Edward Hudgins writes:
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….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.
It’s called devotion to principle, Ed. In the context of today’s world, the principle is anything but “small seeming.” It is the difference between life and death.
Here is what I wrote in post #7:
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.
That represents my generalized criticism of TAS, which seemed somewhat tacit until Mr. Bidinotto’s speech, where it finally found explicit endorsement. More specifically, I also object to the altruistic implications of the following quote from TAS’ “Position Statement” on the current war, which I consider to be essentially altruistic, for all of the reasons previously discussed.
At the risk of overkill, and because this is such a lengthy thread, here again is the relevant quote from TAS:
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.
So why I am making such a big deal of that one quote? What exactly is so wrong about trying to minimize the deaths of civilians?
Quite simply, making every effort to minimize civilian casualties puts all of the emphasis on protecting the enemy’s civilians instead of our own. We did not do that in World War II. We used our technology to crush the enemy—including vast numbers of civilians—and they crumbled once they witnessed our resolve to demolish them in the name of our self-defense. We will need a similar devotion to our right of self-defense if we are to win the current struggle with those who would destroy us.
The guilt complex with which America has been saddled since Hiroshima and Nagasaki stems from a single source—altruism. The rational self-interest upheld by Objectivism is our one philosophical hope of restoring America’s moral self-confidence. By endorsing the opposite principle, TAS misrepresents the Objectivist philosophy and transforms it into a tool for America’s enemies--one more voice added to the religionist-collectivist chorus demanding “compassionate” restraint.
Mr. Hudgins continues....
2. Hermeneutics and implications.
I’m sorry, Ed, but I will have to ignore your first paragraph, since I have read it several times and still have no idea what you are talking about.
Mr. Hudgins:
For example, it is quite valid to ask about Israel’s moral culpability for innocent deaths in the current fighting in Lebanon.
No, it isn’t. Not for anyone vaguely familiar with Objectivist ethics and politics.
Mr. Hudgins:
Mr. Hardin draws implications with seeming abandon even as we point out that his projections are not what Robert or I are saying.
Most of his comments here address the supposed “implications” I drew from various TAS’ commentaries on the war. The truth is, there is no need for me to look for such “implications.” Their commentaries offering minimal criticism of the Bush administration’s policies speak for themselves. But beyond that, their writers have given explicit endorsement to Bush's shameful tactics in regard to prosecuting the war. Here is just one example (by Patrick Stephens):
To be sure, while guilt extends far beyond the relatively few men who orchestrated this latest attack, it does not extend to all individuals unfortunate enough to live in those countries that support terrorism. So, we must discriminate, as we must in any application of justice, between the innocent and the guilty.
Stephens aptly captures the essence of the Bush administration's "compassionate" war strategy--in an admiring article from a supposedly "Objectivist" (%$#@&#@!!!!) organization.
And, if American soldiers must die so that “innocent” civilians in enemy countries live, well, so be it. Right? What are a few innocent American soldiers when America’s altruistic image in the eyes of the world is at stake?
The “implications” I have mentioned dealt directly with Mr. Bidinotto’s speech, which seemed to endorse a form of subjectivism (i.e, the philosophical viewpoint that truth is determined by the individual). I will again reference some relevant passages from his talk.
“Limit the scope of… cooperation to concretes and particulars that implement a shared principle.” (He offers this “solution” right after making the statement that “there can be no compromise on basic principles…”) By “concretes and particulars,” he apparently is referring to “concrete, specific positions” on various issues. A few paragraphs later, he states that it is wrong for an organization such as TAS to offer “official positions” on issues such as the Iraq war, wiretaps, preemptive military strikes, homosexuality, female presidents, libertarianism and anarchy. For the organization to adopt such official positions amounts to taking a “party line,” thereby imposing its viewpoint on the entire membership.
This would be “authoritarian,” according to Mr. Bidinotto. TAS cannot engage in such a practice, because “everyone who seizes upon Ayn Rand’s system…reads diverse meanings into her words,” and it is wrong for “some people to serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.” “No two people will grasp all the implications of a complex, systematic philosophy in exactly the same way.” TAS must avoid taking concrete, specific positions in order to “respect the independence and integrity of all participants.”
Although Mr. Bidinotto explicitly states that he disapproves of “vacuous subjectivism,” the policy he is advocating amounts to exactly that. All of the specific issues he names (the Iraq war, wiretaps, preemptive military strikes, homosexuality, female presidents, libertarianism and anarchy) involve direct applications of fundamental principles. To say that TAS should not adopt clear positions on these issues is to imply that there is no single, correct application—i.e., that all positions are equally valid.
These are not, as he implies, “concrete, individual choices” within a range of optional choices subsumed by a fundamental principle. With regard to issues of this type, one position is demonstrably true and correct and every other position is demonstrably false. One position is consistent with fundamental principles, and all other positions contradict those principles. To argue that TAS should not adopt a single position on such issues “because people disagree” is de facto subjectivism, whether one cares to call it that or not.
(For the record, I consider that Ayn Rand’s positions on two of those issues—homosexuality and female presidents—were incorrect, but that is really beside the point.)
Here is the conclusion I drew about TAS (from post #7):
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.
To read those words and still accuse me of advocating “orthodoxy,” as Mr. Bidinotto does, reveals a penchant for whitewashing your critics that is truly breathtaking.
In my opinion, one reason TAS has not taken an unequivocal stand in regard to America’s right to “do whatever is necessary” to win this war is to avoid alienating some or all of its membership. (After reading Mr. Hudgins' last post, it is clear that this is not the only reason.) Mr. Bidinotto’s speech supplies the wider philosophical foundation underlying that policy, and underscores how such official agnosticism is contradictory to Objectivism.
Mr. Hudgins:
With his strange hermeneutics, Mr. Hardin translates my remark [about “nuking Iran”] thus: “the ‘spokespersons’ for TAS are so fond of smearing Brook and ARI with the accusation that he is the reincarnation of Dr. Strangelove.”
Yawn. As Mr. Hudgins surely knows, that one phrase of his [“nuking Iran”] had only minimal relevance to my general comment regarding “spokespersons for TAS.” As I said in post #32, I was caricaturing the viewpoint of a number of people. My comment was: “I do think that such a dismissive attitude accurately characterizes the views of many TAS critics of ARI.”
Mr. Hudgins:
3. 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?
We reject this tactic on two grounds: (1) The importance of not targeting those we know to be innocent, and (2) stupidity. I have stated over and over again my support for a policy of not targeting those we know to be innocent when it is possible to do so and where it serves no military purpose. Of course, my simple-minded critics strain their muddled brains when trying to grasp the distinction between that and “minimizing civilian deaths.” If we can isolate innocents (children are the best example of genuine “innocents”) and If killing them serves no military purpose, they should not be killed.
Beyond that, the military goal is to crush the enemy, not inspire them to greater heights of monstrous villainy. The idea is to destroy them so that they learn that the price to be paid for any future aggression is unthinkable. The tactic he suggests just gives them added incentive to plot our destruction while leaving their resources intact.
You would have to have read my previous posts in a state of total mental fog not to have appreciated that I have the highest regard for context in such matters. Mr. Hudgins' assessment of our “disproportionate” military response in World War II, which he appears to object to on moral grounds, underscores my deepest fears about the inability of TAS to provide anything remotely approaching moral guidance for the United States at a time of national crisis.
Of course there are some “leaders” with moral qualms about “doing whatever is necessary” to destroy the enemy and save innocent American lives. Gee. I wonder where they got their moral code. Hint: What did Charlton Heston bring down from his trip to Mount Sinai?
Yes, Mr. Hudgins, I am a good Objectivist, thank you very much. I have discovered a better code, one designed for living on earth. I will be happy to recommend some sources, if you’re interested.
Dennis
| 
