Judging Other People

[blackdiamond]

...Now, did this have anything to do with their motives? I would say yes, in the sense that Roark had the motive to live like a man whereas Keating had the motive to live like less than a man...

It makes a difference how productive one is going to be -- in the sense of creating something rather than copying something.

You seem to suggest that second-handers can not (or do not) innovate. Outside an Argument from Fictional Characters, I think it might be very difficult for you to prove that suggestion. But let's hear it.

[Thales]

You seem to suggest that second-handers can not (or do not) innovate. Outside an Argument from Fictional Characters, I think it might be very difficult for you to prove that suggestion. But let's hear it.

I think I can answer this one. You do have to be first hand to be an inventor. Now, to be sure, for really simple inventions, trivial inventions, it doesn't take a great deal of insight to invent, but the inventor will have to be aware of what he is looking at, and understand it enough to re-arrange things to suit his purposes. Such an inventor could be second hand in any number of things, but in the actual thing he's working on he could not be. He has to be focused on the matter. For more complex inventions the degree of focus and understanding required will be much more, and one would have to be a first hander in his work over a long and sustained period of time.

An example of a trivial invention might be finding a way to more niftily hang the cups in your cupboard, say padded hooks to keep the coffee mug handles from scraping against metal. I think that a Peter Keating could manage to be that first hand.

A high level invention would be the light bulb, or nuclear reactor, which require an immense amount of knowledge, cleverness and focus on the real world. Those sorts of inventions would require someone with a Howard Roark level of first handedness, or close to it.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Thales

[Robert J. Kolker]

You seem to suggest that second-handers can not (or do not) innovate. Outside an Argument from Fictional Characters, I think it might be very difficult for you to prove that suggestion. But let's hear it.

Perhaps we should put the matter in a less pejorative fashion. Some people are more original than others. Lack of originality is not a crime or an ethical wrong. It is simply a lack of talent. People should be as productive as possible at their talent level.

Bob Kolker

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I said: It makes a difference how productive one is going to be -- in the sense of creating something rather than copying something.

You seem to suggest that second-handers can not (or do not) innovate. Outside an Argument from Fictional Characters, I think it might be very difficult for you to prove that suggestion. But let's hear it.

Ayn Rand's fictional characters were not just something she made up from her imagination, they were based on her observations of people and the principles behind them -- i.e. Roark's search for the principle behind the dean. The principle that Roark discovered is that some people are very tradition bound or very otherism bound, such that anything new that challenges them to think differently than their tradition or differently than what others have done in the past strikes them as something horrid. Rather than embracing the innovative -- i.e. taking pleasure in the Internet and all it has to offer -- they condemn the new because now they will "be forced" to think about things that they never had to think about before -- i.e. their business goes down due to Internet competition, which they never had to worry about before. The innovator in spirit will embrace the new possibilities, the second-hander will resent the new possibilities because he prefers things to be static and not have to think about new things all of the time.

For example, what were the second-hander's evaluation about the Internet -- blank out -- because their ancestors did not have the Internet. Their great grandfather only had the horse and buggy to worry about, but now they have to evaluate automobiles! I mean, one doesn't even need a whip to get it to go! How horrible it is that these innovations keep cropping up out of the blue. If one doesn't think about them one gets left behind, and that is too terrible to consider, because one will have to make a first-hand evaluation of the new, rather than turning to others who never heard about it either.

Being a first-hander does not require one to be a great innovator; that is, one does not have to be Thomas Edison or Ayn Rand to be a first-hander. However, one does have to admire the rationally new and the revolutionary available via technology and ideas -- i.e. the Internet and a new presentation of reason available in Objectivism -- in order to be a first-hander.

The second-hander will only want what his ancestors had -- candles and the Sermon on the Mount -- because evaluations of those are ready-made and handed down throughout the generations. No thinking is required; one merely has to accept what is handed down. And I think that is where the term "second-hander" comes from -- a hand-me-down method of mental functioning and living.

But that type of mentality, in and of itself, precludes the innovative way of living brought about by thinking and making first-hand evaluations of what is available and what needs to be created in order to live better than one's ancestors.

[blackdiamond]

Mr. Miovas,

I believe your position can be reduced to absurdity. You believe that:

1. All (great) inventors (and innovators) are independent people.

2. You either have all virtues or no virtues (you can't be virtuous in one area and not in all others)

3. [Therefore] All inventors have all virtues. They are independent, rational, honest, etc.

Therefore, if you meet an inventor you have met a person who you can trust with your money, and you have met a person who doesn't lie, or cheats on his wife, etc.

[blackdiamond]

This question illustrates one of the points Betsy is trying to make -- that I really don't know your intention, which is why I asked. Your answer is relevant to how or if I will engage you.

Of course I had evidence. First you are wrong.

If you meet a person whom you believe is wrong about a certain point (a difference between two words that are commonly understood to be synonymous, and of which even YOU agree are "virtually interchangeable"), is that grounds enough to start asking them if they are opposed to Objectivism?

...Which I have found usually means either you misunderstand Objectivism or intend to argue against it -- which is why I asked the question.

And So, if I may ask, do you believe that Rational Biker "either misunderstands Objectivism or intends to argue against it" (in the debate room) since he also thought those two terms (truthful and honest) are practically synonymous (at least at the time of his last post)?

It's rather interesting that you can suspect a person misunderstands the philosophy of Objectivism because they think that 'truthful' and 'honest' mean the same thing!

OK, this is the way you would handle it. But would you begrudge or consider immoral the person who lies to the stranger?

Yes. A person who lies outside emergency situations is immoral, whether to strangers or to friends.

Does being honest have anything to do with being rational? Could a person be rational and dishonest?

I'm tackling that with Mr. Miovas (see above) and Mrs Speicher (earlier). I don't think that if one virtue exists in a person then all virtues exist, or indeed that if one is missing then all are missing. It's possible that some virtues can not exist with other virtues (that's at least arguable), but to conclude that all virtues require all other virtues (to exist) is a doubtful proposition in my view.

I'll let my previous definitions stand, there is no logical absurdity.

You understand 'truthful' to mean 'telling the truth ALL THE TIME, even in emergencies, even when there is no need, right?. You understand honest to be a virtue that takes reality into account instead of just telling the truth all the time, right? This DOES mean that being truthful is a vice and it is irrational, unless you think that telling the truth all the time, no matter what, is rational or virtuous.

If this is not a logical absurdity (that truthfulness is a vice), then you must show either that the conclusion does not follow from those definitions, or that the concluding proposition is in fact not wrong. You can't just arbitrarily say there's no logical absurdity.

(Meanwhile, I do not believe this is going anywhere with you, so I will have to excuse myself from this little tangential discussion with you, Marc K, unless you have something new to say).

[blackdiamond]

It's possible that some virtues can not exist with other virtues (that's at least arguable), but to conclude that all virtues require all other virtues (to exist) is a doubtful proposition in my view.

This should read:

It's possible that some virtues can not exist WITOUT (certain) other virtues (that's at least arguable), but to conclude that all virtues require all other virtues (to exist) is a doubtful proposition in my view.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

This should read:

It's possible that some virtues can not exist WITHOUT (certain) other virtues (that's at least arguable), but to conclude that all virtues require all other virtues (to exist) is a doubtful proposition in my view.

I knew what you meant the first time, and you were wrong then as you are wrong now. The Objectivist virtues are integrated around rationality. It is not possible to be both rational and irrational at the same time and in the same respect; A is A. As I formulated it earlier in this thread, one cannot be just and irrational; and in justice, one cannot judge someone to be honest if they are irrational. One could judge the other person as being mistaken and honest, but not irrational and honest. That is they either don't have all of the facts, or they mis-integrate the facts according to a wrong standard; and both are possible if one is rational.

What you may be thinking of is someone of mixed premises, such that they are, say, rational at work, but someone irrational in their private time. In other words, one might be a first-hander while working on that great new invention, but then become a second-hander while one is not working on it. I think there are many people like this who are very productive at work using the highest possible standards and practices, but become totally conventional and non-accurate with their family.

One can take a closer look at Hank Rearden of Atlas Shrugged and compare how he was at work versus how he was with his family. Only in Hank Rearden's case, he was continuously questioning how he was dealing with his family -- i.e. he was looking for better standards with which to judge them as accurately as he did his work, but he didn't have those tools. As he understood those tools -- i.e. as he grasped Objectivism implicitly -- he dealt with his family more accurately, realizing that they were good for nothing and trying to destroy his greatness out of resentment. But he did pay a price for that injustice and not understanding it by supporting them for all of that time why they were trying to destroy his self-esteem. In Hank's case, he was rational but mistaken; but there are people out there who refuse to judge others by a more just standard no matter what they do to him out of a sense of altruism instead of out of a sense of benevolence towards others who may not be as productive as oneself. These people are being inaccurate and unjust intentionally, using a woozy kind of semi-standards handed down throughout the generations for the past two thousand years. They have the capacity to know better, but refuse to judge people the way they judge doing their work. In other words, they are not integrated by choice.

Dealing with someone of mixed premises is difficult, because in principle it may be difficult to know when and where they are going to be using their dual standards -- i.e. deciding ahead of time when they are going to be rational and when they are going to be irrational. At work, they might be using strict scientific standards, but at home they might be using the morality of death as their pseudo-standard. One can certainly say that they do not have unbreached rationality, and therefore are not morally perfect --i.e. consistent. They live a bifurcated life, which is a breach of integrity.

[blackdiamond]

I knew what you meant the first time, and you were wrong then as you are wrong now. The Objectivist virtues are integrated around rationality. It is not possible to be both rational and irrational at the same time and in the same respect; A is A.

This is an obvious straw man. I too believe that you can not be honest and dishonest at the same time and in the same respect, or similarly irrational and rational, etc. But no one is discussing "at the same time and in the same way" here, and that's precisely where the problem is.

Do you call a man dishonest just because he has shown that he is not very independent in his family relations? Does the absence of a virtue in a certain area negate the existence of all other virtues just because the virtues are "integrated"?

So, would it be impossible for you to ever say to someone, "i know you are a very independent person, but now you need to work on your (virtue of) justice because that's also very important." As far as you're concerned, if the person is independent then he is also just?

That's the question I wish you could answer directly, preferably without going too much into fictional characters (if that's possible).

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Do you call a man dishonest just because he has shown that he is not very independent in his family relations? Does the absence of a virtue in a certain area negate the existence of all other virtues just because the virtues are "integrated"?

The fact that you put integrated in scare quotes shows that you do not understand what that term means in this context. To be integrated means to make it one. Just as the term "animal" integrates horses, cows, pigs, dogs, snakes, lizards, etc. into one unit, so all of the virtues are integrated into one unit when someone is virtuous; a way of living that judges every aspect of existence according to man's life as the standard.

Let's say that a man truly independently (as a first-hander) judges all non-man items according to a rational standard, man's life; but that he judges all man items according to another standard, altruism. Can he be honest in doing this?

I would argue no, he can't be honest, because not to judge others by man's life as the standard is not to hold one's own life as the purpose of living, which is the only honest position that one can take.

Honesty means accepting that what is real is real and what is unreal is unreal. If he judges non-man facts according to man's life as the standard, that means he is judging them according to whether they are good for his life or bad for his life. Say he understands that a violent storm is bad for his life because he could be flooded out or be struck by lightening; but he doesn't judge being continuously harassed by others or being petty theft to death by others as being equally bad for him. How could he make such judgements honestly? How could he honestly say that being struck by lightning is bad for him, but being harassed or being publicly stoned is not bad for him? In either case, his life is at risk, and the only honest position to take is that he recognizes the threat of being stoned to death is equally bad for his life as being hit by lightening; because in either case, he will be dead, which is not good.

Likewise, if he is living with a family that continuously picks at him, like little gnats or mosquitoes, he ought to be honest enough to realize that this is not good for his self-esteem. If he judges the non-man by a rational standard, then he will brush away those gnats and mosquitoes instead of letting them pick away at his flesh. This would be honest if he takes his own life and body seriously by a rational standard. But if he let's human gnats and mosquitoes continuously pick at his spirit, then how can he honestly say that this is not doing his self-esteem any harm? If he was being altruistic towards the gnats and the mosquitoes, he would permit them to feast off of his body as if they had a right to do that. If that idea is horrid, then shouldn't he also consider it to be horrid that others continuously pick at him as if they have a right to degrade his spirit, one annoying bite at a time?

So, if a man is independent in dealing with others, he must be honest as to whether associating with them is good for him or bad for him. If he doesn't make this judgement, then he is not being honest.

[~Sophia~]

Ayn Rand's fictional characters were not just something she made up from her imagination, they were based on her observations of people and the principles behind them ....

Rand's characters are significantly polarized for the sake of clarity.

Your continuous use of fictional characters as examples of real people is troubling as it is unrealistic.

I find that most people: 1) are philosophically mixed - a combination of rational and irrational (in different areas of their life), 3) if committed to rationality they may not be fully ideologically integrated and thus inconsistent despite their best intentions 4) if integrated when it comes to abstract ideas they accept as true - they may not be introspective enough to realize that they are not fully implementing what they believe in all areas of their life 5) they maybe prone to rationalizations (in my opinion - a "common cold" among Objectivists) 6) they maybe too concrete bound 7) they may have a variable control over their own psychology - just to name a few possibilities.

So, my point is that most people, unlike Rand's characters, are not black or white (although achieving "whiteness" should be everyone's goal - I am certainly not saying that it is not possible), but instead many shades of grey. I find that it is crucial to correctly assign a value (for yourself) to other's greyness, instead of placing a big black moral X on most people you meet in your life.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Rand's characters are significantly polarized for the sake of clarity. [bold added for emphasis]

I thought we were seeking clarity on this issue, and not grey fog.

5) they may be prone to rationalizations (in my opinion - a "common cold" among Objectivists)

You might mean rationalism, which means thinking in terms of floating abstractions. Of course, Miss Rand's fictional characters were not floating, and they make a handy reference for thinking in terms of principles. A rationalization is putting emotions ahead of thinking and trying to justify an emotion, which is not common among Objectivists.

7) they may have a variable control over their own psychology....

I have no idea what this means. Please elaborate.

So, my point is that most people, unlike Rand's characters, are not black or white (although achieving "whiteness" should be everyone's goal - I am certainly not saying that it is not possible), but instead many shades of grey. I find that it is crucial to correctly assign a value (for yourself) to other's greyness, instead of placing a big black moral X on most people you meet in your life.

You might want to read an essay that Miss Rand wrote called "The Cult of Moral Grayness" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

I mean, if someone does just a little bit of pick pocketing, but otherwise lives an honest life, is he grey or is he black? I'd say he's black. If you think he is grey, then I guess you wouldn't mind if he picked your pockets and stole your identity. If he only does that once or twice, I guess it's not all that bad, according to you.

Likewise, if someone goes around harassing you, I mean, he's only doing it a little bit -- after all, he's not murdering anyone; so I guess that makes it only grey and not black according to you. So, if he comes up behind you while you are minding your own business and says things like, "Sophia has a pimple! Don't step in that dog poo! What's the matter, can't find your car little girl? Going to call the fuzz on me, man? Hey, I heard what you said to your boyfriend the other day; he should leave you, you b...! Oh look, she gonna cry! hahahaha." I guess that would be OK by you, since he is only morally grey and not morally black?

Evil can't be evil all of the time, not without someone covering the bills, so to speak. To be evil all of the time means to disregard the requirements of living a rational life all of the time, which can't be done without dying of at least starvation. So even people that Objectivists would call evil -- evil, mind you, not grey -- must be rational some of the time or they wouldn't be around. That is part of the point of Atlas Shrugged, that if left on their own without rational intervention, they would perish.

I say let them die; and even swat a few of the gnats and mosquitoes out there if they become enough of a nuisance. You want a real world example? Take a look at what Miss Rand said about the 60's riots on campuses across this country (USA); she said that they finally stopped when they realized they could be shot. Were those rioters only morally grey and not as morally black as they come?

You decide, and get back to me on that.

[~Sophia~]

You might mean rationalism, which means thinking in terms of floating abstractions.

I meant rationalism.

Of course, Miss Rand's fictional characters were not floating, and they make a handy reference for thinking in terms of principles.

Rand's characters are not "mixed" thus they serve as very good tools when it comes to presenting principles.

Most of real people are however mixed and thus a lot more complex (which does not mean incomprehensible).

You might want to read an essay that Miss Rand wrote called "The Cult of Moral Grayness" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

I have read it - but thanks for the recommendation. Here is a quote from that very essay:

"...one still has to judge and evaluate the many shadings of "grey" that one may encounter in the characters of individual men. (And the only way to judge them is by a clearly defined criterion of "black" and "white")."

I mean, if someone does just a little bit of pick pocketing, but otherwise lives an honest life, is he grey or is he black?

I'd say he's black. If you think he is grey, then I guess you wouldn't mind if he picked your pockets and stole your identity. If he only does that once or twice, I guess it's not all that bad, according to you.

You guessed wrong. Your conclusion about what I think is incorrect.

What I mean by grey is that they display lack of some virtue at some time. To what degree they are "grey" and in what context is not irrelevant to me as it is a part of my objective judgment of their value to my life. I do not ignore their shortcommings - nor do I minimize their significance in light of some of their virtues. I also don't think that "whiteness" is impossible or impractical. I do not use the existance and frequency of "greyness" arround me as an excuse for not striving for "whiteness" myself. But to me recognition of it in others - is a part of being in touch with reality and is necessary if one wants to be just.

My judgment of others is based on the total sum of all of the vices and virtues. I judge someone as "black" when the sum of their vices equal or outweigh their virtues (and one significant vice can tip that scale - it is NOT a numbers game); someone as "white" when they are virtuous 100% of the time; someone as "grey" (to some X degree) when they are in between the two - which I find is the most common scenario (just the degree varies). Part of my evaluation is also their intent.

Evil can't be evil all of the time, not without someone covering the bills, so to speak.

I would want to tell you exactly what you can do with your implicit insults but I will excercise my restrain.

For the record I am not striving to convince you. I just can't keep silent when you are trying to spread your mistaken ideas when it comes to judgment of others. If someone would follow your ideas - they would fail in the area of human relationships including romantic.

I would like to bring attention to this quote from Basic Principles of Objectivism by Dr. Peikoff:

"If you do not know how to judge the character of a person because the facts available to you are insufficient and the evidence of his flaws is inconclusive, you must give him the benefit of the doubt -- not on the grounds of mercy, but on the grounds of justice -- because to let off the guilty is less disastrous than to condemn the innocent, because virtues are more important than flaws, because justice demands that a man be considered innocent until proved guilty. This principle applies in law courts as well as in your personal relationships with people, except that in personal relationships, when you give the benefit of the doubt, you do not dismiss the case: you wait for further evidence to prove the good or bad character of the person before you pass a moral judgment (BPO, Justice Versus Mercy)."

Edited September 4, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I would want to tell you exactly what you can do with your implicit insults but I will exercise my restrain.

I have not insulted you either implicitly or explicitly. I was giving you concrete examples of what I mean by someone being "black" morally; in order not to be accused of thinking in terms of floating abstractions.

For the record I am not striving to convince you. I just can't keep silent when you are trying to spread your mistaken ideas when it comes to judgment of others. If someone would follow your ideas - they would fail in the area of human relationships including romantic.

Are you saying that there aren't any other moral individuals out there? Am I the only one?

Frankly, I wouldn't date someone who is a pick pocket or a harasser; and I wouldn't date someone who I thought was grey (grey meaning they are "white" in some areas but "black" in others). I would, however, date someone who I thought was struggling in the right direction; someone who, by my judgement, was trying to be rational in all areas of her life; even if she did make some big mistakes (so long as they were mistakes and not willful evil). I've even fallen in love with women who never heard about Objectivism, can you imagine that?

But here's the strange thing. You evidently don't mind associating with some people who you know are morally black in some areas of their lives, but you don't seem to want to associate with me.

There is something weird about that.

Perhaps if one is willing to accept the grey, then they can no longer stand the glare of being with white.

[~Sophia~]

I have not insulted you either implicitly or explicitly. I was giving you concrete examples of what I mean by someone being "black" morally; in order not to be accused of thinking in terms of floating abstractions.

I will take you on your word.

Are you saying that there aren't any other moral individuals out there?

No I am not saying that at all. I don't think that "greyness" is a necessary part of human nature. It is just frequent.

I would, however, date someone who I thought was struggling in the right direction; someone who, by my judgement, was trying to be rational in all areas of her life; even if she did make some big mistakes (so long as they were mistakes and not willful evil).

You are taking intent here in consideration - very good but notice that irrationality does put a person in the grey category (in this case grey with a good chance for improvement).

But here's the strange thing. You evidently don't mind associating with some people who you know are morally black in some areas of their lives, but you don't seem to want to associate with me.

You are mistaken. Are you planning on attending Dr. Ridpath event. If so - you will have a chance to meet me.

Perhaps if one is willing to accept the grey, then they can no longer stand the glare of being with white.

Did I say or implied that I accept it? Because what I thought I did was to recognize grey as existing and thus further identified the need to correctly evaluate it.

(as to the rest of your statement - if I ever have a chance to meet you - I will make sure to bring protective eyeweare - just in case I won't be able to stand the glare )

Edited September 4, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[blackdiamond]

The fact that you put integrated in scare quotes shows that you do not understand what that term means in this context.

No, Mr. Miovas. People don't put words in scare quotes because of a failure to understand them. I put the word in scare quotes precisely because I do not agree with your application (or understanding) of that concept. In short, YOUR "integration" has nothing to do with the valid concept of integration of virtues.

I believe I know exactly where your error is (I will say it later), but you could also see that there is a problem with your position if you actually attempted to answer the questions I am asking you in my posts, instead of just bombarding me with counter-scenarios (from life or fiction). Answering my questions would also help clarify the exact nature of the differences in our positions to others following this thread.

[by the way, I am not ignoring the examples in your last post to me. But notice that you keep giving me examples in which a person can not be virtuous and "unvirtuous" at the same time and/or in the same respect, something that I already agreed with and already indicated was never in contention here.]

[Steve D'Ippolito]

No, Mr. Miovas. People don't put words in scare quotes because of a failure to understand them. I put the word in scare quotes precisely because I do not agree with your application (or understanding) of that concept. In short, YOUR "integration" has nothing to do with the valid concept of integration of virtues.

Am I the only one who wonders why on earth they are called "scare quotes" when their purpose is to lend the modifier "so-called" to a word? Okay, sorry for the hijack.

[blackdiamond]

Am I the only one who wonders why on earth they are called "scare quotes" ...?

You're not the only one!

Let's say that a man truly independently (as a first-hander) judges all non-man items according to a rational standard, man's life; but that he judges all man items according to another standard, altruism. Can he be honest in doing this?

I would argue no, he can't be honest, because not to judge others by man's life as the standard is not to hold one's own life as the purpose of living, which is the only honest position that one can take.

Wait a sec. A closer look at your examples shows that they might not necessarily be "the same time and same way" situation, which means that it is in fact possible for one to be wrong in one of the two given areas without necessarily being dishonest.

So, the man might protect his life against gnats because he believes that God created him above those creatures and therefore he should destroy them when they try to destroy his life (The Bible says "I have given you dominion over all the creatures of the earth"). But when it is his relatives who are doing that, he might believe that these will be destroyed by God in their lives (or after-lives) for their injustice and evil, and he therefore just endures them.

So, the man will be protecting his life in one case (and indeed acting by that good standard) but leaving it up to God in the other case (and thus acting altruistically). Why should this imply that he is necessarily dishonest?

The only way you can say that is if you believe that someone who believes in God (metaphysically and meta-ethically) is necessarily dishonest. And that is where i bring out my little trump card: why aren't you judging Victor Hugo as evil/dishonest? And of course you'll run to "he was mistaken in that area" and I will then say "if Hugo was mistaken but honest, then anyone else can be mistaken and honest."

And if you reply, "we can understand Hugo's mistake because at that time there was no Ayn Rand", I will bring out my get-out-of-jail-free card: Mickey Spillane! (Good friend of Ayn Rand, dedicated member of the Jehova's Witnesses - even after getting it from the horse's mouth!).

[Notice, Mr. Miovas, that I am using real-life examples, not fictional characters, and observe how the discussion becomes a bit more complicated when it is real people being discussed. It is easy to apply your theory to Roark and Galt, but not so easy to Hugo and Spillane - the people we meet in our real lives, the people we have to judge. Sophia's point above.]

[Marc K.]

And So, if I may ask, do you believe that Rational Biker "either misunderstands Objectivism or intends to argue against it" (in the debate room) since he also thought those two terms (truthful and honest) are practically synonymous (at least at the time of his last post)?

Actually you may not ask but I'll answer anyway since it illustrates a point relating to the title of this thread. I have had time to evaluate RationalBiker and I am quite certain he has no intent to argue against Objectivism and nothing of which I am aware (including in this thread) would lead me to believe that he misunderstands Objectivism either. (You do understand that "practically synonymous" and "synonymous" are not the same thing, right?)

You are another story. I don't know you well enough, that is why I must ask the question. Cut to the chase, times a wastin', let's put our cards on the table; as it were. (By the way, I notice you still haven't answered the question).

It's rather interesting that you can suspect a person misunderstands the philosophy of Objectivism because they think that 'truthful' and 'honest' mean the same thing!

Not the whole of Objectivism, just this particular issue. However, since Objectivism is an integrated whole, chances are, if you're having problems with one aspect of it, that misunderstanding either leads to or came from another misunderstanding.

Yes. A person who lies outside emergency situations is immoral, whether to strangers or to friends.

Well I disagree with you and so does Leonard Peikoff (same citation as last post).

I'm tackling that with Mr. Miovas (see above) and Mrs Speicher (earlier). I don't think that if one virtue exists in a person then all virtues exist, or indeed that if one is missing then all are missing. It's possible that some virtues can not exist with other virtues (that's at least arguable), but to conclude that all virtues require all other virtues (to exist) is a doubtful proposition in my view.

Well, I didn't expect to be proved correct so soon. It isn't only that you misunderstand the virtue of honesty, it is that you misunderstand virtue in general.

All of the Objectivist virtues are aspects of the one cardinal virtue, rationality. And you cannot be rational and irrational at the same time.

You understand 'truthful' to mean 'telling the truth ALL THE TIME, even in emergencies, even when there is no need, right?. You understand honest to be a virtue that takes reality into account instead of just telling the truth all the time, right? This DOES mean that being truthful is a vice and it is irrational, unless you think that telling the truth all the time, no matter what, is rational or virtuous.

If this is not a logical absurdity (that truthfulness is a vice), then you must show either that the conclusion does not follow from those definitions, or that the concluding proposition is in fact not wrong. You can't just arbitrarily say there's no logical absurdity.

You have summed up my position nicely and arrived at the same logical conclusion I have stated previously.

Now, why don't you explain how your position is rational and moral when it leads you to truthfully tell a pedophile where your children are?

And now I implore you, stop your misrepresentation of Objectivism and read OPAR (or at least chapter 8). It is clear that you know not of what you speak. To dismiss this issue as somehow "tangential" to the main discussion is also incorrect. Your misunderstanding of this issue completely defeats your original post to Betsy.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

You are mistaken. Are you planning on attending Dr. Ridpath event. If so - you will have a chance to meet me.

(as to the rest of your statement - if I ever have a chance to meet you - I will make sure to bring protective eyeweare - just in case I won't be able to stand the glare )

I think it would be very interesting to meet you in person, but I'm not sure which Dr. Ridpath event you are referring to. One takes place in the Dallas / Fort Worth area in a few months, but since I'm no longer a member of NTOS, I can't attend that one. I very much enjoy his lectures, and met him in person a few times years ago when he was in the Dallas / Fort Worth area.

At any rate, I agree with you that not everyone is strictly moral or immoral by man's life as the standard. And sometimes it can be difficult to know if they are just mistaken or willful about being irrational.

However, the quote you gave from Dr. Peikoff about giving someone the benefit of the doubt means that you don't have any evidence that they are being immoral or the evidence is inconclusive. It does not say give them the benefit of the doubt if they are known to be immoral. You might be misusing the term "grey" in this context. Grey would mean that you know that they are immoral without a doubt in some areas of their life. In that case, one has to give them a positive sanction for their good and a negative sanction for their irrationality, while encouraging them to become more rational in their lives, if one cares to associate with them at all (depending on how irrational they were in that area).

[~Sophia~]

One takes place in the Dallas / Fort Worth area in a few months...

That one and it is in about 6 weeks.

However, the quote you gave from Dr. Peikoff about giving someone the benefit of the doubt means that you don't have any evidence that they are being immoral or the evidence is inconclusive.

Correct. I like the quote however particularly for the statement that "virtues are more important than flaws".

It does not say give them the benefit of the doubt if they are known to be immoral.

Did I say that? When I catch someone telling a white lie and they get all red on their face - I certainly do not doubt that they knew it was not true. It is still a lie - they were not honest but if that is the only offence I know of - the degree of dishonesty is very small - the shade of grey is very light. The point is that my disovery of this white lie is not going to make me doubt all of their virtues. I don't assume vices unless I see direct evidence. Most people are not integrated and thus if one card fails - it may not mean that the whole house fails with it - meaning that the absence of a virtue in one area (or instance - it may not be a pattern) does not necessarily negate the existence of all other virtues the way you seem to be implying. It negates overall whiteness but it does not indicate overall blackness.

Edited September 4, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

So, the man will be protecting his life in one case (and indeed acting by that good standard) but leaving it up to God in the other case (and thus acting altruistically). Why should this imply that he is necessarily dishonest?

It's interesting that you brought up Mickey Spillane regarding leaving it up to God to take care of injustices, because he never advocated that in any of his novels. Mike Hammer dealt out justice, the only type of justice that actually exists -- punishing the evil doers here on earth. And I didn't see any evidence whatsoever in the character of Mike Hammer, Tiger Mann, or any other Spillane hero that would lead me to believe that they were religious. What is also interesting is that Ayn Rand withdrew her positive sanction of his work, not because he was (supposedly) religious (according to you), but rather because his character Tiger Mann did not operate within the law. Mike Hammer was a private eye and had to work along side the police force; but Tiger Mann was just a gun man not operating within any legal framework.

However, Spillane was not particularly philosophic, so insofar as he may have been religious in some sense was probably because he didn't know how else to put it. And given how much Ayn Rand appreciated the Mike Hammer mysteries, I doubt if she lectured him on his lack of philosophy (though she probably said a few words to him about it).

Often times artists, especially the really good ones -- i.e. Hugo and Spillane, though of different genres -- are much better at expressing themselves at their life's work than they are in writing or speaking about philosophic issues. Their work was pure human drama -- and they were at their best in that format. So these would definitely be cases where their virtues outweighed their flaws. Neither Hugo's heroes nor Spillane's heroes sat around and prayed to God without lifting a hand themselves to make things better for themselves.

These heroes took life on earth seriously; which cannot be said of the truly religious.

Judging them by their artistic work, I would say they were honest but mistaken. However, that does not mean that every religious person out there is honest but mistaken. Many of them, if not most of them who are truly religious, want the irrational for the sake of its irrationality -- and that is dishonest.

I was once Catholic, and I took it very seriously, but once I came across Objectivism that just faded away; because I was not interested in the irrational for the sake of the irrational. I wanted rational answers. And the rationalism of Catholicism seemed to supply me with those until I found something better. At least to some extent, one has to judge a person's honesty with regard to the really big issues by what they had available to them at the time; and in order to make a turn-around into something more rational, one has to be able to tell the difference between rationalism and rationality.

So, try again. Your little trump cards didn't work on me

[blackdiamond]

It's interesting that you brought up Mickey Spillane regarding leaving it up to God to take care of injustices, because he never advocated that in any of his novels.

I did not bring up Mickey Spillane "regarding leaving it up to God to take care of injustices" (just as I did not bring up Hugo regarding that). I brought them up regarding believing in the existence of God, however else they applied that belief to their lives.

Mike Hammer dealt out justice, the only type of justice that actually exists -- punishing the evil doers here on earth. And I didn't see any evidence whatsoever in the character of Mike Hammer, Tiger Mann, or any other Spillane hero that would lead me to believe that they were religious.

There we go again: I was not discussing fictional characters (Hammer, Mann, etc); I was discussing Mickey Spillane, a real person, a real friend of Ayn Rand. Those fictional characters were probably not religious, but Spillane certainly was. I am not interested in how you judge those fictional characters (in this discussion), but in how you judge Spillane.

What is also interesting is that Ayn Rand withdrew her positive sanction of his work, not because he was (supposedly) religious (according to you), but rather because his character Tiger Mann did not operate within the law.

You will need to provide evidence that she withdrew sanction of his work. As far as I know, she only withdrew sanction for that one character (Tiger Mann), and not for "his work".

However, Spillane was not particularly philosophic, so insofar as he may have been religious in some sense was probably because he didn't know how else to put it. And given how much Ayn Rand appreciated the Mike Hammer mysteries, I doubt if she lectured him on his lack of philosophy (though she probably said a few words to him about it).

I am not finding you consistent. On Victor Hugo, you excused him because you believe that there was no rational philosophy discovered yet (Ayn Rand was not yet born), so he had only the Christian traditions to go with. Now we have Mickey Spillane, who definitely must have read Ayn Rand's books (thus not needing a personal lecture from her) and you say he was "not particularly philosophic".

I don't even know what to say to that.

Often times artists, especially the really good ones -- i.e. Hugo and Spillane, though of different genres -- are much better at expressing themselves at their life's work than they are in writing or speaking about philosophic issues. Their work was pure human drama -- and they were at their best in that format. So these would definitely be cases where their virtues outweighed their flaws. Neither Hugo's heroes nor Spillane's heroes sat around and prayed to God without lifting a hand themselves to make things better for themselves.

Again, I am asking about their metaphysical beliefs, not their actions. If you have followed this discussion, you will note that my position is precisely that one's (wrong) beliefs or premises do not necessarily result from dishonesty. You, on the other hand, were trying to argue that a person who believes the wrong philosophy (especially after being exposed to the correct philosophy) is necessarily dishonest. If you recall, it was at this point that I said the reason can be anything else, ranging from an intellectual barrier (intelligence) to cultural or traditional barriers, etc. And when you insisted on your position, I brought out real people who were judged as honest (as far as I know) by Ayn Rand, inspite of their clear religiosity.

For your own information, Spillane was a VERY dedicated Jehovah's Witness who went to the "Kingdom Hall" five times a week! You don't get more dedicated than that, my brother!

At least to some extent, one has to judge a person's honesty with regard to the really big issues by what they had available to them at the time

Do you truly believe that Mickey Spillane was not exposed to Ayn Rand's works?

[blackdiamond]

Here's some Spillane for you:

Q. The word apocalyptic keeps coming up in criticism of your work. Do you believe in the second coming?

Spillane: The word coming is a misnomer. The word used is parousia in Greek, and it means 'presence'. Take President Clinton. Do you know him? No. But you feel his presence, all the taxes he lays on you. We feel his presence because we have to live under his direction. So when these things were asked of Jesus they asked 'what will be the sign of your presence, and the end of the system of things...now that was translated in the King James Bible as the end of the world. Now the word 'world' and the word 'earth' are two different things...the Bible says the earth abides forever. It's the simplicity of it, religion has turned everything inside out! Someone says how'd you like to be able to live forever? You say, oh boy would I liketa live forever, there's so many things I'd like to do, I used to be able to pass a football with either hand, now I can't throw from here to the wall...there's so many things...I think the best time for me was around 35... but if you're not a wise guy you can put up with those things...I know too many guys my age, they walk around, like they're crippled. I try to stay in good physical shape, I don't smoke, I don't drink...I'll have a beer once in a while. People say,' you have a beer, you're a Jehovah's Witness...but the Bible doesn't proclaim against drinking, it proclaims against drunkenness...anyway, someone says how'd you like to live forever...we know what death is, you can kick a dead dog, it won't bite you...but Jesus makes the greatest remark I think it's so funny nobody pays any attention, he says 'this means everlasting life', and they say what, 'you gotta stand on your head, you gotta pay knowledge, what', and he says it's taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and that's so easy...I get so excited about this, I'll keep talking to you like this if you don't say that's enough, but this is why people think you're a nut, they say, don't people turn you down, I say 'they don't turn me down, they turn God down'. That's why people can't stop drinking, do drugs, that's why the world's the way it is...do you know a stable country in the world?

Would you say this man was "not particularly philosophic"? Would you say he only "may have been religious in some sense"?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Would you say this man was "not particularly philosophic"? Would you say he only "may have been religious in some sense"?

Yes, Spillane was not particularly philosophic (which is obvious in that clip you provided), and it is too bad that he became somewhat religious. And I don't think someone can be that way these days out of honesty; not past the age of 25-45. Yes, Spillane read Ayn Rand's novels and even admired her for them, but he evidently didn't go on to understand the philosophy behind them. His religious stance is not a good mark in his favor.

However, the point I was making about his fictional characters is that there is no shred of a religious stance in any of his main characters, including his last novel, Something's Down There. His novels were strictly secular, which means he led a bifurcated life, which is not good. If he would have taken more of a clue from his own characters, I don't think he would have become religious -- they didn't need it, and neither did he. But his contradiction was evidently primarily kept to himself. As far as I know, he didn't go around advocating his religion to a wide audience, at least not in the form of books or novels portraying a religious figure as the primary hero. In other words, it was a personal contradiction and didn't seem to influence his writing skills; as he was still a master story teller near the end of his life.

In contrast, the Conservative radio talk show hosts are constantly pushing their religious agenda in their professional lives, spreading the evil that will eventually destroy this country if it becomes the prominent quasi-philosophic stance out there in the mainstream of the spread of ideas. And I would say they have far less of an excuse because they push aspects of Atlas Shrugged all the time. Sometimes I think their stance is a knee jerk response to the deeper issues of Objectivism. I admire them to the extent they push for freedom, but they don't understand that every time they push the religious agenda that they are severely undercutting whatever stance for freedom that they take. That if they were going to be consistent, they would have to realize that it is either reason or faith, and that this country was not founded on faith, but rather reason.

So, the general principle is still true, that to be religious is to leave reason behind; and one cannot be religious out of a sense of honesty once one comes across Objectivism. It can be a tough struggle to become fully integrated to reason, but there is no excuse not to go the distance.

I wouldn't go out of my way to destroy religious people -- except insofar as they want to force their religious views onto me, especially via government controls -- but in the realm of ideas I will fight them tooth and nail. A more rational way exists, and they are aware of it, so they are either very stupid not to see that in Ayn Rand's works or they are being evasive.

The only other alternative that I can see is that they may not take ideas seriously. There are tons of people out there who have read Ayn Rand's fiction, but don't even realize there is a philosophy behind it. And they don't read the philosophy enough to even know what it is. And I personally know of people who read Atlas Shrugged and call her heroes "so called" because they didn't engage in war to overcome the looters; they simply went on strike. So there are a lot of misunderstandings out there.

But we don't correct those misunderstandings by not admiring artists like Victor Hugo and Mickey Spillane for the good art that they created, simply because they advocate a religious stance. Out of justice, we have to give credit where credit is due.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.