with differences of opinion among well-meaning Objectivists. Unfortunately, her lack of objectivity has affected her judgment in evaluating people of whom she has a strong dislike, such as David Kelley. I read her recent critique of him, and found myself saying, "I just don't get it; I don't see the validity of the argument she's making." And I'm no partisan defender of Kelley. Nonetheless, she has written some excellent commentary, which is worth reading, and I think made some valid criticisms of the manner in which certain Objectivists have defended Rand's philosophy.

- The other William Scott
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/26, 11:48am)

Post 38

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 12:26pm

Robert D,

How on earth do you know that every psychological theory is an "arbitrary formulation"?

Unless you are claiming a Peikovian prerogative for yourself, merely pronouncing a theory "arbitrary" is itself an arbitrary assertion. There is a distinct need to provide reasons for any judgment of arbitrariness.

So...

Is Newell and Simon's information-processing theory of human problem solving an arbitrary formulation?

Is James Gibson's ecological theory of visual perception an arbitrary formulation?

Is Jean Piaget's theory of psychological development an arbitrary formulation?

Is Antonio Damasio's theory of prefrontal cortical function an arbitrary formulation?

For that matter, is Nathaniel Branden's theory of self-esteem an arbitrary formulation?

What about each of these theories renders every last one of its propositions untestable against data, or so lacking in credibility or plausibility as to be unworthy of any effort to test it?

Robert C

PS. Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis has been refuted--or so most academic psychologists would maintain. But even it was not an arbitrary formulation when first put forward (back in 1895). It just turned out to be really, really wrong.

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 3/26, 12:46pm)

Post 39

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 3:35pm