Integration of Virtues

[Steve D'Ippolito]

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.

Nope, in fact he felt like he had to support those parasites (worse, actually, because a parasite at least has to keep its host alive) out of a sense of duty to his family--that's why he felt so guilty at first for sleeping with Dagny. He knew exactly what his family was about but felt dutybound.

[blackdiamond]

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.

I think we all probably agree on the first question. Every virtue involves other virtues to some degree.

The second question you identify is probably also less controversial (than the third below, which is my actual question): my own view currently is that a person is honest if they always speak and act according to the facts of reality (as they perceive this reality - sometimes influenced by any number of factors, ie sometimes mistaken).

However, my question is a third one: not concerning the same virtue in different spheres, but concerning DIFFERENT virtues in DIFFERENT spheres or areas. Thus, does integrity in marriage necessarily influence/determine productiveness at work, for example? Different virtues in different areas, not the same virtue involving other virtues (question 1) or indeed the same virtue in different spheres (Q2).

My position is that different virtues in different areas do not necessarily "control" each other (deterministically) and that one can practice vice in one area and virtue in another area quite consistently, although such a one will obviously not be happy because the virtues ought to be integrated in practice, as they are in theory.

[softwareNerd]

My position is that different virtues in different areas do not necessarily "control" each other (deterministically) ...

I agree. Not to put too fine a point on it , but I don't think this is a "third" question. If people can keep two spheres compartmentalized, then they can do so for a mix of virtues. If rationality in one sphere can be kept from ramping up rationality in another, then it's even more likely that it can be kept from ramping up some other virtue. In a sense, the disintegration that you refer to as "question three" is the multiplicative effect of the first two types of disintegration.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Nope, in fact he felt like he had to support those parasites (worse, actually, because a parasite at least has to keep its host alive) out of a sense of duty to his family--that's why he felt so guilty at first for sleeping with Dagny. He knew exactly what his family was about but felt duty bound.

No, I disagree. I used to think that Hank Rearden was the one character that Ayn Rand created that basically went from being an altruist (or conventional morality) to becoming an Objectivist; that is, I used to think that Hank was being altruistic with regard to his family. However, since Miss Rand let's the reader into Hank's mind (more so than any other character) one can see that he is not being altruistic, but rather benevolent -- which is not the same thing. He never, ever, thinks that he has a duty to his family -- a duty to support them because they are not as well off as himself. And his guilt with regard to him first sleeping with Dagny was not out of respect for his wife, who is never mentioned in his "morning after" speech to Dagny.

Hank Rearden is a very generous person who deals with the world rationally throughout the novel; it's just that he doesn't understand the higher-level abstractions when it comes to issues of, say justice, with regard to his family. It is something that he learns throughout the story, rather like Howard Roark learning about the principle behind the dean. In other words, he has no idea at the beginning of the story of the relationship between sex and earning money, nor of the contradiction between him earning money and his family being members of anti-capitalistic movements. He simply doesn't see the connection; which requires a wider level of integration than he is able to do when we first meet him.

In a sense, this is like Bill Gates not seeing that the antitrust laws per se are harmful to his business and to his industry. or that regulations concerning the computer industry will destroy it. He just doesn't see it that way.

With regard to BlackDiamond's issue of virtues in one sphere influencing virtues in another sphere: If one fully understands Objectivism, then the productiveness one has at work will spill over into the justice one has with one's friends and family members. Virtue is one. It is not as if one can be virtuous at work, but then be virtuous in another way at home; or that one will be honest at work, but not be proud at home. Not if one is integrated; which means practicing rationality in all spheres of one's life. If one is going to have integrity, then one must practice one's rational virtues everywhere and with everyone and in every sphere.

Now, it is certainly possible for someone to be compartmentalized, such that one is rational at work, but somewhat irrational at home; but such a man does not have the full-fledged rational integrity that he needs to have to be virtuous. Being compartmentalized is not virtuous, since it is a form of dis-integration (not having integrity).

Hank Rearden had integrity, both at work and at home, but he didn't understand that he was supporting his own destroyers; which is something that both he and Dagny come to learn throughout the story.

So, no, it wasn't that he was duty bound to his family; but rather he gave them a huge benefit of the doubt and wouldn't condemn them without understanding them. One has to be careful in not reading one's own understanding of the issues into the beginning of the book. You know that injustices are being committed with regard to Hank and his family, but he doesn't. And as soon as he discovers the contradiction between him making money and his family upholding anti-capitalist slogans he begins to not be as benevolent to them as he used to be. But it is a transition that takes the whole book for him to accomplish. And once he does more thoroughly understand the connection between him making money and his love for Dagny, he spends more time with her; but again, that takes the whole length of the novel to come to fruition.

For Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, it is a learning curve, rather than a breach of morality, that we witness in their development. They were both morally perfect throughout the story -- and I mean morally perfect by a rational standard. Neither one went from an anti-Objectivist stance to an Objectivist stance; or from an anti-life morality to a man's life as the standard morality. They were mistaken rather than being immoral.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[blackdiamond]

I agree. Not to put too fine a point on it , but I don't think this is a "third" question.

Well. Okay? I'm willing to negotiate: can we call it "question 2b"?

[blackdiamond]

With regard to BlackDiamond's issue of virtues in one sphere influencing virtues in another sphere: If one fully understands Objectivism, then the productiveness one has at work will spill over into the justice one has with one's friends and family members.

Ah, you've added a significant qualifier this time around (to achieve some consistency?). Your theory applies only to those fortunate few who FULLY understand Objectivism!

I'm sure even you can see the absurdity of that statement, but I can predict (from my experience with you) that you will neither acknowledge this nor address it directly (without getting into another long psychoanalysis of Hank Rearden or his friends; and without attacking me).

Edited September 26, 2007 by blackdiamond

[KendallJ]

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".

Snerd,

I would tend to say that you could make a general statement, and that is that the degree to which a much broader integration is required in a particular issue the easier it will be to compartmentalize.

That is, I think there is a causality to compartmentalization, as a failure to integrate. It is a form of evasion, and it could be considered more difficult and less difficult given the degree of integration required. As such, one should be able to analyze a particular context, and make judgements about how evasive a person is being in order to hold that contradiction.

To deal with the orignal issue in that context. I think that the 2 questions that have been subsequently formulated are really extensions of the same issue. To the extent that broader integrations are required to be consistently honest, the more potential you have to see people able to seemingly hold contradictions within their lives and not resolve them, i.e. the less strongly the concept of integration of virtue applies, but it still applies. So the strength of judgement we use related to a breach of morality depends highly on the level of integration required to correctly identify reality, and the corresponding level of evasion required to keep the breach in stasis.

Edited September 26, 2007 by KendallJ

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

you will neither acknowledge this nor address it directly (without getting into another long psychoanalysis of Hank Rearden or his friends; and without attacking me).

I haven't been attacking you, and I have been answering you.

Integrity requires one to be rational in all aspects of one's life. This does not necessarily require one to be an Objectivist, it's just that having that explicitly rational of a philosophy makes it easier to distinguish errors of knowledge from evasion or irrationality. One could be rational, as Hank Rearden was, without having an explicit theoretical philosophy; though having the philosophy makes certain higher level integrations easier because they are spelled out.

And I wasn't doing a psychoanalysis of Hank Rearden. Miss Rand gives her readers direct access to Hank's thought processes; so one does not have to try to figure out his psychology to wonder why he did things. One knows why he is doing things because it's right there in black and white on the pages.

At this point, I really don't know what problem you are having with the Objectivist virtues and why they all necessarily imply all of the other Objectivists virtues; you cannot have one without the others. One cannot be honest, but not rational; one cannot be just without being honest; one cannot be productive without being proud. One cannot compartmentalize honesty from justice; or compartmentalize integrity from productiveness.

They are one thing -- living according to a rational understanding of existence. Each virtue is a selective focus on that manner of thinking and acting. Just as a coke can is one thing though one can focus on the roundness, the redness, the coldness, etc.

[blackdiamond]

At this point, I really don't know what problem you are having with the Objectivist virtues...

I am not having any problem "with the Objectivist virtues". I said this before after you said a similar thing only two posts ago, and I have said it again, but it won't make a difference to you (as predicted). You will keep saying the same thing in different words; you will keep emphasising an intellectual failure on my part, as a substitute for an actual argument (which is what i meant by "attacking me," instead of my argument).

This is a discussion on conflicting interpretations or understandings of the integration of the virtues. You have one understanding, I have a different one. Until you have reached the point in your argument where all questions against your position are answered, all contradictions among your statements cleared, (and all fallacies in my arguments pointed out) there's no point rushing to a discussion on someone's "failure" to understand, or grasp, the subject matter. You seem to be working from the psychologically dangerous premise that your understanding of any subject in Objectivism is necessarily the correct one, such that when one challenges YOUR understanding, then they have also challenged Objectivism itself (Ayn Rand's understanding).

Anyway, let's get back to the discussion.

There are two "understandings" here:

1. if one cheats on his wife, he can not exhibit productiveness at work (your position).

2. one can cheat on his wife and still exhibit productiveness in his work (my position).

[Note this carefully: I am NOT saying it is right or good to do this (number 2); I am only saying it is POSSIBLE. Neither am I saying that it is impossible for someone to be consistently virtuous, in every area. Telling me about Hank Rearden is therefore totally pointless and wasteful (of consciousness and time) since I have not refused that one can be consistently virtuous; you are beating a straw man.

In my last discussion with you I brought out examples of real people who apparently exhibited great productiveness in their work, but who also exhibited some apparent irrationality in other aspects of their lives. Because you believe that when one is virtuous in one area, they are virtuous in all areas and in every way, you failed to answer whether to judge these real people as honest or dishonest and preferred to keep talking about Hank Rearden and Mike Hammer!]

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

You seem to be working from the psychologically dangerous premise that your understanding of any subject in Objectivism is necessarily the correct one, such that when one challenges YOUR understanding, then they have also challenged Objectivism itself (Ayn Rand's understanding).

Without implying that you haven't thought it through, it is not psychologically dangerous for me to be confident in my understanding of Objectivism because I know that I have thought it through.

There are two "understandings" here:

1. if one cheats on his wife, he can not exhibit productiveness at work (your position).

2. one can cheat on his wife and still exhibit productiveness in his work (my position).

Look, people do not have to be consistent, since they have free will and can mess up their lives in any number of ways by not being consistent. But existence exists and they pay a price for not being consistent with existence. The Objectivist theory of virtue applies even in the case of someone not being consistent with reality, but in reverse.

For example, take someone cheating on his wife. Assuming that he actually loves his wife and that she actually represents his highest value by a rational standard (which is what love means), a betrayal of that kind of value implies a betrayal of all of his other values. If he can get away with cheating on his wife, then he is eventually going to try to get away with cheating on all of his other values. That is, if he is faking his love for his wife, he will eventually fake his other virtues, such as cheating at work because it, too, is a very high value. So, no, in the long run, he is not going to be as productive.

Because he has violated honesty and justice with his wife, he will eventually violate honesty and justice at work. All of this assumes that his wife is, in fact, worthy of his love. If she is worthy and he cheats on her, then he is betraying his value system, and it won't stop just at his wife. By the nature of reality, his injustice to his wife will spread to other areas of his life. He might try to compartmentalize it by living a secret and separated life -- say one in his professional capacity where he displays his wife at office parties, but keeps his mistress separated from all of that -- but this violates integrity; and if a man has violated his integrity, then he is not going to be as productive. For one thing, he is going to be spending a lot of time, thought, and energy on how to keep those two spheres apart; instead of thinking about how to be productive at work. In other words, he will become bifurcated, which is going to be distracting.

So, in the long run, it is all going to blow up in his face in a crisis that he created. And a rational man doesn't go around creating crisis in his life; a crisis might occur, but it won't be of his own making.

The point is that a violation of a top rational value implies a violation, eventually, of all of them.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[KendallJ]

2. one can cheat on his wife and still exhibit productiveness in his work (my position).

[Note this carefully: I am NOT saying it is right or good to do this (number 2); I am only saying it is POSSIBLE. Neither am I saying that it is impossible for someone to be consistently virtuous, in every area.

I'm curious about what you mean.

Are you saying that it is possible to cheat on your wife and be fully, consistently productive at work, in every sense of the word? i.e. that cheating on your wife in no way can affect your work productivity?

[blackdiamond]

I'm curious about what you mean.

Are you saying that it is possible to cheat on your wife and be fully, consistently productive at work, in every sense of the word? i.e. that cheating on your wife in no way can affect your work productivity?

I am saying that it could affect it or it might not. I am saying I see no evidence that it necessarily will (affect your productivity). The more I think about specific situations, the more I see no evidence for such a universal claim. I will need to see evidence that, for example, a world chess champion will necessarily become less "productive" in his work (as a chess player) just because he's been cheating on his wife.

[blackdiamond]

Without implying that you haven't thought it through, it is not psychologically dangerous for me to be confident in my understanding of Objectivism because I know that I have thought it through.

So you never consider the possibility that your understanding could be wrong even though you have "thought it through"? And don't you think it only detracts from the debate when you keep emphasising (indirectly) that your opinion is Objectivism itself and (by implication) anyone who disagrees with it has therefore disagreed with Objectivism? I would think it is more productive to simply focus on defending your position with logical arguments, and then we will all be able to see that you are indeed the one who has understood the philosophy perfectly.

Okay, back to the issue:

For example, take someone cheating on his wife. Assuming that he actually loves his wife and that she actually represents his highest value by a rational standard (which is what love means), a betrayal of that kind of value implies a betrayal of all of his other values.

So maybe she's not his highest value; maybe he married her too early, before he could properly judge her. He has stayed with her because he doesn't want to be away from his lovely children. Or WHATEVER. Point is, he is cheating on her, man. Don't tell me what he should say to her or that he should leave if he is rational and all that because that's not the issue here.

The issue simply is: does cheating or lying (to wife or anyone, including taxi driver) necessarily lead to un-productiveness (at work)? ALWAYS?

Because he has violated honesty and justice with his wife, he will eventually violate honesty and justice at work. All of this assumes that his wife is, in fact, worthy of his love.

So are you admitting that there are situations where cheating on your wife might not in fact "violate honesty and justice at work"? (Please answer this question directly. Thanks.)

[aequalsa]

The issue simply is: does cheating or lying (to wife or anyone, including taxi driver) necessarily lead to un-productiveness (at work)? ALWAYS?

This is not something I can strongly support with evidence, but I would say ultimately it would have to lead to being less productive. Compartmentalization is not total and the stressors created by the immorality will bleed over in terms of decreased ability to focus, changes in one's ability to judge character(accepting worse people as OK), and lowering of his own expectations for himself due to the lessoning of his view of his own self-worth.

There is no real way of measuring it because there is no good way of measuring productivity or its causes. It can at best be measured in a more productive or less productive way.

That being said, if a guy tells me he is doing a bunch of things which cause great stress(like dishonesty always does) but it does not effect him, I'd call bullshit. He's just deluding himself. He might still be more productive then most or productive enough that his boss doesn't notice the difference, but that is not to say there is no impact.

[blackdiamond]

This is not something I can strongly support with evidence, but I would say ultimately it would have to lead to being less productive.

With all due respect, to hold to an existential proposition like that without evidence (as admitted) is to hold an arbitrary belief. Any attempt to justify such an arbitrary proposition is rationalization.

Edited September 28, 2007 by blackdiamond

[aequalsa]

With all due respect, to hold to an existential proposition like that without evidence (as admitted) is to hold an arbitrary belief. Any attempt to justify such an arbitrary proposition is rationalization.

That may have been unclear on my part. I don't mean to say that I have no evidence for the belief I hold, only that it is based on my personal observations of people and as such may be prone to error due to sample size and personal bias.

Further, one can test this notion in their own lives fairly easily without doing anything terribly immoral. If you are in a relationship, stay out until 4 am and lie to them for one week about where you were. Observe how much time and energy must be invested in maintaining the lie as well as dealing with the stress of their inquiries and distrust. Then compound that expenditure of energy by way of the added guilt which would come with any severe betrayal and it should be fairly obvious that complete compartmentalization is not realistic.

An individuals psychology must be somewhat integrated by definition, since they take place in the same brain. Without some severe psychosis, evasion could not be complete enough for a person to "forget" that they betrayed a spouse or something equally egregious. I would imagine the effects would be more acute for a person with greater integrity. Being less integrated might make evasion more easy in some ways. Not sure about that though.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

So maybe she's not his highest value; maybe he married her too early, before he could properly judge her. He has stayed with her because he doesn't want to be away from his lovely children. Or WHATEVER. Point is, he is cheating on her, man. Don't tell me what he should say to her or that he should leave if he is rational and all that because that's not the issue here.

One cannot discuss any aspect of Objectivism without context or by dropping the context, which is what you are trying to do, which is why you don't understand that virtue is one. Of course it matters if he loves her or if he doesn't love her and what the proper course of action would be in either case. Trying to live a lie by having an affair on a wife one loves or staying with a woman one no longer loves will have dire consequences on a man's entire life, including his work performance. Love and sex are too important for it to be otherwise.

I think the only exception, if one can call it that, is if a man is in love with two women at the same time; which will be a temporary context, and he will have to decide which one he wants. But even then, I think his work performance will suffer due to the distraction of having to resolve this issue.

Relationship problems most definitely effect performance in the work place.

[blackdiamond]

... which is why you don't understand that virtue is one...

Hm. I've now lost ALL hope.

You either can't see why such sentences are unjust and offensive at this stage of the discussion (especially since I've even stated that I believe the virtues are integrated), or you are doing it deliberately in order to "chase" me from this community because you still believe it should only be for a small clique of "rational" people.

I have made repeated requests that you stop discussing your perceived failures of my mind (until you've fully demonstrated the correctness of your position - by clearly showing how my position contradicts a basic axiom or a well-known fact of reality), but you still continue to ignore such requests. As aequalsa's honest statement above (and those of others here) shows, it (your interpretation) is apparently not yet a well-established fact of reality, which makes your personalistic approach to the discussion wholly inappropriate.

If you can not grant my request (of simply desisting from such mind-impugning statements), and can not even deign to explain why you can not grant it, then you simply do not respect the mind of the person you are engaging. It's difficult to continue discussion with you under such conditions.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

If you can not grant my request (of simply desisting from such mind-impugning statements), and can not even deign to explain why you can not grant it, then you simply do not respect the mind of the person you are engaging. It's difficult to continue discussion with you under such conditions.

One cannot assess what will happen to a man if he violates a virtue, even if only through error, unless one understands what he ought to do in a given circumstance. However, when I try to provide you with a context for what he ought to do, you say you don't want to hear it, you just want the answer.

For example, Hank Rearden ought to have divorced Lillian and he ought to have married Dagny; and this did lead to him being less productive, when he was being blackmailed, in the sense that he signed the "gift certificate" because he didn't want to expose Dagny to the harassments she would have received had the public found out she was having an affair with a married man. However, Dagny did do what she ought to have done, she stated forthrightly that she was proud that Hank Rearden had chosen her, thus making the blackmail ineffective.

Miss Rand referred to that type of blackmail as white blackmail because someone is trying to blackmail you based on the fact that you are pursuing a value proper to human life, but don't yet understand this, so one gives in out of the uncertainty of one's position. If a man does something that he ought to be proud of, but he is not willing or able yet to understand that, then he is vulnerable to accusations that he did something that he ought to be ashamed of (by an improper standard). That is another aspect of virtue being one; if one does not stand by one's values or one's virtues, then this will be used against oneself by those who are not scrupulous. There are viciously evil people out there who will use any vulnerability against oneself; which is why one must understand the context and what one ought to do in a given context by man's life as the standard.

So, it makes a big difference if a man is doing what he ought to be doing or he is not, but one cannot determine that without a context.

The Objectivist virtues are not like The Ten Commandments, which are contextless prohibitions.

[mrocktor]

That still does not address BD's central question. Why is it impossible to compartmentalize one's vices as you claim? Personally, I think that holding such a position underestimates the power of evasion.

I have no doubt that it is impossible to be rational (in some context) without being honest (in that context). I have no doubt that it is impossible to be rational (as an integrated being) without being honest in every context. I have seen no rational argument supporting the idea that, for example, it is impossible to be fully rational and honest in a limited context, while evading dishonesty in another.

[Alethiometry]

Trying to live a lie by having an affair on a wife one loves or staying with a woman one no longer loves will have dire consequences on a man's entire life, including his work performance. Love and sex are too important for it to be otherwise.

I would appreciate a lot of elaboration on this statement. What kind of consequences do you think are possible and/or most likely after this type of evasion?

Edited October 2, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added trackback to the Quote block

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think the answer to the last couple of posts is that man (and woman) is an integrated being of both mind and body; that is, he (or she) is one being, one entity, by nature and in fact. So, trying to live as two (or more) beings is contrary to his nature; and one cannot contradict one's nature with impunity -- without consequences.

It's not that a person could not attempt to live a lie and attempt to live as two or more people in one body -- i.e. he can be compartmentalized intellectually -- but he can't bifurcate his mind without paying a price for that attempt.

The human mind and body interaction ought to flow freely from conceptualization (of, say ideals) to the requisite action; and if one attempts to have two or more sets of ideals (say one at work and one at home and one with one's mistress) then that natural flow from mind to body will be interrupted, and he won't be able to live properly. This holds true especially if his ideals do not conform to existence and man's nature -- i.e. if his ideals are contrary to man's nature, say with a non-rational morality (which I think is a leading cause of bifurcation). This will necessarily set up conflicts between man and nature and between man and himself. But the whole point of having a rational philosophy is to become integrated to both existence and to himself, so that he can live smoothly, as one being; so that when he becomes aware of a value, he can pursue it ardently and without internal conflicts. Baring psychological conflicts -- which can be difficult to resolve -- a man qua man ought to pursue values freely, once he becomes aware of them; and to resolve his internal conflicts so that he can do this.

But the attempt to live a bifurcated life necessarily sets up internal conflicts -- that is, it necessarily sets up a clash of programing of one's subconscious computer. Let's say one is used to speaking one's mind at work according to strict egoistic principles of the profit motive, but tries to be more altruistic at home. He freely pursued values at work, but is less ardent at home. This will necessarily bring up a clash, say when he wants to ardently pursue his wife for sex -- his subconscious will throw in that altruistic pattern of his home bifurcation and he won't be as passionate with her as he was in pursuing values at work. In effect, he has rendered his wife as a value not to be touched, due to this clash; because pursuing his wife is selfish, but he can't be that way at home according to his own self-made bifurcation; which might lead to him pursuing a mistress that he can be passionate about -- leading to yet more conflicts at home.

In short, one is not free to do whatever one wants with one's mind; there are laws of nature that apply there as well as in dealing with external existence. And violating man's nature as an integrated being of mind and body will lead to dire consequences, in that he will not be able to function properly as that one being.

[Marc K.]

The direction this thread is taking and the questions people are asking remind me of one of the prudent predator threads. An Objectivist will state that there is no such thing as a prudent predator and that it is impossible to live as a predator. The opposition will point to concrete examples such as Hitler or Mao or the perfectly smart jewel thief. The answer of course is that there is nothing to steal if someone hasn't already produced it. That the thief cannot live as a thief on principle. That the only way to live on principle is to act rationally.

To the extent one lives and is happy one is acting rationally and to the extent one acts irrationally one is unhappy and dying.

The same is true of the Objectivist virtues. Remember that rationality is the cardinal Objectivist virtue and that all the other virtues are rationality as applied to specific aspects of life.

So when a rational person says: "I am productive"; what they mean is: "I am conducting myself in a rational manner as to how I create material value".

Don't tell me what he should say to her or that he should leave if he is rational and all that because that's not the issue here.

So rationality is the issue. It is not only the issue in this thread and on this Forum but it is the main issue with the philosophy of Objectivism.

The issue simply is: does cheating or lying (to wife or anyone, including taxi driver) necessarily lead to un-productiveness (at work)? ALWAYS?

What you are asking is: "can one be irrational and rational at the same time?" The painfully obvious answer is that a rational man would avoid this at all cost.

Then perhaps you want to ask about those unfortunate souls who try to live this contradictory lifestyle. The answer is the same as above: to the degree that one lives a rational life they will be happy and to the degree they try to live a contradiction they will be unhappy and slowly dying.

[aequalsa]

The direction this thread is taking and the questions people are asking remind me of one of the prudent predator threads. ...

to the degree that one lives a rational life they will be happy and to the degree they try to live a contradiction they will be unhappy and slowly dying.

Excellent post. All very well put. *applause*

[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.

In the -Nicomachean Ethics- Aristotle holds phronesis (practical wisdom/prudence) as the highest or one of the highest of the Virtues.

Seneca proposes that practical wisdom or prudence (phronesis) is the chiefest virtue.

Bob Kolker