Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Slapping N. Branden

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts


Branden gives Rand a written paper telling her that the difference in their ages prevents him from being romantically interested in her. Rand breaks off most personal relations with him, but does continue their business partnership and sessions to advise him on personal psychological issues.

 

Barbara Branden decides to inform Rand of the full truth about Nathaniel Branden's other affair. Her meeting with Rand precipitates a confrontation in which Rand denounces and slaps Nathaniel Branden.

 

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/brandens.html

 

Is this moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big caveat here is that you don't personally know the peopled involved and their motivations. But with minimal context, if someone lies to you about aspects of their romantic involvement with you, they shouldn't be surprised to get a slap in the face, especially after years of involvement.

I think it's a moral grey area and, if true, could be excused in most scenarios as emotional outburst. Of course, they still may go after you in court, and then of course the judge may sympathize with the one who was lied to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't wanna mention AR's alleged affair with Branden before (when I read it in Greenspan's memoir, Age of Turbulence), but now that you brought it up, let me say this about the alleged slap: A woman slapping a man in that context shouldn't be considered "initiation of force." It's symbolic. It's dramatic. It's romantic. Think of an offended noble slapping another man with his white gloves.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Is kissing someone without permission sexual assault? 

 

Of all the things to criticize about that situation a slap is the least problematic.

 

This wasn't about criticizing Ayn Rand. I was more interested in the idea of hitting someone for doing wrong to you. 

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't about criticizing Ayn Rand. I was more interested in the idea of hitting someone for doing wrong to you.

I guess an instructive hypothetical question to ask might be...

If Branden had hit back, would we hold him to have "initiated the use of force"? If we're agreed that there is "force" in this situation at all, it seems to me that someone will have initiated it. And according to Rand's philosophy, I think it clear that this person, whoever it was, was wrong to have done so, regardless of their supposed justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't about criticizing Ayn Rand. I was more interested in the idea of hitting someone for doing wrong to you. 

 

Context, as always, is king. 

 

Wrong a lady and she slaps you for it - Well your a man so frankly suck it up. 

 

Another man wrongs you and you slap him, it is possibly justified but I dobt it is in anyone's best interest.  If he wronged you then likely he's the kind of person that will not understand the moral justification and you'll end uop in a fight where he felt attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Wrong". Yes. Immoral? We don't derive out morality from individual rights, but the other way round, I believe.

Would you say that hitting someone who insulted your wife is "wrong"? I'd agree. But immoral?

Let's not quibble, someone did initiate force, and here it was Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Wrong". Yes. Immoral? We don't derive out morality from individual rights, but the other way round, I believe.

Would you say that hitting someone who insulted your wife is "wrong"? I'd agree. But immoral?

 

 

Can you explain this distinction further? It's not immoral to initiate force against someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context, as always, is king. 

 

Wrong a lady and she slaps you for it - Well your a man so frankly suck it up. 

 

Another man wrongs you and you slap him, it is possibly justified but I dobt it is in anyone's best interest.  If he wronged you then likely he's the kind of person that will not understand the moral justification and you'll end uop in a fight where he felt attacked.

Context is king... but the Objectivist Ethics and Politics provide certain absolutes within the context of human interaction and society. So long as all of the parties involved are human (and I think so?), and so long as we're dealing with "force" and not mere romantic symbolism, or "free speech," or such (which is the only real bone of contention, imo), then we have context enough to assess the situation without trying to further sort out the sordid details of their affair-turned-sour. He (or she) who initiates the use of force is in the wrong to do so, full stop.

Or as Rand would have put it, when calm and reasonable:

 

The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side initiates the use of physical force, that side is wrong—and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate.

You may continue to discuss the underlying issues under the banner of "context," if you choose, but I consider the above to hold that discussion as "inappropriate" in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the lied-to party was innocent, would you judge him/her as immoral for the emotional slap? What retribution could be had for the wronged party when no legal action can be taken?

A disassociation from them. I don't understand why people try so hard to justify the actions of Ayn Rand when she was clearly wrong.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take Rand out of the scenario, but keep the details the same. A man lies to his lover about the nature of their romantic relationship, for years. I assume you would say it was immoral for him to do so. What should the lied-to party do if she wishes to give him what he deserves as justice for herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the lied-to party was innocent, would you judge him/her as immoral for the emotional slap?

I think that people often act in emotional ways that are wrong -- though being human, I can easily understand and even sympathize with their actions. My judgement of Rand doesn't extend much past that, and I'm certainly not saying she was an immoral person on this basis, even if we're agreed that slapping a person is, in fact, an example of the use of force.

Is there room for a moral person to act immorally at times? I believe so. But that's a whole other kettle of fish, and trying to assess the overall morality of people I've never met is one of my least favorite Objectivist hobbies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context is king.

How is striking someone a violation of the 'noninitiation of force' principle? In what way is the slappee being denied their use of reason to gain and or keep values?

You don't view "striking someone" as an initiation of physical force? As for values, what of the value of being free from physical pain?

 

Take Rand out of the scenario, but keep the details the same.

I wish that we would.

 

A man lies to his lover about the nature of their romantic relationship, for years. I assume you would say it was immoral for him to do so. What should the lied-to party do if she wishes to give him what he deserves as justice for herself?

With all of the details remaining as they are, you don't suppose that professional and personal separation, and the tarnishing of reputations, and etc., qualifies as justice?

I've been wronged by people in the past, and suffered my share of emotional hurt. I've never sought to attack them physically as a part of any "justice." I reserve force for self-defense. Do you think I'm wrong to do so? Should I hit people instead, when upset? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slapping someone is obviously an example of the use of force. How , in the context of the particular example, is that an example of a violation of the NIF principle?

If slapping someone is "obviously an example of the use of force," and I agree that it is, and if we are thus agreed that there was therefore force employed in the scenario under discussion... and if we are further agreed that force does not magically descend from the heavens, but is initiated by one or more actors via their actions (e.g. slapping someone)... then in the context of this particular example, initiating the use of force via slap (if indeed it is not contended that Branden struck Rand first, or otherwise employed force against her) is a clear example of a violation of the principle that one may not morally initiate the use of force.

Initiating force is the very thing that violates that principle, and actually, the only thing.

If you don't understand how and why initiating the use of force against someone violates a principle which holds that one must not initiate the use of force, then... I am at a loss as to how I can help elucidate the issue further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain this distinction further? It's not immoral to initiate force against someone?

For me, as I see it, always wrong, but not always immoral.

"Rights are a moral concept...that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others..."[Man's Rights -CUI]

Extreme cases (although they happen in reality):

A man refuses to lend another his phone to call up paramedics for injured people in an accident; he takes it off him by force.

Filipino families after the typhoon, stranded without supplies for days, break into a store.

What are Rand's "guiding principles" in extreme situations? Establishing for oneself that it IS an extreme situation is primary. Then yours is the only judgment to act upon. In the cases above, I'd think it would be immoral NOT to initiate force. (And to pay restitution later).

But it is a distance from slapping someone in a passionate outburst, which is why I expressed my doubts..

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big caveat here is that you don't personally know the peopled involved and their motivations. But with minimal context, if someone lies to you about aspects of their romantic involvement with you, they shouldn't be surprised to get a slap in the face, especially after years of involvement.

Branden didn't lie about aspects of his romantic involvement with Rand. He only lied about his involvement with another woman, and if we accept Dr. Peikoff's position on "privacy lies" being moral, then Branden was being perfectly ethical in lying to Rand, since his affair with Patrecia was none of her business. Branden had no contract of romantic exclusivity with Rand, and was not obliged to inform her of the nature of his relationships with others.

 

I think it's a moral grey area and, if true, could be excused in most scenarios as emotional outburst. Of course, they still may go after you in court, and then of course the judge may sympathize with the one who was lied to.

 

The issue here is not what an average judge might think under the current mixed-philosophy culture, but what position Objectivism takes. Objectivism doesn't accept "gray areas" just because someone doesn't want to find Ayn Rand guilty of having initiated force. The slap was the initiation of force. The initiation of force is immoral according to Objectivism. The slap was therefore immoral. Objectivism doesn't play favorites by considering who initiated force and whether or not we like them and want to overlook their use of force.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, as I see it, always wrong, but not always immoral.

"Rights are a moral concept...that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others..."[Man's Rights -CUI]

Extreme cases (although they happen in reality):

A man refuses to lend another his phone to call up paramedics for injured people in an accident; he takes it off him by force.

Filipino families after the typhoon, stranded without supplies for days, break into a store.

What are Rand's "guiding principles" in extreme situations? Establishing for oneself that it IS an extreme situation is primary. Then yours is the only judgment to act upon. In the cases above, I'd think it would be immoral NOT to initiate force. (And to pay restitution later).

But it is a distance from slapping someone in a passionate outburst, which is why I expressed my doubts..

 

I don't see how any of that is relevant or applies to the current discussion (putting aside me asking you -_-), nor do I see:

 

Would you say that hitting someone who insulted your wife is "wrong"? I'd agree. But immoral?

 

as related to what you wrote above.

 

Are you suggesting that someone insulting your wife or Ayn Rand being lied to are "extreme situations"?

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thenelli:  Which sort of morality are you talking about? "Immoral" to whom?

 

 I presumed the morality of rational selfishness, in which one could be, only or primarily, immoral to oneself (by evasion, self-sacrifice, etc) . 

 

O'ism doesn't deduce morality FROM the non-initiation of force principle. (I may be badly off here, but my impression is that that concept is related more to libertarianism).

 

Objectivist ethics, rather, is applied TO the NIOF principle. (By way of individual rights, which are the "logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his actions with others" - I quoted.

Given Rand's rationally selfish morality then, would you now ask if slapping NB was immoral - by her, and Objectivist standards?

 

I wasn't "suggesting" very much in my post #9, but only indicated my lack of full certainty; that's why you will see question marks after both my mentions of "immorality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Branden didn't lie about aspects of his romantic involvement with Rand. He only lied about his involvement with another woman, and if we accept Dr. Peikoff's position on "privacy lies" being moral, then Branden was being perfectly ethical in lying to Rand, since his affair with Patrecia was none of her business. Branden had no contract of romantic exclusivity with Rand, and was not obliged to inform her of the nature of his relationships with others.

What romantic relationship involves a contract of any sort? And no matter how many internet sites claim whatever, nobody really knows what went down in this particular, personal scenario except the parties involved, in person. The only worthwhile conversation to be had is to be based on a hypothetical.

 

 

The issue here is not what an average judge might think under the current mixed-philosophy culture, but what position Objectivism takes. Objectivism doesn't accept "gray areas" just because someone doesn't want to find Ayn Rand guilty of having initiated force. The slap was the initiation of force. The initiation of force is immoral according to Objectivism. The slap was therefore immoral. Objectivism doesn't play favorites by considering who initiated force and whether or not we like them and want to overlook their use of force.

Objectivism doesn't accept gray morality, but since Objectivism doesn't espouse omniscience, we can deduce that it "accepts" (as if there's anything else to do but accept...) moral gray areas which have no clear course of action. "Initiation of force" isn't some mandated creed to be followed blindly. A lied-to lover for decades has been greatly wronged. This is the moral gray area I was referring to, where a lot of shit goes down and it isn't clear what should be done about it.

 

EDIT: In a sense, all morality is "gray," in that while a principle may be understood and clear, how to apply it isn't easy, and you may mess it up even with the best reasoning you've got.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slap might've been initiation, & therefore a moment of moral imperfection. I know she was a passionate woman because I've read her sex scenes, & maybe she didn't check her emotions before acting.

But....maybe it was retaliation. I have been lied to before. It can be a form of indirect use of force. And in some instances, calling the cops or filing a civil suit is inappropriate.

REASONABLE DOUBT: Branden might've promised her that he would be monogamous, to gain a value from her that he wouldn't have received otherwise (nookie).

Miss Rand might've given Branden some nookie, based on the lie.

This type of fraud reminds of that great forum about lies on this site, & how certain types of fraud victims aren't protected by criminal or civil law, yet are still victims of an indirect use-of-force.

Maybe Miss Rand was retaliating for getting defrauded out of nookie.

I don't wanna make it a non-issue, but dude, if you think a slap from a chick, in that context, qualifies as initiation of force, you're a pussy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...