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 unread


Post 0

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A very dear friend of mine (who also happens to be an Objectivist) once mentioned to me that a person's background should have no impact on one's evaluation of that person. I disagree, but only in a matter of degrees rather than categorically.

My friend's argument relies on the notion that a person has no control over where he is born, who his parents are, or how well he is treated by others. A person should be judged solely upon what he chooses to be. So, for instance, persons "A" and "B" are both innovative, successful, and wealthy businessmen. Person "A" came from a loving home, where he was well fed, clothed, and emotionally supported. In contrast, Person "B" was abused as a child, lived in semi-squalid conditions, and had no parental support. My friend would only consider "So, for instance, persons "A" and "B" are both innovative, successful, and wealthy businessmen" when evaluating these men.

On the other hand, I take into account a person's background. It is very easy for a child to be swallowed up by negative experiences, particularly when they have no real example of good character, ambition, or successful living to follow. This child, as opposed to the well-supported child, must intentionally seek out a better life, and he must do so against his family. For the majority of parasitic-types take offense when a person rejects the parasitic form of living. They seem to grasp that it is a definitive rejection of their way of life. So, the child that goes against this will almost inevitably face rejection from his own family. Yet, this child still chose to find a more productive, fulfilling life for himself. He didn't allow himself to be drug into the victim mentality that would have been ripe for him; He didn't allow the parasitic form of living to control his life. When I evaluate this person, therefore, I experience a glint of extra respect for the fact that he, as a child, was willing to name the familiar as a negative. As well, he successfully and positively rejected the familiar in favor of a better life (as opposed to simply following the familiar as Person "A" had done).

To be clear, I do not for a second believe that a person's background should define him. Rather, I consider a person's background as one of many worthy characteristics in the over-all evaluation of that person.

So, is there a standard Objectivist view on this matter? Thanks in advance for any insight!


Post 1

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When I evaluate this person, therefore, I experience a glint of extra respect for the fact that he, as a child, was willing to name the familiar as a negative.

I totally agree.

To be clear, I do not for a second believe that a person's background should define him. Rather, I consider a person's background as one of many worthy characteristics in the over-all evaluation of that person.

So, is there a standard Objectivist view on this matter? Thanks in advance for any insight!


They're "heroes."  Overcoming obstacles is heroic.  Even for those who have had the best advantage while growing up, that doesn't guarantee everything will always go their way.  POW's, victims of violent crimes, etc., can choose to stay overwhelmed and locked into victim mode, or they can break free.

Breaking free is heroic.

The heroic spirit displayed by overcoming obstacles has the benefit of offering inspiration and hope to the rest of us.  Inspiration and hope fuel a healthy sense of life.  

Heroes embody human ideals. There's a reason people flock to hero films.  Everyone loves a "rags to riches" story, whether its material or spiritual gain, or both.  Everyone loves to think of themselves as being able to overcome the odds that face them.

What a great question.

I keep thinking of things to add, and getting interrupted!

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 8/04, 9:08am)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 8/04, 10:12am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting question. If one's background shouldn't be ignored for the positive, it shouldn't be ignored for the negative. Does an underachiever or a scoundrel from a bad background deserve the same criticism and condemnation as one from a better background?

A related question is: Should a person's natural endowments be ignored? In other words, should we ignore the presence or absence of natural ability in our evaluation of a person's life and accomplishments?

Does a super-achiever with great natural ability from the best background deserve more admiration and respect than an average-achiever with modest natural ability from a modest background? Whether he deserves it or not, we tend to give it to him. In practice, we admire the high achiever over the low achiever, regardless of their respective backgrounds or natural abilities. For example, a tennis player with great athletic talent may win a tennis tournament, even though he has expended less time and effort honing his skills than a less talented player, who loses. But the winner is admired and respected more than the loser. And we condemn criminals and scoundrels, regardless of their upbringing or natural endowments. A criminal from a bad background with a low IQ receives the same punishment as one from a good background with a high IQ.

In practice, we look not at the environmental or hereditary factors affecting a person's actions, but at the actions themselves and their results. We are effects oriented in our praise and condemnation, not cause oriented. We focus on the consequences of a person's actions in our judgment of him or her, and tend to ignore the various factors underlying and influencing those actions and consequences.

Whether or not we should is another question entirely.

- Bill

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps it is because the effects of the actions - the mindfulness or lack thereof of the thinking - is what constitutes the human, whereas the enviroment is what constitutes the mere being.....

Post 4

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert wrote:

> Perhaps it is because the effects of the actions - the mindfulness or lack thereof of the thinking - is what
> constitutes the human, whereas the enviroment is what constitutes the mere being.....

Robert:

I like this categorization. It makes a strong point in a few words.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 5

Saturday, August 4, 2007 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps it is because the effects of the actions - the mindfulness or lack thereof of the thinking - is what constitutes the human, whereas the environment is what constitutes the mere being.....
Isn't the mindfulness or lack thereof a cause of the action, rather than the effect?

In any case, one of the points I was making is that a very talented person could achieve success by using less of his ability -- e.g., by being less mindful -- than a less talented person could by being more mindful. What we admire and respect is the success, irrespective of how it was achieved -- whether by hard work with less talent or less work with more talent.

- Bill


Post 6

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 2:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I truly enjoyed all of the responses (all of which gave me food for thought).

This is something I need to think through further. Through these posts (particularly William Dwyer's posts), I have realized that I do have a tendency to criticize across the board (regardless of background), while handing out praise on a very selective basis. What an interesting contradiction that I must unfold!

The only statement that I found troubling was:

"A criminal from a bad background with a low IQ receives the same punishment as one from a good background with a high IQ." -- W. Dwyer

My problem with this statement is that, while our justice system has historically held this to be true, recent changes in the justice system are leaning towards coddling "victim" offenders. The idea is that they were victims as children because they were poor, from a bad neighborhood, and/or abused -- therefore, they are not as responsible for their adult actions as the adults who experienced average or privileged childhoods. Granted, I completely disagree with this new trend in the justice system, but my disagreement with it doesn't change the fact that it exists.


Post 7

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Virginia,

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I find your posts perceptive as well. What I meant by the statement -- "A criminal from a bad background with a low IQ receives the same punishment as one from a good background with a high IQ." -- is that that is supposedly the standard. But you're right, it isn't in practice. In fact, if you're a wealthy celebrity with a good lawyer and a sympathetic jury, like O.J. Simpson, you can get away with murder.

I wasn't aware of the "recent changes in the justice system towards coddling 'victim' offenders." I wouldn't be surprised if were true, but could you give me some examples?

- Bill

Post 8

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 9:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Bill's first post which reverses the question gives the most fruitful way to consider the question.

Of course, there are all sorts of judgements so the question itself is a bit vague. Should the government treat poor murderers with more leniency than rich ones? No, equality before the law rules that out. Should a school judge between two otherwise equally qualified applicants based upon background? Perhaps, but certainly not as a matter of legal fiat. Should a writer better desrcibe a hero who has overcome adversity - of course, it's more heroic. Should we base our personal relationships on such judgements? I see no reason not to befriend both people since friendship is not a zero-sum game.

Ultimately, such judgments will always come down to very small distinctions and personal value judgments. I don't think that having such a rule set in stone is necessary a good idea if it stops one from considering all the facts on an individual basis.

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I wasn't aware of the "recent changes in the justice system towards coddling 'victim' offenders." I wouldn't be surprised if were true, but could you give me some examples?" -- W. Dwyer


A couple of specific cases off of the top of my head:
Moussaoui's conviction -- 9 out of the 12 jurors voted against the death penalty for Moussaoui because his father was violent and his family had little money. (I don't have the exact source, but I read this in a Times article).

The "Yale Murder" (Richard Herrin) -- Herrin used a hammer to bash in the head of his girlfriend, Bonnie Garland, as she slept. The case was open and shut (he surrendered to the police covered in her blood, and he confessed). He only received 1st degree manslaughter. During the trial the defense team used emotional pull to sway the jury. They emphasized that he was an illegitimate child from a poor background with only one friend -- the victim. Simultaneously, they emphasized that the victim was from a prominent family with money and friends galore. In the end, the jury felt sorry for the defendant. (Peter Meyer wrote a book about this case: "The Yale Murder," Empire Books). (emphasis added)

With a quick Google Search, I found:
 --On September 7, 1987, Mr. Doug Lu Chen, a native of China and a New York resident for a year, bludgeoned his wife to death because she was having an affair. One law journal states: "In March of 1989, Mr. Chen, now charged with second-degree manslaughter for the beating death of his wife, was punished with a mere five years probation. Justice Edward K. Pincus of the New York State Supreme Court justified giving Mr. Chen the lightest possible sentence for such a charge — a charge which had already been reduced from second-degree manslaughter — by citing the importance of Chinese culture in proper understanding of the factors that drove Mr. Chen to violence. For Justice Pincus, Mr. Chen’s cultural background provided an important explanation as to why the man became temporarily deranged after hearing of his wife’s adultery and proceeded to murder her." (emphasis added)  
 
--In 1998, James Leslie Karis Jr. was convicted of murder, rape and kidnapping (two victims). His sentence was overturned and held over for a new sentencing phase because his attorney had not been allowed to offer evidence of his abusive childhood. "Quoting a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, the judge (Moulds) wrote: "There is a 'belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background or to emotional and mental problems, may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse. . . Thus, it is reasonable to expect that some jurors would have found this evidence especially important in understanding a defendant who had acted violently toward women." (emphasis added)
 
--(July, 2007) Brandon Austill was sentenced to 7 1/2 to 30 years for beating his infant daughter (the evidence showed that he repeatedly struck the baby's head against a bathroom sink, broke her leg, and used a cattle prod to shock her). Why was this man's sentence so lenient when he faced thirty counts of felony aggravated assault and he confessed prior to trial? Because he grew up in squalid conditions that were accompanied by abuse. He pled guilty, but he pled guilty by reason of mental defect. According to a psychologist, Austill suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, stemming from abuse suffered as a child. Austill will receive psychiatric care in prison. "This is probably your last chance," Somerset County Judge John Cascio told Austill at sentencing. (emphasis added)
 
More generally, you have new defense strategies like the "Self-Victimization Defense." This defense states that the defendant's anger at his social station mitigates his crimes. Although this defense isn't commonly successful, it has been used successfully in a couple of cases in California and the District of Columbia. Another new defense strategy is the "Urban Survival Syndrome." This defense argues that the defendant lives in a violent area, therefore he is justified in committing violence. This defense split a Texas jury 11-1 in 1994.
(For information on these defenses and other "emerging defenses," http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOCONNOR/405lect02.htm).


Post 10

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Ultimately, such judgments will always come down to very small distinctions and personal value judgments." -- Ted Keer


Well stated!


Post 11

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Virginia,

Thanks for the references. Very interesting! I was not aware of these changes.

So, would you say that the same punishment should be meted out for the same offense, regardless of the person's background? And if you would, does that imply that you think that a person's background is irrelevant in judging his virtues and vices, and that we should focus only on his good and bad deeds?

- Bill

Post 12

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Thanks for the references. Very interesting! I was not aware of these changes." - W. Dwyer

You're most certainly welcome! Granted, I feel like I need a shower after trudging through those examples :)

"So, would you say that the same punishment should be meted out for the same offense, regardless of the person's background? And if you would, does that imply that you think that a person's background is irrelevant in judging his virtues and vices, and that we should focus only on his good and bad deeds?"
-- W. Dwyer

Keep in mind that I'm still working this through -- but I will attempt to vocalize some of my thoughts:

I find that there is a distinction between negative actions justified by negativity and positive actions in general, and positive actions in spite of negativity more specifically.

Whether a person becomes a criminal or simply wallows away his life via inaction, self-pity and the "poor me" mentality rule his life. There is little or no regard for the potential inherent in his existence. I am summarily repulsed by this attitude and its resulting actions, whether the person is priviliged or not. However, when a privileged individual chooses this path, I do feel an extra bit of irritation with him as opposed to the individual from a rough background. My reasoning is that the privileged individual had every opportunity right in front of him -- hell, he didn't have to earn those opportunities; he simply had to grab them and run. Instead, he chose the negative. Of course, my extra irritation with the person from the privileged background doesn't mean that I have extra sympathy for the person from the bad background. This wouldn't be remotely logical. Therefore, I hold both individuals (privileged and non-privileged) equally culpable, as it should be in the eyes of the law. However, my personal moral standards are more offended by the priviliged individual.

Inversely, when a person takes positive actions in his life in order to live a fulfilling, happy, successful life, he rejects self-pity and the "poor me" mentality. He knows and embraces the potential inherent in his existence. I summarily applaud this attitude and its resulting actions, whether the person is privileged or not. However, when a non-privileged individual chooses this path, I feel a smidgen of extra respect for him as opposed to the person from a privileged background. My reasoning (as stated in my initial post) is that the non-privileged individual had to fight for every opportunity before he could even try to succeed. (Oftentimes this fight results with him being condemned by those around him. As a child, others' opinions can be quite significant, particularly when they are from parents and siblings). In spite of it all, he chose the positive. Of course, my extra respect for the person from the non-privileged background doesn't mean that I lose respect for the individual from a privileged background. Again, this wouldn't be remotely logical. Therefore, I have a great deal of respect for both (privileged and non-privileged). However, my personal moral standards are more pleased by the non-privileged individual.

Of course, my individual moral standards are not and should never be made into legal dictate for society as a whole. My concern is that my own moral standards are in some way contradictory . . . and, of course, that is why I'm still working this through! :)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A great example of the latter would be Frederick Douglass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass


Post 14

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just a shower?

I sanctioned post nine, but now I need a shower, a drink, and a paparazzo to go beat up on. [/irony]

Ted

Post 15

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"A great example of the latter would be Frederick Douglass." -- Kurt Eichert


An excellent example!


Post 16

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 9:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Just a shower? I sanctioned post nine, but now I need a shower, a drink, and a paparazzo to go beat up on. [/irony]" -- Ted Keer

Did I mention that was going to need a scrub brush with steel bristles?  :)


Post 17

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 8:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Reverend:
======================
Perhaps it is because the effects of the actions - the mindfulness or lack thereof of the thinking - is what constitutes the human, whereas the environment is what constitutes the mere being.....
======================

Bill's retort to him:
======================
Isn't the mindfulness or lack thereof a cause of the action, rather than the effect?
======================

Bill, if I may be so bold as to speak for the Rev', Rev' meant for us to infer that "the action" is the concrete instantiation of a mindfulness or lack thereof. That your action is another's evidence of your mind at work -- or not at work!

Think of a toddler who wants the cookie jar on the kitchen counter. The cookie jar, along with a whole load of washed dishes, is resting on a long dish towel on the counter -- and a free end of this towel is hanging over the counter down low enough that the toddler can reach it. He starts pulling on the dish towel to bring what it is that he wants over the edge of the counter and ...

Now, think of a toddler who has been given "smart drugs" (e.g., pramiracetam, hydergine, selegiline, etc.) since his birth. He eyes that same cookie jar in the same context. He stares at the cookie jar, the dishes, and the hanging towel which they are both resting on. He doesn't even try pulling on the towel. Remembering the sight of his dad bending a clothes hanger in order to get into a car -- which the little tyke had been accidentally locked into years ago -- he runs for the closet; instead of for the towel.

;-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/08, 8:12pm)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.