Daniel,
It seemed you were speaking far more generally here (post 44):
I was. I thought at that point that I was merely clearing up your confusion. My point being that Rand was talking about two different things in that essay, she was not contradicting herself.
But let's grant that you meant it to specifically apply to other people. Why then is it that when you judge other people you can "...judge in favour of that which most closely approaches white..." (which I would certainly agree with) but when you personally face a situation, there can be "no shades of gray"? Further, as I've noted already, far more often than not in life we are personally faced with limited alternatives, ones that aren't purely black or white. So such a black-or-white only approach can only lead to either a) paralysis, or b) far more commonly, lengthy post-rationalising about how that particular gray was really, truly white or black...;-)
Since you seem to be polite I will try again. Man has free will. He can choose to be good or evil. As Rand says, if you know the difference between good and evil why would you choose evil or a degree of evil? Choice is within your power and is not as difficult as you suggest. This does not mean you must be constantly moralizing or nagging those around you. Compromising a principle is choosing gray.
It is only necessary to say something, to refuse compromise, when your silence would suggest that you are countenancing evil. A comprise is not doing something you dislike, it is doing something you know to be wrong. Going to the opera or the ballet to please your wife is not a compromise, going to church just to please her would be. Working for someone whose ideas you do not share is not a compromise, pretending that you agree with his ideas is. For example, if he makes a racist remark, you must let him know you disagree. Silence in this case would be evil. You can not further morality by paying lip service to the opposite. This is why I get aggravated with Scott. Taxation is evil; saying that some of the money is spent well (which is subjective anyway) is equivalent to ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy’.
What others have chosen is not up to you. You can not force others to be ‘good’, so you do have to deal with gray. A petty thief is not a murderer, so our legal code must of necessity deal with shades of gray, and it punishes the thief less harshly. Because Scott knows that taxation is theft, I judge him less harshly than I would judge a progressive.
It seems odd, especially when you consider that morals and ethics *usually involve other people*!
That depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? Sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you’re the windshield.
|
