On Sanctioning the Sanctioner Sanctioners

dan_edge · July 12, 2007

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Soon after discovering Objectivism, I learned of "the Split" which occurred between the leaders of the ARI and David Kelley's group. At the time, it seemed so important that our high school study group stopped everything we were doing to research this issue -- we wanted to choose the right side from the beginning. My friend Chris McKenzie printed out over 100 pages of text related to the Split, and we dived in. After reading many of the essays, letters, and other Split-related documents, I tentatively agreed with the ARIan philosophical perspective on all the main points.

After several years of studying Objectivism in more detail, I revisited the Split again in order to gain a more in-depth understanding of the epistemological and ethical issues involved. Once again, I found that I sided with the ARI camp on all of the important philosophical disputes. In summary, I concluded that Objectivism is a closed system, that Kelley's understanding of epistemology as applied to ethical judgment is severely flawed, that "toleration" (in the sense Kelley describes it) is not a virtue, and that granting sanction to one's ideological enemies is a dangerous game.

Regarding this last point, however - the issue of sanction - I have never been fully satisfied with my understanding of how to apply the principle. I agree that it is counter-productive to sanction those who misrepresent one's ideas, but the question remains in my mind: What constitutes sanction?

To "sanction" a person, group, or idea is to grant it a degree of legitimacy. One dictionary website defines sanction as "encourag[ing] or tolerat[ing] by indicating approval." It is unethical to publicly encourage, tolerate, and approve of one's enemies.

One does not need explicitly to voice his approval in order to grant sanction -- it is often given implicitly. For instance, one could argue that joining a political party grants sanction to the ideology underlying the party's platform, or that engaging in serious debate with a thoroughly dishonest opponent grants a degree of legitimacy to the opponent's arguments. But how far does this go? I will first consider a few clear examples, then present some borderline cases for analysis.

In my view, publicly supporting a political party clearly sanctions that party's ideological platform. "Public support" can include speaking at party-sponsored events, joining the party, helping raise funds for the party, and other similar activities. If ideas move history, then popular and well-funded ideological movements are a force to be reckoned with. To be clear, I do not believe it constitutes sanction to cooperate with members of a political party to accomplish a specific goal, like getting a particular bill passed through Congress. However, publicly promoting a political party as a whole is sanction, and one should be careful not to grant implicit support to ideological movements that oppose his values.

As an example of a form of support which is clearly not sanction, consider the act of buying an apple from a street vendor in Manhattan. One does not implicitly sanction the philosophical beliefs of the street vendor by doing business with him. Within the context of this interaction between buyer and seller, one implies his approval only of this particular transaction. Apples are not ideas, and purchasing one does affect the course of history on a grand scale. Even if the street vendor is an unethical person, one is not in a position to know it, nor does he need to.

Now consider a few personal examples that are much less clear to me:

Ironically, the Split between ARI and TOC has led to debate about whether and to what degree one ought to "tolerate" Kelleyites. Kelley's ideas, particularly in epistemology, are indeed destructive to Objectivism -- and he leads an ideological movement dedicated to spreading those ideas. Here is a clear case in which an Objectivist should withhold sanction from TOC. This would rule out joining TOC or directly donating money, of course, but how far does it go?

Harry Binswanger offers part of his answer in the Loyalty Oath for his product the HB List. According to the Loyalty Oath, the HB List "exclude anyone who is sanctioning or supporting the enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism." Note he excludes, not only Kelleyites, but also those who sanction Kelleyites. The question remains: what constitutes sanction in this context? I found that Dr. Binswanger is very strict in his answer to this question.

Several years ago, when I ran the MSN group Objectivist Singles, I was denied membership to HBL because at one point my site contained a link to a TOC website. I notified Dr. Binswanger that at the time, no link to the TOC actually existed -- the member who had posted the link was banned for bad behavior, and his posts were all deleted. However, I told him, I did not in principle disallow links to TOC-related websites. On Objectivist Singles, the Split and other contentious issues were off-limits because I thought they were not appropriate topics for a singles site, but my rules allowed members to link to whatever other websites they chose. Dr. Binswanger wrote back and politely thanked me for my honesty, but denied my membership to HBL. In his view, I was sanctioning the sanctioner sanctioners.

The Atlasphere is another interesting borderline case regarding sanction. The site's owner Joshua Zader is most definitely a Kellyite, and to boot is a supporter of some kooky new age ideas. However, these negative elements do not seem to heavily influence Zader's management of his product. The Atlasphere is unique in its catalogue of thousands of Rand admirers from all over the world. It offers enormous potential value, particularly for Objectivists looking for friends and potential lovers. Does one sanction TOC by perusing The Atlasphere? How about becoming a paying member? How about writing an article for its blog? How about working for The Atlasphere?

Another recent example: a poster on Objectivism Online believes that "Even if [Nathanial Branden's] books have value, [he still doesn't] think Objectivists should buy them." I disagreed in this particular instance because I so highly value Branden's The Psychology of Self-Esteem. But I can see where this poster is coming from. Nathanial Branden has spent years and years campaigning against Objectivism in general and Ayn Rand in particular. If Jim Valiant is even 50% correct in his evaluation of Branden in PARC, then Branden deserves the ostracism he has received in Objectivist circles. So, is it morally optional to buy Branden's books? Ought one buy them used if possible? In general, how much time should one spend on making sure that his ideological enemies do not get a penny of his money?

I have friends who tried not buying any goods from China, in order not to grant sanction to this socialist, totalitarian state. This only lasted a few days. It was simply too difficult to avoid buying Chinese products. One would be sacrificing a great deal in order to stay China-free. I think of this whenever I hear people discouraging others from buying great books because they don't want the authors to benefit.

There is a sliding scale here, but the lines are not clearly marked.

I must wrap up this blog post, since it is already a day late (I like to publish on Tuesdays). I can leave you only with more questions, since I think it will be some time before I fully understand the answers: How can I make sure that I do not inadvertently sanction hostile ideological movements? When dealing with groups like TOCers and Libertarians, what kinds of interactions constitute sanction? How much of this is morally optional, how much is optimization, and how much is morally obligatory?

--Dan Edge 135016712