The Appeal for Unity: Ayn Rand vs TAS

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position, Ed.  It’s actually a pleasure to read an opposing viewpoint that displays calm reflection and clarity instead of hysteria and pedantry.

You would think people would figure out that, on a web forum like RoR, trying to obscure what others say with convoluted mud-slinging is not effective.  The mud just winds up being permanently plastered all over the mud-slinger’s pathetic face.

It’s interesting that John Stossel’s 1998 ABC documentary on Greed would be brought up in the context of a discussion about TAS.  David Kelley was a featured commentator on that show, which was obviously intended to convey the radical idea that, contrary to cultural convention, Greed is good.  If I remember correctly, Kelley gave his endorsement to that perspective.

Ironically, however, in February, 1993, Kelley went on record in REASON magazine arguing that the concept of greed was actually destructive because it carried the implication of an improper quest for wealth.  He co-wrote the article, “Gekko Eccho,” with Jeff Scott.   The title referred to Gordon Gekko, the financier in the popular film Wall Street, and the article dealt with the so-called “Decade of Greed” ushered in by the Reagan administration.  Here are two quotes from that article:

“…In motive, greed is a desire for wealth without regard for achievement or creation.  In action, greed is the unprincipled pursuit of wealth….”

“Of course, the pursuit of happiness does not entail selfishness in the conventional meaning of that term: the vain, self-centered, grasping pursuit of pleasure, riches, prestige or power….”

No one denies that the concept of greed can carry some unfortunate connotations, but these statements struck me as dangerously close to an apology for unbridled ambition. (No doubt RoR’s resident fussbudget on rhetorical fallacies will be eager to jump in here with some pedantic twaddle about “intellectual nitpicking.”)  Ayn Rand did not hesitate to title one of the chapters about Galt’s Gulch as “The Utopia of Greed.”  I can imagine her defense: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it…”  She once wrote glowingly about the blessings of “commercial greed” during the Christmas season.

I got the distinct impression that there was something about the morality of rational self-interest which Kelley found obnoxious. As much as I admire some of his truly brilliant work, that article was the beginning of my personal disillusionment with David Kelley.

Ed,

As of 2005, the article remains a citation on page 4 of Kelley’s TOC curriculum vitae.  Even though he was a co-writer of this particular piece, I certainly see no evidence that he has ever disowned any part of the content. And I am confident he would not disavow it, for reasons I will explain.

To begin with, I think it’s likely that he genuinely believes that, in spite of his participation in Stossel’s documentary, using the negatively charged word ‘greed’ is counter-productive to the spread of Objectivism.  I think he’s wrong, but I would not judge him morally for holding that view per se.  Prior to reading that REASON article, however, I had thought of him as the leading authority on Objectivism.  I no longer believe that. 

I said that his sentiments about greed suggested to me that he likely had some misgivings about Rand’s view of ethics.  That was further confirmed for me when I read TOC’s official “Position Statement” regarding the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01.    He was still TOC’s executive director at that time.  The following quotation may sound benign, but it marked the end of any support I would ever give to that organization:

4. While it is legitimate in war to risk civilian casualties, the military campaign should make every reasonable effort to avoid them….

I said then, and I still firmly believe that this principle is tantamount to altruism.  The “Position Statement” was issued around the same time that TOC offered and endorsed an analysis by Patrick Stephens entitled “The Justice of War.”  That essay is an open defense of so-called ‘Just War Theory,’ an historically Christian doctrine which is, once again, clearly altruistic.

That article explicitly rejects Ayn Rand’s view that “there are no innocents in a dictatorship,” and praises the “heroic efforts” of our troops to minimize enemy casualties.  It is clear that TOC—and Kelley—gave their endorsement to the policy that American soldiers should be put in harm’s way as necessary to minimize “innocent” civilian deaths.  Such a viewpoint is obscenely altruistic.  An additional implication is that the lives of soldiers can be jeopardized if using technology (i.e., bombs) will result in significant collateral damage.  And that targeting innocents to achieve swift and total victory, as the U.S. did in World War II, is inconsistent with their view of “justice.”

This places the lives of our soldiers below that of “innocent” civilians.  Given these altruistic principles—together with TAS’ virtual silence about the Bush administration’s religious and inherently self-sacrificial approach to prosecuting the war--I would be very surprised to hear David retract one word of that REASON article.

So I would have to say that these positions, taken together, cast TAS and its leadership in a very compromised moral light.  As an Objectivist institution, TAS is adopting positions that are clearly immoral.  These are ideas that will lead directly to innocent American deaths, and I just do not see how TAS can reasonably claim ignorance of that fact.  If TAS were a Christian organization, Kelley and his cohorts would be very sadly mistaken—but unless they saw this matter as clearly as I do, I could see not judging them morally.  But they don’t have that excuse.

It all adds up.  I see all of this as connected, with the resultant TAS atmosphere of semi-nihilistic moral confusion leading directly to brazen moral lapses such as the Perigo disaster.  TAS is reflecting its founder’s feelings of ambivalence about rational selfishness and morality in general.  I regard that as craven and cowardly, and—by the standard of Objectivist morality—I see no alternative but to characterize TAS’ leadership as immoral.

I know this sounds harsh, so let me qualify my assessment by saying that I am not “condemning” TAS in ARI fashion.  I have no doubt that there are some decent people in the hierarchy of TAS.  And I think they undoubtedly do some good work.  (As I said, much of David’s past work, especially The Evidence of the Senses, is nothing short of brilliant.)  I think their leadership could fairly easily redeem itself by correcting these errors and changing course.  But unless and until they do, my fundamental moral evaluation stands.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights (Ayn Rand in Collectivized "Rights").

Abuse of the English language / the failure to grasp subtle distinctions or the importance of shades of meaning ==> A dictionary on the word “greed”: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves. Greed is not the same thing as the healthy desire for wealth, to live prosperously. It connotes a single-minded focus on money or wealth at the expense of other values, or without regard to whether one acquires them honestly. An Objectivist would not –literally and seriously- use the term “greed” in formal writing to define his philosophy for the same reason he would not use the term “gluttony” to describe his approach to nutrition.

Glenn and Merlin:

Here is a link to several quotations from Ayn Rand regarding the issue of “innocents” under a dictatorship.

Regarding your question, Merlin, note that Ayn Rand refers to what a “conqueror” can properly do, after the invasion is successful.   She is not talking about the actions permitted to achieve the goal of conquest.  Once a dictatorial government has been neutralized and is no longer a threat, the invading army cannot proceed to trample on the rights of the population.  Their right to invade is only legitimate if their intent is to end the dictatorship.

Phil:

Point One:

Here’s the first definition of “greed” offered in the American Heritage dictionary:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed".

Here’s the next definition offered: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves.

I made explicitly clear that the word has troublesome connotations.  So does selfishness.  I assume you wouldn’t use that word to define your philosophy either.  Like selfishness, it is a word that needs to be used by Objectivists because it emphasizes and underscores that there is nothing morally wrong with wanting as much material wealth as you can attain.  Like selfishness, there is nothing about the word itself that suggests it involves anything illicit.  People attach that connotation because altruism carries that implication.

Point Two:

The phrase “making every reasonable effort to avoid civilian casualties” means that such casualties are to be a primary consideration in military strategy.  Any military objective other than achieving total victory as swiftly as possible places the lives of our soldiers and citizens at risk unnecessarily, and that is altruistic.  If one soldier’s life is lost because of that strategy, that soldier’s life was valued less than that of the opposing nation’s citizens, and that is grossly immoral.

Point Three:

You consider “making every reasonable effort to avoid civilian casualties” consistent with targeting civilians with two atom bombs?  Unbelievable.

Point Four:

Most of the civilians in dictatorships are fundamentally passive.  Their economic support of the government is largely responsible for the continued existence of those governments.  It is their responsibility to do whatever they can to help topple a criminal regime or fight against it or flee.  They cannot continue to live their lives as “business as usual” and claim innocence while their government engages in aggression and mass murder against innocent nations.   That is the point Ayn Rand was making.

Incidentally, it was widely reported that a great many Iraqi’s in fact supported the U.S. military invasion to overturn Hussein, even though it put their lives in jeopardy. The same was true in Nazi Germany.  A number of Afghans joined with our military in the fight against the Taliban.  If any citizens could be described as innocent, they would deserve that label because they were willing to join us in the fight against their dictators—while recognizing that it might well cost them their lives.   I am quite certain Ayn Rand would also recognize them as such.

So you once thought I was an “intelligent, reasonable fellow,” huh?  I remember the joke Ronald Reagan told when he was asked why he was no longer a Democrat.  He spoke about a farmer who was riding in his truck with his wife, and suddenly she says:

“Honey, do you remember years ago when we always used to sit so close?”

The farmer looks at her and says:  “I ain’t moved.” 

Regarding your question, Merlin, note that Ayn Rand refers to what a “conqueror” can properly do, after the invasion is successful. She is not talking about the actions permitted to achieve the goal of conquest.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.