About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert B,

Both my quote and his are from The Cult of Moral Grayness, June 64, reprinted in VOS.


Post 21

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Honest question, Scott.  I will answer you tomorrow.

Post 22

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Virtue of selfishness Cult of moral grayness.  I read this post and it was the first thing that came to mind.

Ok the second, the first being Nova rocks.

---Landon


Post 23

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Robert D.

I was interested because some Objectivists have argued that there are no "degrees of evil" -- that "irrationalism" is all undifferentiated -- that Kant and Rousseau and Hitler and Ted Bundy are all equally evil, etc.  In this quotation (and others I have found), Rand made it clear that she believed otherwise.


Post 24

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also from VOS (p 89):

-------------
"There are two sides to every issue," which they take to mean that nobody is ever fully right or fully wrong ... [break] ... This does not mean that the claims of both sides will necessarily be equally valid, nor even that there will be some modicum of justice on both sides.
-------------

Just as (as I have often said) 100% precision is not needed for 100% accuracy -- so too, 100% rightness (or 100% validity, or 100% justice) is not needed to capture the right course of action -- from the contextually-limited alternatives available.

Here's a great example of imperfect knowledge leading to a perfect choice:

I don't know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that hitting my "20" against the dealer's "8" is an absolutely wrong choice (there is still a miniscule chance that the dealer will get "21") -- but it is still 100% wrong for me to "choose" to take a hit in this situation -- it is not merely 51%, 75%, or even 99.9% wrong to do so.

Ed

Post 25

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I used to go through Ayn's writing to quote particularly apropos exerpts, but I got tired of all the looking and searching, and it occasionally got an accusation of argument from authority. I presume at least a basic knowledge of Objectivism on this site, especailly by those who accuse me of violating its principles. I ought to pick up the Ayn Rand Lexicon for this purpose, though, because that really was a spot on useage by Landon, and, as always, I appreciate Ed and Ramblin' Robert's insights. I like Aaron's post as well. I look forward to Robert Davidson's reply, because I am interested in whether and to what extent has participated in immoral government action, or to discover how he distinguishes any of it. Should be interesting.

Post 26

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 9:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd like to second Scott's sentiments and arguments. I grew up with Sesame StreetWhere in the World is Carmen Sandiego? and Square One.


Post 27

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It would probably be unseemly to start expounding on the merits of "Square One" here, wouldn't it?
In any case, I second Andrew's comment (and thereby third Scott's?).


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon quoted Ayn Rand:
"Unless one is prepared to dispense with morality altogether and to regard a petty chiseller and a murderer as morally equal, one still has to judge and evaluate the many shadings of ‘gray’ that one may encounter in the characters of individual men."

Which inspired Robert B to write:
>I was interested because some Objectivists have argued that there are no "degrees of evil" -- that "irrationalism" is all undifferentiated -- that Kant and Rousseau and Hitler and Ted Bundy are all equally evil, etc. In this quotation (and others I have found), Rand made it clear that she believed otherwise.

Re-reading her essay, which I can only access in an abridged form at the moment on the net, I can't say that I find it "clear that she believed otherwise". The situation is actually most *unclear*. For as well as Robert Davison's counter-quote, there are quotes like the following:

"Just as in epistemology, the cult of uncertainty is a revolt against reason -- so, in ethics, the cult of moral grayness is a revolt against moral values."
-The Cult of Moral Grayness, Ayn Rand

So let's just compare the two statements from the same essay.

In the first quote she's saying that to *not* consider individual morality in terms of shades of grey is effectively "...to dispense with morality altogether...". But then in the next breath, she says that this very consideration of "moral grayness" is "...a revolt against moral values.."!!

This seems about as contradictory a position as it is possible to take. (It reminds me of a similar contradictory pronouncements over ethics in emergency situations). So I think the one thing that *is* clear is that it is *not* clear!

My own opinion is that there is a 'Cult of Moral Black-Or-Whiteness'; or rather, various cults of it. Without wanting to make to much of what is a simple metaphor anyway, you might say that these cults, when faced with "'the many shadings of ‘gray’ that one may encounter" in the world, compulsively *misidentify* these shades as being 'purely' black or 'purely' white. This is a willful rejection of a plain fact of reality and thus can hardly be considered moral itself.

- Daniel



Post 29

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I also agree with Scott on this. There wouldn't be any taxpayer funded broadcasting under an Objectivist system, but in the meantime it's not the worst use of government money by a long shot, specially while public broadcasters show stuff that the commercial channels don't. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that PBS and NPR also receive a lot of private donations in addition to tax funds?

(Over here in the UK most of the BBC's channels are funded by an up front tv licencing fee, which is also not perfect but I personally think is better than funding from general taxation.)

MH


Post 30

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd prefer a fifth...preferably of some decent single malt Scotch...

Post 31

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Get rid of my "Car Talk," and I'll kill someone. How's THAT for a statement of moral certainty?

Post 32

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Robert B.,

some Objectivists have argued that there are no "degrees of evil" -- that "irrationalism" is all undifferentiated -- that Kant and Rousseau and Hitler and Ted Bundy are all equally evil, etc.  In this quotation (and others I have found), Rand made it clear that she believed otherwise.
I know you have been trying to make this point for sometime.   Of course Rand believed in degrees of guilt, how could a rational person believe otherwise?


Post 33

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's (your) definition of evil?

Nathaniel Branden says the true nature of evil is is the ignoring of reality.

My belief is that evil is not, of course, a standalone entity. I view evil(s) as actions springing from hateful thoughts. Then you can look at the origin of hateful thoughts and most often if you don't find pathology, you find ignorance. So, in that respect I agree with Branden.


Post 34

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just to clarify:

There is a big difference between moral relativism (which obliterates distinctions between good and evil), and determining degrees of evil.

The "cult of moral grayness" that Rand protests is the view that nothing is clearly right or wrong, but only a mixture of "grays." When she speaks of morality in "black and white" terms, she is acknowledging that an act can clearly be distinguished as moral or immoral.

However, there is the additional consideration: how evil? A college kid cheating on a test is immoral, but is he immoral to the same degree as a career criminal? Is a person who slaps another person just as immoral as a murderer? Of course not. The Objectivist ethics weighs relative degrees of good and evil in actions by taking into account their value consequences.

This reflects Objectivism's emphasis that ethics is not just about "being virtuous" as an end in itself; it is primarily about seeking rational values. Weighing degrees of good and harm is directly related to the value-focus of the philosophy.

[edited for typos]
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 6/28, 10:19am)


Post 35

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I have always thought your emphasis on value-seeking is one of the most important lessons Objectivists can learn. The reason virtue-focus is often unsatisfying is that it is abstract and does not emphasize the causal relationship we have with reality. We are responsible for effecting any changes in the general direction of our lives and for reacting appropriately to any curveballs life throws our way. We are responsible for creating the life we want for ourselves. No matter how honest, how brave we are or how much integrity we have, at the end of the day we have to live with the life we have created for ourselves.

Jim


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

Okay, Robert, now that you have called me a house nigger, let's examine your black and white existence, okay?

 

In not answering you yesterday, I have put an expectation in your head that I am working on some grand complicated answer to a difficult question.  Neither is true.  It is not a difficult question; it was simply late last night when I saw your post.


Do you carry a driver's license? Have you ever paid taxes? Ever benefited from a government program, like roads? Public university? Ever obeyed a speed limit? Paid a traffic ticket? Parking ticket? Obeyed a cop? Used a public library? Attended a public concert or museum?

 

Not all of the items on your list are the same.  Let us examine them in context.

 

Yes I carry a driver’s license.  This is not particularly evil of me, as I believe drivers should be licensed.  What I do not believe is that they should be licensed by the government.  I refuse to say, as you have, that the government does some good things (assuming you think this is a good thing). Such a statement would acknowledge that my life belongs to society and that society has the right to dispose of it and my property as it sees fit.

 

Of course I have paid taxes, parking tickets etc.  The choice between paying and refusing to pay is the probability that I will end up in jail.  Faced with that choice, I paid taxes.  Do I approve of taxes?  No.  Do I say so?  Yes.  Do I justify the theft by saying, “well, some of the proceeds produce something of which I approve?  No.  To take that position lends respectability to theft. 

 

I have benefited from a public program, attended a public university (although my degree is from a private one), used a public library and attended concerts and museums.  I do not consider these forays into evil.  After all, They are not ‘free’; I am paying for them.  The fact that the money that produced them was extorted does not prevent me from attending them.  It, in fact, propels me to attend to get my money’s worth.  But, I do not justify the theft by saying, “well, some of the proceeds produce something of which I approve; because theft is wrong and because I am usually disappointed.   ‘Public works’ are invariably banal except when created in the private sector and purchased by "public entities" as was the case with Sesame Street.

 

Have I ever obeyed a cop?  Every chance I get.

 

If the answer to any of the above is yes, by your own definition, you are a hypocrite.

 

You have to explain how you reach that conclusion.   Handing over one’s wallet to an armed bandit does not make one a hypocrite; saying to yourself or others, “he probably needed the money more than I did, or perhaps he will put it to some ‘good’ use”, is.

 

Why haven't you founded Galt's Gulch yet?

 

Why would I do that?

 

It's all black and white, right?

 

Yes, being forbidden by force to practice morality does not negate the existence of morality.

 

Or are you writing your entries here from a Federal Pen?

 

No, but I did jot down a few notes with a federal pen.  I clipped it at the post office.


Seriously, do you not get this?

 

What’s to get?


Post 37

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel

Re-reading her essay, which I can only access in an abridged form at the moment on the net, I can't say that I find it "clear that she believed otherwise". The situation is actually most *unclear*.
I don't know what you are reading, but none of this or the jumbled quotes below make any sense or represent Rand's point in any way.


Post 38

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel, to second Robert's notion (above), I don't think that you get it.

There is such thing as a hierarchy of value, Daniel. For a simple analogy, lets assume 3 graduated monetary outcomes (an expected hierarchy) from a given human choice.

A) zero
B) $5
C) $10

Does choice B represent "grayness" (because it's between zero value, and a higher value)? Only when choice C is available as an option (only where choice C is possible to man). Under the limitations of A vs B only, the context takes on a black-and-white appeal.

Another way to say this is that the relatively different values open to man are ABSOLUTELY NON-IDENTICAL. This is how I can be so sure in my BlackJack example above.

How I can be so sure about not hitting a "20" against a dealer's "8" -- I know, with contextually-absolute certainty, that taking a hit would be wrong. I realize the absolute inferiority of taking a hit vs. "staying" [an absolute lack of value is not a necessary component of an absolutely inferior choice].

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/28, 10:58am)


Post 39

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert D.:

"I refuse to say, as you have, that the government does some good things (assuming you think this is a good thing). "

Unless you are an anarchist, I would guess that you find SOME government actions necessary and good? No?

Robert D.:

"I have benefited from a public program, attended a public university (although my degree is from a private one), used a public library and attended concerts and museums. I do not consider these forays into evil. After all, They are not ‘free’; I am paying for them. The fact that the money that produced them was extorted does not prevent me from attending them. It, in fact, propels me to attend to get my money’s worth. But, I do not justify the theft by saying, “well, some of the proceeds produce something of which I approve; because theft is wrong and because I am usually disappointed."

When did I ever justify taxation? Didn't I state the absolute opposite? How is my denunciation of taxation, clear statement that the government shouldn't fund television, and statement that I find PBS to be a relatively productive use of tax dollars compared to the other atrocities out there, different from your use and appreciation of museums, and college?

Please re-read my initial posts to this thread. I was all set to repeat myself, again, but then decided that you will either re-read what I have actually written, or you will not. Since you missed it the first time, I have my doubts. Robert B and Ed have more or less shared my sentiment, effectively repeating is about 4x. You AREN'T getting this.

Maybe this will help:

Taxes are collected. With the tax dollars, the government funds public television, from which some citizens derive some benefit. The government also uses some of the money to reward past political favors of the regime's cronies, with no benefit to anyone other than the cronies.

Are these two immoral uses of tax dollars equally immoral, or not?

If you say that they are equally immoral, then we will all understand that you cannot distinguish between evils. If you answer affirmatively, you agree with me, and have been utterly and needlessly mistaken as to my position and motives.

I agree with you, this IS simple. So, which is it?

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.