TAS and Bidinotto's "Anatomy of Cooperation"

"Any specific, "concrete" issue can then be packaged as an "inessential" issue—a non-fundamental—along with favorite pets and tastes in music, and almost any advocate of any position who pays lip service to the "basic principles" can then be welcomed under the TAS Objectivist umbrella."

In regard to whether or not Robert’s essay endorses a form of subjectivism, I will offer these additional quotes:

While many people will sign on to a general statement of principles—or declare allegiance to some abstract philosophy—the actual meaning of those abstractions is determined by the concrete, specific positions that the group or its leaders proclaim day to day. And on these specific implications there are grounds for endless feuds.

Such conflicts multiply almost infinitely when an organization’s scope of interest incorporates not just one principle, but an entire philosophy, such as Objectivism. Every day, the group is compelled to issue statements and position papers on specific new issues. What is the Objectivist position on Iraq? On the NSA wiretaps? On preemptive strikes against nations harboring terrorists? Does the group agree with Ayn Rand’s position about homosexuality? About women Presidents? About libertarians? About anarchism? About Romantic music? Is there some boundary line between Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and her conclusions on such specific issues? Etc.

Those members or participants who disagree with the group’s official stand on any of these issues face a moral dilemma. Should they continue to participate, lending their money and support to propagate views they think are wrong? Or should they try to weigh and balance the overall good they think the group does, against the bad? Or should they try to take over the group, kicking out the present leadership and then imposing their interpretations on everyone else?

It’s easy to see why philosophical advocacy groups are so unstable, and characterized by chronic purges and palace coups.  The underlying problem is that such groups are rooted in the following principle: that some people are to serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.

No mind can represent another—not philosophically. No two people will grasp all the implications of a complex, systematic philosophy in exactly the same way.

To escape the trap of orthodoxy, other ideological groups—such as libertarian and conservative advocacy organizations—have gone to the other extreme, and deliberately eschewed any systematic philosophy. But you don’t solve the problem of authoritarian dogma by sinking to vacuous subjectivism. The proper approach is to structure organizational projects in which a systematic philosophy may be advanced in ways that respect the independence and integrity of all participants.

One such structure is the educational forum. In a forum, the views expressed are solely those of their author, and not those of the group. This, incidentally, is the way that The Atlas Society in general, and the Summer Seminar in particular, have always been structured—and it’s the main reason, I believe, for their stability and success. Members are united by the basic principles of Objectivism, but remain free to openly express and debate a range of interpretations and differences. Because no one is assumed to be speaking for anyone but himself, no one feels any pressure to enforce a party line—or to submit to one.

As I stated previously, Robert misinterprets Ayn Rand’s distinction with respect to compromising on “concretes and particulars” and extends it to apply to concrete, specific positions which involve fundamental principles—e.g., the Iraq war, preemptive strikes and anarchism.   The other specific issues he mentions—homosexuality, government wiretaps, female presidents, libertarians, tastes in music—are sufficiently concrete and/or complex as to allow for reasonable debate from an Objectivist perspective.  They do not involve fundamental tenets or their derivative principles.

The rest of the above cited quotations, taken in the context of the prior reference to the fact that “everyone who seizes upon Ayn Rand’s system…reads diverse meanings into her words,” imply that those individual interpretations are, at least to some extent, equally valid.  To say that the only way to resolve such differences is through “orthodoxy” or the authoritarianism of a “spokesperson,” rather than a given thinker’s ability to defend their position through logic and reason, is, once again, subjectivism by implication.

For the record, I agree that ARI tends to support an attitude of “orthodoxy” in certain of the positions adopted by its intellectual leadership.  However, the “orthodoxy” of which I disapprove has specifically to do with concretes that are not related to any fundamental or derivative principles, but to their unthinking idolatry of Ayn Rand and their blind condemnation of the Brandens, David Kelley, et. al.   To describe ARI’s well-defended positions on most philosophical fundamentals and derivatives as “the trap of orthodoxy” is to blur the distinction between the rational and the arbitrary.  I certainly would not deny that there is some room for legitimate debate here as well--particularly with respect to epistemology and esthetics--but those areas are much more delimited than what Robert seems to imply.    

I had previously seen and read most of the various TAS commentaries cited by both Robert and Edward Hudgins.  Although they generally make the case for the irrationality and destructiveness of Islamic fundamentalism, they most certainly do not address the critical issue of America’s right to use whatever force is necessary to win the global war on Islamo-fascism.  It is possible I missed something, but I doubt it.  For the most part, TAS’ is on record as supporting America’s current policy toward Iraq, giving implicit sanction to the monstrous sacrifice of over 2500 American soldier’s lives in the name of minimizing “innocent” civilian casualties.

This comes as no surprise, since TAS’ original “Position Statement” on the terror war called for doing everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties in order to convince the enemy that our heart is in the right place, and it was accompanied by Patrick Stephens’ wringing endorsement of “Just War Theory,” in which he applauded the “heroic” sacrifice of our innocent soldiers to save enemy civilians.

In answer to James: I completely agree with Yaron Brook.  Although I am not in a position to endorse specific military strategies, to risk the loss of thousands of American lives in order to save enemy civilians is a moral atrocity.  That is precisely what we are doing by hamstringing our military’s ability to destroy Al Quaeda’s leadership.

I noted several articles on Robert’s blog in which he appears to give explicit support to Bush’s altruistic approach to conducting this war.  The one positive thing I had not seen before was Robert’s criticism of Bush’s foolish and tragic efforts at ‘democracy-building’ in that Middle Eastern garbage dump.  The fact that both Robert and Edward seem to regard Bush’s policy as consistent with America’s moral right to use the full force of her military might in this global conflict only underscores my position.

 
Either the TAS leadership has no understanding of the meaning of rational self-interest as applied to foreign policy, or they refrain from taking such a position as a concession to those ‘Objectivists’ who might disagree.  I cannot believe that they do not see the difference between their stand and the morally consistent position taken by ARI.  Robert’s essay suggests an explanation as to why they do not express it.
 
Dennis

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 7/25, 1:56am)

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 7/25, 1:59am)

Jordan,

My contention is that Robert’s speech implies that the various interpretations are equally valid, because he suggests that there is no way to resolve those differences objectively.  He does not explicitly state that this is the case.  What other conclusion can one draw when he maintains that authoritarianism—not reason-- is the only way to resolve vast differences of opinion on key issues?  Intellectual anarchy will inevitably flourish unless “some people…serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.” Intellectual organizations must honor all such differences because no one can legitimately claim to have logic on their side.  Unanimity—not reality—serves as our ultimate arbiter and becomes the standard of theoretical validity.

I would like to emphasize that my specific motivation in criticizing Robert’s speech relates to what that speech implies about the operating principles of TAS.  The simple solution for an organization with a strong philosophical base would be for TAS’ leadership to avoid the implication of agnosticism/subjectivism by taking strong, well-defended stands on key questions while making it very clear that members who disagree on specifics are free to do so without any suggestion of being “corrupt” or “immoral.”

In other words, to take strong positions on all key issues but explicitly refrain from imposing their stated positions on the membership.  Perhaps they could issue an explicit policy to this effect.  That would preserve the integrity of Objectivism as a comprehensive, reality-based system while eliminating any suggestion that any particular representative was speaking for the entire membership. 

Unlike ARI, dissenting arguments on specific issues would be welcomed rather than treated as heresy, much as TAS has done in the past.  I am totally in favor of the kind of open forums TAS has often sponsored, as long as there is no implication of intellectual neutrality.  The leadership’s positions on some issues might well change as a result of such discussions.  At the same time, TAS would be consistently representing Objectivism as a sound philosophy based on reason and reality rather than a debating society.

My concern is that the undercurrent of subjectivism implied in Robert’s speech may have infected TAS to the extent that its leadership is no longer inclined to adopt controversial positions—regardless of how well-founded--if such positions might alienate some of its members.

An additional concern—as expressed in my prior two posts—is that TAS’ leadership does not appreciate the meaning of the principle of rational self-interest, particularly as it applies to the critical area of foreign policy.  You will find the specific reference to TAS’ “Position Statement” cited above here, and the Patrick Stephens’ article here.

The following is the quote I mentioned above:

4. While it is legitimate in war to risk civilian casualties, the military campaign should make every reasonable effort to avoid them. This is a matter of justice to those people in the affected countries who are not complicit in terror and who may themselves have been victims of terrorists and of the tyrants who harbor them. In addition, we have no real hope of eliminating terrorism unless such people agree that our cause is just and that our intentions toward them are benevolent.

You ask: “What exactly is immoral about trying to minimize the death of innocents?”

In war, the choice is: kill or be killed.  Any action we take to minimize the death of enemy civilians (who are not innocent to the extent that they are giving support to people who want us dead) means risking the lives of our own soldiers.  The most obvious example of this is our refusal to use our technological capability out of concern for civilian casualties—which results in death or injury to our troops on the ground.   That is altruism--aka Bush’s “compassionate war” strategy--and it is morally obscene.

Here is a quote from “Just War Theory vs. American Self-Defense” by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein:

Given that a nation’s civilian population is a crucial, physically and spiritually indispensable part of its initiation of force—of its violation of the rights of a victim nation—it is a morally legitimate target of the retaliation of a victim nation. Any alleged imperative to spare noncombatants as such is unjust and deadly.
That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world…Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation.
Doing whatever is necessary in war means doing whatever is necessary. Once the facts are rationally evaluated, if it is found that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities or flattening Fallujah to end the Iraqi insurgency will save American lives, then these actions are morally mandatory, and to refrain from taking them is morally evil.

Dennis