Is it just to boycott the friends of your enemy?

[blackdiamond]

IS IT JUST TO BOYCOTT THE FRIENDS OF YOUR ENEMY?

The closed thread on Mrs Speicher’s defence of THE FORUM against Ms. Hsieh had some valuable lessons for me. (This thread is not for further discussion of the particular cause of the difference between the two, but for discussing the principle that was exercised by Mrs Hsieh, as a positive or negative lesson for the rest of us. Moderators are obviously free to delete it if they think it’s a “backdoor” return to the same thread).

Until the very last post of Ms Hsieh, I did not understand why she would make the request that she did. It appeared at first like she was condemning everyone who goes (participates) on the FORUM. Now it seems to me that she is saying that their participation on it simply adds to its strength, a strength which is being used to attack her (and the people she values - unfairly, in her view). And thus, she can rightly decide that she will not associate with or support anyone who is contributing to the strength of her enemy or destroyer.

I do not necessarily agree with her views about the FORUM, but I think that her request as such was not unjust. Neither would I, in fact, disagree with Mrs Speicher’s similar request that her members avoid Ms. Hsieh’s blog. If you (correctly or incorrectly) perceive another person as destroying you (intentionally or not), you can rightly take steps to withdraw your own (unintended) contribution to their strength or power. Indeed it would probably be altruistic to act in any other way, for a person with total self respect.

[such self-defensive steps become particularly imperative when you even intend to make your living as a professional philosopher, since you can be totally ineffective if your integrity or intelligence is effectively discredited].

Does this make sense?

[K-Mac]

Does this make sense?

I think so.

[DarkWaters]

This is an interesting point to discuss. Thank you for starting this thread BlackDiamond.

At present, I think it is unquestionably just to boycott a third party who is an associate of your enemy if the association increases your enemy's ability to destroy you. For example, I think deliberately not purchasing gasoline at Citgo is very justified because I want to avoid funneling money into the regime of Hugo Chavez.

A more interesting question perhaps is if one is immoral for not boycotting the friends of his enemy. Again, I believe the context must depend on how much these associates are actually empowering your enemy and what other values you may gain by not boycotting them. Given the threat that Hugo Chavez poses to Capitalism, I think individuals would be immoral by filling up their tank at Citgo.

This issue seems to get murky for me when it is unclear how much the individual is empowering your enemy. Suppose the enemy is now an idea such as Statism or Egalitarianism and not a specific individual or organization. Should an Objectivist feel obligated to cut ties with some old friends (specifically, friendships formed before he became an Objectivist) just because they possess political ideas that are essentially Statist or Egalitarian in nature? Unless if the friendship is no longer bearable because of the stark political ideological differences, I would say definitely not. Most likely there are plenty of other values one can obtain from these friendships. To insist that one must severe otherwise rewarding friendships over disagreements in political views is to insist that one must choose between philosophy and life. Life is an end in itself and philosophy should help man achieve that end so one should never have to choose between a good philosophy and a good life.

To reiterate on the original question, I think is very justified to boycott the allies of your enemy if there very alliance is what empowers your enemy to destroy you.

Edited July 19, 2007 by DarkWaters

[K-Mac]

Should an Objectivist feel obligated to cut ties with some old friends (specifically, friendships formed before he became an Objectivist) just because they possess political ideas that are essentially Statist or Egalitarian in nature?

This is something I have been tormented with for many years now, and even more so since discovering Ayn Rand and reading AS earlier this year. The vast majority of my friends are liberals. (I am not sure why, but that's a whole other point to ponder.) Sometimes, I look at one of my liberal friends and think, "This person is completely against me and everything that is important to me. They are literally trying to destroy me and the way of life I believe in. Why am I here with them now? Why am I a good friend when they are, in reality, not a good friend to me in return?" But I love my friends and care about them deeply. I sincerely want them to succeed in life. Maybe that's why I stick around? Can I really make a difference?

I guess I have made some peace with the fact that I don't let them off the hook. When they start talking or emailing me their liberal bilge, I strike back until they are so tired of hearing from me and my logic that they either agree to disagree or simply give up. (I have yet to convert any of them, but that is my ultimate goal, although probably just wishful thinking.)

Frankly, it stresses me out.

[blackdiamond]

Indeed.

In politics, this would be like a situation where a nation (say the USA) decides that they will not trade with Cuba because it would be a threat to its survival if it (Cuba) grew in power; and then France decides to take this opportunity of expanding its trade relations with Cuba because it doesn’t see any threat from Cuba (to France). USA’s correct response out of self interest would be to say to France, “if you continue trading with Cuba, you can’t continue trading with us.”

Same thing should be allowed to happen in business. Microsoft should have been allowed to say to the computer makers (as they tried), “if you put Netscape on your computers, you can’t put Explorer on it,” because Microsoft saw Netscape as a company working against its survival in its line of business, and it did not want to contribute to the power of its own killer. That’s only rational.

More, not less, of such principled and decisively selfish warfare, is needed. In every sphere. And on every level.

[KendallJ]

Nice post DW. I think there are two separate issues here, and maybe why the middle case seem more murky. That is, there is the issue of sanctioning your enemies, and the issue of free association. By enemy I'm thinking more of the direct mortal threat, rather than anyone you have a feud with.

I think the first is definitely a question of morality. The second however is already moral no matter the choice. I think that Diana's dissociation falls into the latter really. The question is "Is it rational" to choose to associate or dissociate from a particular person in a particular context. Now, I know that someone is going to argue that ideas are so critical to daily life, that a disagreement about ideas constitutes a moral threat. I can't quite buy that in this case. I suspect Diana will survive just fine even if she posts to the forum.

I think the analysis of the context of the second aspect is really a question of time and value. Given a rational purpose(s) in life, does association with a particuar person hinder or help or distract from that purpose? Even if something neither hinders or furthers a particular purpose, everything is a potential distraction so selectivity is important.

So in this case, I'd say that boycotting anyone is perfectly moral example of the the idea of voluntary association (which falls under the trader principle). Whether or not it is rational depends on how consistent it is with your particular goals and purpose as a person.

[KendallJ]

This is something I have been tormented with for many years now, and even more so since discovering Ayn Rand and reading AS earlier this year. The vast majority of my friends are liberals. (I am not sure why, but that's a whole other point to ponder.)

K-Mac, don't let it stress you out.

1. I would bet that most of your friends aren't consistently practicing their ideas. To that end there may be aspects of them that you appreciate them for, which actually contradicts their explicit ideas. MOst of the time, we are attracted to people's sense of life which is kind of a culminating behavioral sum of their ideas both implicit and explicit, regardless of contradictions. I make it a point not to boycott people who are conflicted on some level, but for which I can find a value in my association. I have both liberal friends and conservative friends, and frankly, I like my liberal friends taste in religion, art and music, and my conservative friends views on business, and politics. If you met a consitently liberal person, I guarantee you, you would not even like them and they would think you vile. Those are the people who you could claim it would be moral to boycott due to their influence. The rest are just sort of following along, and it will be great idea men and women who change the culture that defeat them.

2. That said, I have huge sums more admiration for people who are consistent between their explicit and implicit ideas and I am naturally drawn to them. But those are Objectivists, and there is exactly 1 that I know of in my town (guess who? although I know the neighbor girl across the street has read AS because she got an honorable mention - and a check - for her Sr. essay submission to ARI last year). There just aren't enough Objectivists yet I think to be that selective.

[K-Mac]

Most likely there are plenty of other values one can obtain from these friendships.

Maybe the value I find in my liberal friends is the fact that they are liberal. Maybe I see them as a challenge? And if nothing else, maybe I stick around so I can more clearly see the enemy's tactics and motives? Could it be a case of keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

[intellectualammo]

I make it a point not to boycott people who are conflicted on some level, but for which I can find a value in my association. I have both liberal friends and conservative friends, and frankly, I like my liberal friends taste in religion, art and music, and my conservative friends views on business, and politics. If you met a consitently liberal person, I guarantee you, you would not even like them and they would think you vile. Those are the people who you could claim it would be moral to boycott due to their influence.

Well said! I agree totally with you here. I actually recently ran into someone at the library that I hadn't seen in years. All of a sudden I pulled the reigns of the conversation and lead it in the direction of philosophy, as I so often do. After about an hour and a half, I found out just how consistent this guy was at being a liberal, and told him that because he is so consistent (of which I applauded him on being, though), our conversations can't move in any direction now. We must stop them altogether.

[K-Mac]

1. I would bet that most of your friends aren't consistently practicing their ideas.

You know, I have thought that before too. Thanks for reminding me, KendallJ!

The person I consider to be my closest friend, claims to be the most liberal, yet she does not live her life as such. Her and her husband own several gas-guzzling hot rods that they tinker with all of the time, yet they're environmentalists. She wants people and corporations to pay as much taxes as are required to fund all kinds of special programs, etc., yet she hates paying her own taxes and wants less government. The hypocrisy drives me crazy, but at least she's a great sport about it when I point it out to her during one of her liberal rants. I think there could be an Objectivist in her just dying to get out. I lent her AS once I finished it, so we'll see how it goes...

[Thales]

Well said! I agree totally with you here. I actually recently ran into someone at the library that I hadn't seen in years. All of a sudden I pulled the reigns of the conversation and lead it in the direction of philosophy, as I so often do. After about an hour and a half, I found out just how consistent this guy was at being a liberal, and told him that because he is so consistent (of which I applauded him on being, though), our conversations can't move in any direction now. We must stop them altogether.

One point about "consistency", I only praise people for being consistent when they are rationally consistent. Iows, if their ideas time-and-time-again take them into a head long dive with reality, and they never wake up to this fact, then I don't think that's praise worthy. This is why, in my view, someone who isn't consistently liberal or consistently conservative can be far better than their consistent brethren. I think many of them are trying to find a way to make things work, however badly. On the other hand, I’ll have no truck with the extremely religious, nor the extremely socialist, nor any other irrational extreme.

The long and the short of it is I attach the modifier "rational" to consistent, because it’s the rationally consistent I find praiseworthy.

[intellectualammo]

The long and the short of it is I attach the modifier "rational" to consistent, because it’s the rationally consistent I find praiseworthy.

But I was rather referring to the fact that he was excercising internal integrity/consistency within his views, which I applaud, but when I considered/evaluated just what it was that he was consistent with, I ended the conversation/contact with him. Plus, I've known him in the past not to be consistent, and so on... But I'll consider your point.

Edited July 19, 2007 by intellectualammo

[blackdiamond]

Now, I know that someone is going to argue that ideas are so critical to daily life, that a disagreement about ideas constitutes a moral threat. I can't quite buy that in this case. I suspect Diana will survive just fine even if she posts to the forum.

At the risk of breaking my own rule of not discussing the specifics of that case, I believe it is an oversimplification of the issue to say that their "feud" was just about "a disagreement about ideas". The whole problem was about the alleged demeaning (and destructive?) attitudes to each other (or at least from one camp), which would have a potential destructive effect on the professional work of the people involved. My point is that there was that perception at least by one side, whether it was correct or not, and as such the reaction is of one who has perceived such danger.

I understand that reaction the same way I would understand someone who believes she has seen a snake, whether it turns out to be just a rope or not; or has a gun pointed at her, which turns out to be unloaded. One should act to protect one's values in the face of perceived danger and should not contribute to the process of one's own demise in the context of that perception.

By enemy I'm thinking more of the direct mortal threat, rather than anyone you have a feud with.

Why does it have to involve a "mortal" threat for one to be classified as your enemy in this case? Anyone who pauses any threat to any of your values, not just your life, is your enemy (at least in that situation) and must be dealt with as such, or else you're acting altruistically - and therefore, immorally. You might not act to destroy them, but you certainly won't act to empower them either as that would be acting against yourself, which is a sin.

[DW, I'm not sure this has anything to do with what gas you put into your car. I think such a decision is rightly done at the government level rather than at the personal level (although I'm open to learn). Will you stop using Google because its Chinese department has agreed to censor some information? And what about oil imported from Muslim countries? etc.]

[DarkWaters]

DW, I'm not sure this has anything to do with what gas you put into your car.

I interpreted this topic to not just be limited to individuals but to also hold organizations or corporations in contempt by association with an overt enemy. I hope that I did not steer it away from your intentions.

And what about oil imported from Muslim countries?

Even though some other oil companies are purchasing oil from the Middle East, to my understanding none of them are owned by Totalitarian governments that financially support radical Islam. By contrast, Citgo is a subsidiary of a Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company. Profits of Citgo will get redirected to the Hugo Chavez Autocracy. As a consumer in the United States, I am capable of choosing from a wide selection of purveyors of gasoline. As a lover of Capitalism, I avoid Citgo in all cases. 7-Eleven has also terminated its 20-year contract with Citgo during Hugo Chavez's rise to power. If you are curious, all other things being the same, I try to purchase my gasoline from either Hess or Sunoco since they supposedly do not acquire oil from the Middle East. If I read definitive evidence about the profits of pistachios or any other ubiquitous product being used to finance Islamic Totalitarianism, I will personally boycott it as well.

Will you stop using Google because its Chinese department has agreed to censor some information?

I personally will not be boycotting Google even though I am aware of the censorship in their China department. I still perceive this to be more of a problem with the Chinese government than with Google itself. I stopped using Yahoo! products (i.e. Yahoo! maps, Launchcast, etc.) after I learned the allegations that they helped jail a Chinese journalist.

[blackdiamond]

I interpreted this topic to not just be limited to individuals but to also hold organizations or corporations in contempt by association with an overt enemy. I hope that I did not steer it away from your intentions.

No, it's still fine. I just wasn't sure if it's your personal responsibility at some levels, or it (the boycott) should rightly be done for you by your government?

I personally will not be boycotting Google even though I am aware of the censorship in their China department. I still perceive this to be more of a problem with the Chinese government than with Google itself.

Indeed. But why isn't the issue of a Venezuelan oil company operating in US also a problem of the US government rather than that company itself?

[KendallJ]

At the risk of breaking my own rule of not discussing the specifics of that case,

Then please don't, and I'll just pretend you didn't do it.

Why does it have to involve a "mortal" threat for one to be classified as your enemy in this case? Anyone who pauses any threat to any of your values, not just your life, is your enemy (at least in that situation) and must be dealt with as such, or else you're acting altruistically - and therefore, immorally. You might not act to destroy them, but you certainly won't act to empower them either as that would be acting against yourself, which is a sin.

I didn't say it did. However, I think the analysis is covered by my discussion of positive/negative/neutral impact to values. I think the strength of the word "enemy" simply indicates that it would be a case where they (your "enemy") do have a negative impact on your values, and you should do more than just withdraw your sanction. Is everyone you withdraw your sanction from (and only withdraw your sanction from) your enemy? I don't think the word means that.

[blackdiamond]

Then please don't, and I'll just pretend you didn't do it.

I didn't. I took "the risk", but did not (discuss the specifics). I had to correct your characterization of the "feud" because this whole discussion is based on it, although it is not about it. It is the premise of the thread - or the metanarrative, if you like. Neither side of that "feud" thought it was just about "a difference in ideas," so I'm not even taking a side when I say it was not.

This much is important because if you change what it was about, then obviously Ms Hsieh's request (to her blog members) was unjust since justice has to do with proportionality of the response. If the "threat" was just that there was a difference in ideas, then you are right: this was not an "enemy". But it was about much more than that, at least by her perception (the details of which we can't discuss).

Just to clarify "my rule": it's okay to make general reference to that case (as you and I did), but without going into the specifics, meaning without discussing whether Ms Hsieh's accusation was right (whether her perception was correct), and without talking about whose posts was deleted by Mrs Speicher, etc etc. What we can discuss (even in detail) is what Mrs Hsieh did (asking people who participate at THE FORUM not to participate at her forum), and the lessons from that specific action (negative or positive lessons), with respect to justice, pride and other virtues. The discussion can of course transcend that particular case, as it has with the others in this thread, and that's even better.

[KendallJ]

I didn't. I took "the risk", but did not (discuss the specifics).

When one qualifies a post and then in the post does not commit said infraction, one does not need the qualification. Sorry to have reacted the way I did, I just usually bristle at statements where people apologize for what they are about to do, then do it anyway. If you feel you didn't do it, then there's no need to qualify the statement. Either way, the statement is superflous. Why say it.

This much is important because if you change what it was about, then obviously Ms Hsieh's request (to her blog members) was unjust since justice has to do with proportionality of the response. If the "threat" was just that there was a difference in ideas, then you are right: this was not an "enemy". But it was about much more than that, at least by her perception (the details of which we can't discuss).

I dont feel I've changed anything and even if I had I believe that it makes no difference one way or the other. Diana's request to her bloggers not to post or associate with her if they post to the Forum is perfectly moral no matter what the situation. Proportionality has nothing to do with my right to association. I do not measure the amount of dissociation that would be fair based upon what the infraction is. It is not a response to Betsy, it is a choice of how I freely use my time, and who I freely associate with.

Proportionality is an invalid concept anyway. The proper analysis would be to evaluate what is the proper action given the right to eliminate a threat to her. But that sort of analysis would only come into play only in the discussion about what proactive action she would be moral in taking that would eliminate the threat above and beyond just removing sanction.

[Maarten]

I dont feel I've changed anything and even if I had I believe that it makes no difference one way or the other. Diana's request to her bloggers not to post or associate with her if they post to the Forum is perfectly moral no matter what the situation. Proportionality has nothing to do with my right to association. I do not measure the amount of dissociation that would be fair based upon what the infraction is. It is not a response to Betsy, it is a choice of how I freely use my time, and who I freely associate with.

I don't agree that such a decision can be perfectly moral, no matter what the situation. If someone terminates their association with another person, or group of people, then it can be either moral or immoral, depending on whether the action taken is in their self-interest. It is perfectly possible to terminate a friendship or acquaintance with someone for the wrong reasons, and if you lose the value they had to offer then you might very well be hurting yourself.

Of course, someone has the right to determine with whom they will associate, but that does not make any choice in this issue moral.

[blackdiamond]

I dont feel I've changed anything and even if I had I believe that it makes no difference one way or the other. Diana's request to her bloggers not to post or associate with her if they post to the Forum is perfectly moral no matter what the situation. Proportionality has nothing to do with my right to association. I do not measure the amount of dissociation that would be fair based upon what the infraction is. It is not a response to Betsy, it is a choice of how I freely use my time, and who I freely associate with.

I have to agree with Maarten here. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's morally right. You are free to associate with the KKK but that doesn't mean you are right. Even withdrawing your association from someone might be immoral and unjust. You can, for example, divorce your wife whenever you want to, but depending on the circumstances you can be judged to be unjust (if you divorce her because she accidentally broke your favourite mug, for example?).

Proportionality is an invalid concept anyway.

I'm curious to know why you think proportionality is an invalid concept. I think it's very valid, especially in the context of justice. I'm sure you would not think it's right to shoot a small girl who tries to steal your pencil? (or to chop off her hand, as a just sentence for doing that, as happens in Sharia law?)

Edited July 20, 2007 by blackdiamond

[KendallJ]

I'm curious to know why you think proportionality is an invalid concept. I think it's very valid, especially in the context of justice. I'm sure you would not think it's right to shoot a small girl who tries to steal your pencil? (or to chop off her hand, as a just sentence for doing that, as happens in Sharia law?)

Except we're talking about enemies and threats, here. Certainly in the concept of justice proportionality is a valid concept.

But you're the one making the case about threats and enemies. Proportionality is completely invalid once you start discussing someones right to check a threat to them. That is why I am trying to keep this distinction between those situations that involve pro-actively dealing with a threat, and those which are simply a matter of withdrawing sanction.

Additionally, in the discussion about withdrawing sanction proportion plays no part either (that is, it is not a question of justice). I am not morally obligated to withdraw only as much association as the infraction was worth. Sanction is a question of my time and my value heirarchy. The worth of any external person is judged by me according to a rational value heirarchy, not by someone else's estimation of intrinsic value. If an infraction like this causes someone to slip just slightly in my value hierarchy, but that slip puts them with other things that I give zero time to, then so be it. It's my time, and my life. I can still pursue a rational value hierarchy and not give someone who deserves it the time of day. And I am not immoral for doing so.

This is the issue. In order to make any sort of case that Diana is being immoral, one has to assert that she isn't acting according to her values. But you've blocked yourself off from doing that. Do you have evidence that she is acting irrationally? If not, then assuming she is acting to a rational value heirarchy, any level of dissociation is acceptable. It's her choice.

Edited July 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

I don't agree that such a decision can be perfectly moral, no matter what the situation. If someone terminates their association with another person, or group of people, then it can be either moral or immoral, depending on whether the action taken is in their self-interest. It is perfectly possible to terminate a friendship or acquaintance with someone for the wrong reasons, and if you lose the value they had to offer then you might very well be hurting yourself.

Of course, someone has the right to determine with whom they will associate, but that does not make any choice in this issue moral.

If you look at my first post here, I clarified. Technically, any choice that is irrational, is by virtue, immoral. I prefer to discuss it in terms of rationality, and whether or not such a thing is rational. The other reason is that morality tends to be rather generally prescriptive (as in BlackDiamond's original question) and because this is highly dependant on the specific value judgements of the person in question, it is highly contextual and does not lend itself to such easy generalizations as most moral generalizations would give it. That is, we have to violate Black Diamonds rule to come to any conclusion, and unless we know the specifics of the case, we shoudl assume that Diana is being rational according to her own value judgements. If you assume that, then it is just her right to association that is at issue, which is moral under that condition.

BD, same goes for your response.

[Maarten]

If you look at my first post here, I clarified. Technically, any choice that is irrational, is by virtue, immoral. I prefer to discuss it in terms of rationality, and whether or not such a thing is rational. The other reason is that morality tends to be rather generally prescriptive (as in BlackDiamond's original question) and because this is highly dependant on the specific value judgements of the person in question, it is highly contextual and does not lend itself to such easy generalizations as most moral generalizations would give it. That is, we have to violate Black Diamonds rule to come to any conclusion, and unless we know the specifics of the case, we shoudl assume that Diana is being rational according to her own value judgements. If you assume that, then it is just her right to association that is at issue, which is moral under that condition.

BD, same goes for your response.

There is a difference between someone being rational and them being always right, though. It is still very much possible to arrive at the wrong conclusion, even if your basic mental approach is sound, because one of your premises is wrong. Then, whatever action you take can still work against your best interests.

[KendallJ]

There is a difference between someone being rational and them being always right, though. It is still very much possible to arrive at the wrong conclusion, even if your basic mental approach is sound, because one of your premises is wrong. Then, whatever action you take can still work against your best interests.

But a breach of error cannot be a breach of morality, so what's the point? You were trying to get at times when you are being immoral. That is not one of them. My assertion still holds.

Look we can certainly talk about what would be the rational way to deal with this, but isn't that really to correct errors in judgement, not to proclaim immorality? that is why I prefer to talk about it in those terms. Unless of course you have some data that would suggest that Diana is being immoral in her choice.

[Edited last sentence.]

Edited July 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[Maarten]

Well, I agree that if you assume that someone is acting rationally the morality of it remains out of the issue. I'm not sure if that is generally a valid assumption to make, though. Perhaps in this case it is, but as a general rule for dealing with these situations (which I think was the orginal aim of the topic) it is less useful.