Integration of Virtues

[blackdiamond]

Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does "integration of virtues" (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean?

Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc?

I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion).

Thanks.

[Tenure]

I think it means that you have the fundamental virtue, honesty, and from that honesty all the other virtues follow. For example, by being honest about who you are, about your conditions and context, about what you want and how you should get it as a man, you will be productive.

I'll look this up on the CD and give a fuller response later, if someone else hasn't already responded. But I should say now, pride isn't a virtue. Pride is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from successfully pursuing and gaining a value - in otherwords, the sense of efficacy that occurs, as an emotional reward mechanism, for life-advancing actions.

[mrocktor]

This is how I relate them:

Rationality is the primary virtue - living according to man's nature, a rational being;

Honesty is a corollary of Rationality - you can't apply reason to things that don't exist and still call it reason (since reason is the process of grasping reality), you can't be honest except by applying reason. You can't be Honest but not Rational, you can't be Rational and dishonest.

Independence is a necessary condition of Rationality - the human mind is irrevocably independent, there is no "shared thought" or "shared decision", one must think for oneself if one is to be rational. You can be Independent but not Rational, you can't be Rational and dependent.

Productivity is Independence applied to physical life - you can't be Independent in mind if you are dependent in body. If your physical existence depends on another, can't be your own, since you must always consider the reactions and opinions of the person you depend on to provide your physical needs.

Those are the primary virtues and the way I understand them to "tie in" with each other.

[KendallJ]

Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does "integration of virtues" (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean?

Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc?

I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion).

Thanks.

I'm in the middle of Andrew Lewis' course from ARI, The Unity of Virtue. My take on the thesis is that the degree to which someone has a particular virtue will necessarily affect the degree to which they have another one, but not necessarily to the same degree. That the virtues are all aspects of rationality, and that to the extent tha one is irrational in some aspect of their life, will mean that it is impossible to compatmentalize that irrationality. It will necessarily spill over into other aspects of their life.

The example I like to take is that of the effects of dishonesty. It is very difficult to have single lies in isolation. To continue to perpetuate a "single" dishonesty, you must necessarily perpetuate more of them. It has a spill-over effect.

[blackdiamond]

I think it means that you have the fundamental virtue, honesty, ...

But I should say now, pride isn't a virtue. Pride is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from successfully pursuing and gaining a value - in otherwords, the sense of efficacy that occurs, as an emotional reward mechanism, for life-advancing actions.

Just two quick points:

1. Pride is a virtue. Perhaps you were thinking of self esteem?

2. If there is a “fundamental virtue", i think that would be rationality and not honesty?

Edited September 21, 2007 by blackdiamond

[Tenure]

1. But pride is an emotion - one cannot pursue it, because one does not live to achieve emotions, one lives to achieve values (emotions are the incentives to gain those values, but they are not the end-goal). One can pursue honesty, say, by making decisions and judgments, and strictly refusing to let the 'I want' dominate the actual facts of reality; to not dodge out of the way of one's responsibility to one's own mind. Which brings me onto...

2. Rationality cannot be the fundamental virtue, because rationality as it is - a state in which one makes consistently rational decisions - cannot simply be pursued in itself; it requires that one first start making afforementioned rational decisions. However, those rational decisions first require a strict obedience to reality - one cannot make a rational decision, before one has first honestly looked at reality, with a focused, clear mind.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

2. Rationality cannot be the fundamental virtue, because rationality as it is - a state in which one makes consistently rational decisions - cannot simply be pursued in itself; it requires that one first start making afforementioned rational decisions. However, those rational decisions first require a strict obedience to reality - one cannot make a rational decision, before one has first honestly looked at reality, with a focused, clear mind.

I believe, according to OPAR, that rationality is the PRIME virtue--and the six derivative virtues are (not in this order but I don't think order is significant), Integrity, Independence, Honesty, Pride, Productiveness, and Justice.

[~Sophia~]

1. But pride is an emotion - one cannot pursue it,

Yes you can. The virtue of pride, as defined by Rand, is a moral ambitiousness, it is an aspiration (in the active sense - not just wishful thinking) to live up to one's moral ideals.

[Inspector]

1. But pride is an emotion

No, much more than that - pride is the recognition of one's own goodness. It is right and good to recognize it when one is... well, right and good.

2. Rationality cannot be the fundamental virtue, because rationality as it is - a state in which one makes consistently rational decisions - cannot simply be pursued in itself; it requires that one first start making afforementioned rational decisions. However, those rational decisions first require a strict obedience to reality - one cannot make a rational decision, before one has first honestly looked at reality, with a focused, clear mind.

Sure it can. It can and it is. Your error is in your placement of the recognition of reality. The recognition of reality is subsumed under rationality, not honesty. Honesty is meant specifically toward others. Integrity is directed at the self - honesty to one's self. It is rationality that is the recognition of reality. Remember that Ayn Rand's definition of reason is not like some. It is not a process of disconnected logic - it is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

Er, you know that.

Anyhow, if you don't believe me, go look at OPAR. This is all in there.

[intellectualammo]

Anyhow, if you don't believe me, go look at OPAR. This is all in there.

Both quotes are from the beginning of chapter 8 in Peikoff's OPAR:

on integration:

"Since these virtues are expressions of rationality, they are logically interconnected, both in theory and in practice. None can be validated in isolation, apart from the others; nor can a man practice any one of them consistently while defaulting on the others. In defining a series of virtues, Ayn Rand is abstracting, separating out for purposes of specialized study elements of a single whole. What she seeks to clarify by this means, however, is the whole. The Objectivist ethics upholds not disconnected rules, but an integrated way of life, every aspect of which entails all the others."

on virtues:

"In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand defines six major derivatives of the virtue of rationality. That is the account I am following. Miss Rand did not regard this list as necessarily exhaustive or the order of its items as logically mandatory. Her concern was not to cover every application of virtue, but to identify the essentials of rationality in the most important areas and aspects of human life. This is the minimum moral knowledge needed by a man if he seeks to follow reason consistently, as a matter of principle, in his daily choices and actions.

The six derivative virtues are independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. After we have discussed them, we will consider a widespread vice, which represents the destruction of all of them. The vice is the initiation of physical force against other men."

Edited September 21, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Thales]

The recognition of reality is subsumed under rationality, not honesty.

I'd put it this way, rationality is the engine of the mind and tool of survival. It's the way we come to recognize the value of honesty, or the value of anything. Only through rationality can you make the important assessments: "when I'm dishonest this happens, that's bad. When I'm honest this happens, that's good." You have to make the rational assessment that honesty is right in order to practice it. Implicitly you have to be honest at all times to gain knowledge, but you come to recognize that through rationality.

Honesty is meant specifically toward others.

No, honesty is meant toward the self, primarily. Peikoff puts it this way "'Honesty' is the refusal to fake reality, i.e., to pretend that facts are other than they are." [OPAR, page 267]

Integrity is directed at the self - honesty to one's self.

Integrity means being true to your principles. Peikoff puts it this way "'Integrity' is loyalty in action to one's convictions and values." [OPAR, 259]

It is rationality that is the recognition of reality. Remember that Ayn Rand's definition of reason is not like some. It is not a process of disconnected logic - it is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

Right. It's our means to understanding reality. So, it's our means to knowledge.

[Inspector]

No, honesty is meant toward the self, primarily. Peikoff puts it this way "'Honesty' is the refusal to fake reality, i.e., to pretend that facts are other than they are." [OPAR, page 267]

I do believe you've got me there; I stand corrected.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Inspector

[blackdiamond]

This thread has been quite enlightening so far. Thank you, everyone.

However the essential question has not been addressed. I will expand on it.

Since the virtues are integrated, is it a fact that finding one virtue in someone is finding all the other virtues in him? Would it follow that, if we had sufficient evidence for the presence of a certain virtue in an individual then this is also sufficient evidence (by implication) for the presence of all the other virtues?

Thus, if we find a software programmer who is profoundly and consistently productive - a Marc Andreessen perhaps - should we also take it for granted that this man is (therefore) also very honest, rational, independent, just, proud, etc? Should I trust Andreessen with my money simply based on how I have judged him as a productive person?

[Tenure]

I stand corrected on what I said above.

As for the integration of virtues, can you tell all other virtues by one alone? Not exactly. Productivity, in particular, can be sought without one seeing it as a virtue, or without any respect of any of the others. One might want to avoid a problem in one's personal life, in one's own mental health, in one's marriage, etc - so that instead of dealing with it, they give themselves a duty to a 'higher' cause, such as their work. They disintegrate themselves, and focus purely on doing the best they can at their work, producing fantastic output, the kind of output that requires them to approach these problems rationally and independently. However, they only stick to these virtues in this context, and ignore them outside of work - they are necessary evils to avoid a problem the person does not want to face up to. I think a virtue needs to be practiced consistently through a man's life to say, "He is virtuous", as you would not say that a pathological liar, who sometimes has to tell the truth to buy his groceries, is a bastion of honesty.

[KendallJ]

This thread has been quite enlightening so far. Thank you, everyone.

However the essential question has not been addressed. I will expand on it.

Since the virtues are integrated, is it a fact that finding one virtue in someone is finding all the other virtues in him? Would it follow that, if we had sufficient evidence for the presence of a certain virtue in an individual then this is also sufficient evidence (by implication) for the presence of all the other virtues?

Thus, if we find a software programmer who is profoundly and consistently productive - a Marc Andreessen perhaps - should we also take it for granted that this man is (therefore) also very honest, rational, independent, just, proud, etc? Should I trust Andreessen with my money simply based on how I have judged him as a productive person?

I answered this question already. No. That is not what the integration of virtue means.

[blackdiamond]

I'm in the middle of Andrew Lewis' course from ARI, The Unity of Virtue. My take on the thesis is that the degree to which someone has a particular virtue will necessarily affect the degree to which they have another one, but not necessarily to the same degree. That the virtues are all aspects of rationality, and that to the extent tha one is irrational in some aspect of their life, will mean that it is impossible to compatmentalize that irrationality. It will necessarily spill over into other aspects of their life.

The example I like to take is that of the effects of dishonesty. It is very difficult to have single lies in isolation. To continue to perpetuate a "single" dishonesty, you must necessarily perpetuate more of them. It has a spill-over effect.

I wanted to hear your fuller comment after you finish that course since you said you are only half way through, before I think about your comment more.

But anyway...

I think we will still need to think about some particular concretes to see if your theory fully ties in with experience [For example, a man cheats on his wife - will this necessarily affect his (intellectual and practical commitment to) productivity or productiveness (as a software programmer, comedian, singer, body guard, or whatever he does?) Why will his dishonesty in marriage necessarily result in an irrational approach to his software programming (to whatever degree)? Do you believe this is really what happens in real life?] - Just thinking aloud.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does "integration of virtues" (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean?

Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc?

I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion).

Thanks.

You might want to study -The Nicomachean Ethics- by Aristotle. He has a lot to say about virtues.

See http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html for an English translation.

Bob Kolker

[blackdiamond]

You might want to study -The Nicomachean Ethics- by Aristotle.

Is there something the good Aristotle wrote in there that is specifically applicable to the question at hand? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

[Tenure]

Re: Virtues affecting virtues

I would say it's not so much a philosophical issue, but a psychological one, that if one keeps up something as dishonest as an affair, the effect on the rest of his life will depend on the severity of the consequences, the nature of why you haven't divorced, the nature of why you fell in love with this person and many other issues. No matter what the case, the fact is that having an affair means keeping something not just good, but of prime value to you, utterly secret. That cannot be, and is in fact, not good for your psychological well being. Also, it leads to more lying and more deception on your part, and those lies can build up over time, making you feel guilty, and also spoiling the good judgement one might hold of you.

[blackdiamond]

No matter what the case, the fact is that having an affair means keeping something not just good, but of prime value to you, utterly secret.

It's not always the case that the affair is with someone that you value that highly, I think (and I'm not saying that's rational).

...and also spoiling the good judgement one might hold of you.

Not if it's kept "utterly secret"!

[Tenure]

I meant if, and usually, when the truth comes out.

And as for it not being someone you value highly, well, that sounds a bit unlikely. Forgoing any Shakespearean twist, one is unlikely to go sleep with someone else, unless the value of sleeping with them is higher than the value of your marriage. Sure, you can have a totally debased affair, but that's just a reflection of oneself as being debased of values.

Perhaps 'prime' value was the incorrect terminology - I didn't mean your absolute top value in life, as your marriage might mean very little, so sleeping with someone else isn't of that greater a value. What I meant was such a value which is important, not to oneself, but to one's reputation or whatever, to keep secret.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that affairs, for one thing, are very contextual issues, and quite difficult (but not impossible) to examine in this situation. It would take someone with a greater understanding in psychology or philosophy to explain. Certainly, however, if we go back to the central issue of one debased action reflecting on the rest of your virtues, then certainly, I would say it is possible to be virtuous in other actions, but that does not absolve one of the contradictions in the malicious parts of their life.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Thus, if we find a software programmer who is profoundly and consistently productive - a Marc Andreessen perhaps - should we also take it for granted that this man is (therefore) also very honest, rational, independent, just, proud, etc? Should I trust Andreessen with my money simply based on how I have judged him as a productive person?

I don't know who Marc Andreessen is, so I can't answer specifically with regard to him, but in general; yes, if someone is productive, then they ought to have all of the other virtues integrated into their lives in some sense. To be productive means that one is creating values, and one can only create values (actual human life promoting values) if one is rational and focused on existence, which implies all of the other virtues (sans vice that would outweigh the virtues and put him over into the irrational, non-virtuous side).

Now, a particular man may be inconsistent. That is he might be extraordinarily productive, and yet not deal with others (outside of work) justly; see Hank Rearden and how he dealt with his family versus how he dealt with those working in his mills. In such a case, if he is mistaken, then he can still be virtuous even though his virtue in dealing with others is mistaken (say he is overly benevolent to those who want to do him harm, perhaps because he doesn't recognize that fact about them).

But I think part of your problem in understanding the Objectivist virtues is a false standard of how one would deal with someone who has all of the virtues thoroughly integrated into their lives. Just because one meets John Galt, that does not mean that one is going to be giving him one's hard earned savings. I mean, why would you do that? and why would he accept the responsibility of holding onto your money? You might decide to invest your savings in one of Galt's inventions or even to put your savings in Midas's bank, but you are not just going to give them your money without some rational purpose involved and they would not accept it without some rational purpose involved.

Regarding having an affair: A rational man is not going to do this unless the woman he is having an affair with is of higher value than his wife, and then it would only be temporary until he decides which woman he wants to be with permanently. For example, he is not going to have an affair in order to just have better sex. If he has issues with his wife (sexual or otherwise), then he would resolve those issues one way or the other with her; and if he can't do that, then a divorce might be in order. In the case of Hank Rearden, he didn't realize what he was missing until he met Dagny and he didn't realize that Lillian was out to destroy him and his masculinity; so an affair in his case was just. But that doesn't make having an affair, say some extra sex on the side, OK for a rational man. Miss Rand was not endorsing having an affair as such, but rather endorsing Dagny over Lillian. If a man has an affair just to have extra sex, then he is betraying himself and his wife; and is not acting justly.

[blackdiamond]

But I think part of your problem in understanding the Objectivist virtues is a false standard ...

Geez, why do you find it necessary to always talk like that (ie. condescendingly)? I do not have "a problem in understanding the Objectivist virtues", I simply have a problem with YOUR understanding of the Objectivist virtues, and I currently do not have any hope whatsoever that you are able to directly address questions that simply seek reconciliation between your apparently contradictory statements.

Edited September 25, 2007 by blackdiamond

[softwareNerd]

BD, I think there are two related, but different, questions being asked. One is about the relationship among virtues like honesty, rationality, justice etc. , as applied to some sphere of a person's life. The second is about how applying virtues (or not) in one sphere, affects other spheres of one's life. I think it's helpful to discuss these two questions separately.

Take the first, using your example of a good software entrepreneur ("Marc"). Here's how I see the integration of virtues when we look solely at this sphere of the person's life. Let's assume that Marc is extremely productiveness in software development, chances are that this is because he goes about it rationally. That's the way in which rationality and productiveness are integrated. Chance are that he trusts his ability to get to the truth about what "good software" is, and what it takes to create it. This type of certainty in one's own ability to figure things out is the essence of self-esteem. So, that's how self-esteem is integrated with rationality and productiveness, within this sphere of his life. One can imagine that he rewards good employees, and that is one part of his company's success -- so we see justice.

Next, is the question about the integration of a person's virtues, across all spheres of his life. It think this is far less cut-and-dry. We see countless examples of compartmentalized people who are honest, rational and proud in one area of their lives but dishonest, irrational and filled with self-doubt about some other area. The attempt at induction, conceptualization and the abstraction of principles comes almost naturally to human beings (even though the correct way to perform these does not). So, someone who is very irrational in one area and the opposite in another area senses a contradiction. The only way he can resolve it in his own mind is by concluding that the two fields are very different: "well, religion is an exception" ... "well, when the hormones start flowing, logic no longer applies".

I don't think one can make a general statement about which way such people will go. Perhaps they will abstract out the principles of rationality from one sphere and start applying it to other spheres. Or, perhaps they will give up somewhat in a sphere where they were rational. Or, perhaps they will live and die with a little self-built wall in their minds that separates different areas of their experience into "dealable with reason" and "gotta use guts and faith".

I think there is another dimension of integration, which is the integration of conscious virtues with previously automated psychological conclusions; perhaps another thread.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Geez, why do you find it necessary to always talk like that (ie. condescendingly)? I do not have "a problem in understanding the Objectivist virtues", I simply have a problem with YOUR understanding of the Objectivist virtues, and I currently do not have any hope whatsoever that you are able to directly address questions that simply seek reconciliation between your apparently contradictory statements.

I'm not trying to be condescending, and I'm not trying to have even apparent contradictions.

Hank Rearden was being benevolent towards his family because he didn't realize they were against him -- each one of them in their own way. For someone who understands that, they should have all been kicked out of his house, in the same way and for the same reason as he would kick a loafer out of his mills. But it was easier for him to recognize a loafer at his mills (because they obviously weren't doing any work) versus recognizing that, for example, Phillip was a loafer -- and more, Phillip volunteered for organizations that were anti-capitalism. Justice was strictly applied at the mills, Hank made sure of that, but justice wasn't as strictly applied at home, primarily because he didn't see the injustice going on around him. He would say that he was being just in both cases, because he didn't resent Phillip et al hanging around his house -- he invited them. But notice how he treated the wet nurse, who was uninvited into his mills. Hank despised him thoroughly. And as soon as Hank realized what his family was up to, he dumped them. He wasn't even angry at them, he just let them go, knowing full well they they would probably starve to death without his assistance.

And given the way Lillian was with him, he should have divorced her shortly after their marriage, but he didn't understand her. His mistakenly thought that her aloofness was like his pride, and he actually admired her to some degree that she wasn't interested in sex; because he had concluded that he shouldn't have been so interested in sex. But once he found Dagny, and got the proper response to himself from her, he begin to rethink his previous conclusions.

So, Hank was virtuous, but mistaken.

He applied reason throughout the novel in the best ways he knew how from the very beginning of the story. In every respect, he was virtuous. However, he couldn't recognize the injustices being done to him -- especially by his family -- so he put up with their philosophic and psychological jabs. Not to recognize an injustice is not a vice; though one might question why he didn't see Phillip as a loafer earlier in the story, so one might think that he is acting unjustly in that context.

But context is not just the facts, it's one's understanding of the facts. And Hank didn't realize he was sanctioning irrationality at home (which he would never do at work).

To answer your question regarding productivity and the rest of the virtues; yes, Hank had all of the virtues, and they were all integrated as far as he could without knowing Objectivism. However, he didn't think that justice at the mills -- don't loaf -- was applicable at home when it came to his brother.

Sorry if I was confusing earlier. Sometimes, once one is an Objectivism, it is difficult to keep in mind that Hank didn't know any better at the beginning of the story. I mean, it's obvious upon re-reading that Phillip is a loafer and hates Hank Rearden; but Hank doesn't understand that at that part of the story.