As per Mr. Hardin’s remark way back in post 34, we welcome constructive criticism and discussion about our organization and the thoughts of those of us associated with the organization. After all, we’re the opened and tolerant Objectivist organization!
Mr. Hardin’s posts offer an opportunity to reflect on several errors in thinking that we find among many individuals, Objectivists included, which, if corrected, would clear up a lot of misunderstanding among Objectivists. (This post does not address all of the details of the foreign policy discussion on this thread -- as interesting as they are -- but focuses more on methodological matters.)
1. Obsession? Mr. Hardin seems at times to have a fixation on the need for TAS as an organization to acknowledge one phrase to the effect that America should do anything necessary in the war against terrorism. He doesn’t seem to disagree with us on some fundamental principle, for example, on the purpose of government, on whether Objectivism is an open or closed system, or with the evaluation by myself, Robert or others concerning the moral nature of Islamists and their threat to the civilized world. Even though we’ve been clear that America has a right – indeed, it is the purpose of government – to protect the life, liberty and property of Americans, and even in the face of our strong and unambiguous stand against Islamists, there seems a strange fixated here on the importance of assent to that one particular phrase concerning America's use of any means in the war on terror.
Mr. Hardin says that for that reason he has had no past association with us, he is unlikely to have any future association with us either. That, of course, is his right and if he finds more in common with other groups, fine. But no doubt he has much more in common with TAS than with many other groups. That's why it's odd that he focuses on this one small seeming and perceived (but by no means clear) difference. This is a form of behavior found in too many Objectivists.
2. Hermeneutics and implications. At times Mr. Hardin’s analysis of the various points made in writings by Robert and I seem like a strange form of hermeneutics, almost like something you’d expect from religious scholars approaching a holy text. (I think my writings are pretty darn good but as an Objectivist I hardly think of them as written by heavenly hands on stone tablets!) This approach is also reminiscence of the approach taken to political philosophy by the followers of Leo Strauss. This approach, a kind of textual analysis, focuses on words and their various and possibly contradictory meanings. But an Objectivist approach would focus on phenomena themselves and an evaluation of them by specific, contextual (see below) standards.
For example, it is quite valid to ask about Israel’s moral culpability for innocent deaths in the current fighting in Lebanon. (I’d argue that the blame is on Hezbullah members, whose goal is to kill innocent Israelis and who hide among innocent people who they know could die when Israel rightly tries to eliminate them. And some of those civilians probably support Hezbullah and thus are not altogether innocent.) But the best approach is not a hermeneutical analysis of what Robert or I imply about a certain principle in a given situation. The best approach is just to ask us!
Mr. Hardin draws implications with seeming abandon even as we point out that his projections are not what Robert or I are saying. Thus, for example, I wrote, “Thus we need to make judgment calls both about whether some policy -- nuking Iran -- is really the most efficient way to protect the lives, liberties and property of Americans -- I say no at this time – ...“ (Incidentally, while I very much oppose using nukes at this time and think such an action would be irresponsible and not make America more secure, I certainly conceive of cases in which using nukes might be the best means to our ends.)
With his strange hermeneutics, Mr. Hardin translates my remake thus: “the ‘spokespersons’ for TAS are so fond of smearing Brook and ARI with the accusation that he is the reincarnation of Dr. Strangelove.”
How can someone look at the first sentence and mistaken it for the second? We as Objectivists must take care to focus on the phenomena under consideration. When we see such errors we might reflect on the mode of analysis and implication.
3. Context. One of Rand’s unique contributions to epistemology and ethics is her understanding of the importance of context. The application of principles to achieve particular aims always must be considered in context. Thus it would be a mistake to make the blanket statement that America should do anything necessary to fight the war against terrorists.
What about acting like terrorists? What about kidnapping small children from Middle Eastern countries, slowly torturing them to death, filming these murders, broadcasting them and telling the populations of Pakistan, Lebanon and other countries that we will continue to do this until they turn over or kill all known terrorists in their midst?
Absurd? Yes, but by what moral standards and in terms of which various ends, in addition to fighting terrorists, do we reject this tactic? That is the sort of question we always must ask. We can still judge, for example, concerning Israel in the present conflict, but such judgments will be in terms of various legitimate goals in particular contexts.
In the war against Islamo-Fascists (or any enemy of reason and freedom) there will be tough calls to make. Honest individuals can disagree. Mr. Hardin, ARI associates, TAS associates, Robert and I might each have different evaluations of what is the best action or strategy in a particular context. For example, one might oppose America's continued involvement in Iraq because remaining there does little to enhance American security and diverts resources from more serious threats -- Iran, North Korea, possibly Venezuela. In addition, I would add that the culture in Iraq is so corrupt, tribal and religiously-fanatical that there's little prospect of America establishing a government there that will be friendly to us and an ally in the war against Islamo-fascists. On the other hand, one might argue that to leave Iraq now would result in a victory of militant, Islamo-fascist pro-Iranian faction.
By the way, many critics of Israel's actions against Hezbullah make a similar methodological error (to say nothing of moral errors) when they complain, out of context, that Israel's response was "disproportionate." In World War II the Japanese killed nearly 200,000 American soldiers while Americans killed at least 1.7 million Japanese, including civilians in conventional and atomic bombings. That's ten of them to ever one of us. Disproportionate? Yes. But would a better alternative have been one million Americans and one million Japanese killed? Were there ways for America to win while reducing deaths on all sides? By the way, in retrospect, the fire-bombing of German cities -- to which some allied leaders objected on moral grounds -- probably didn't shorten the war. Counter-force strategies work better.
The point, which I made in more detail earlier, is that Mr. Hardin and all good Objectivists should appreciate the importance of context when making judgments concerning any actions in the real world and not take the applications of principles out of context.
I hope this post clears up some methodological matters.
(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 8/14, 7:51pm)
| 
