Would Roark Invite Tooheyites?

[softwareNerd]

By morally condemning a wrong idea and morally praising a good idea, I mean that one ought to either affirm it as being bad or affirm it as being good, at least within the realm of one's own consciousness.

Sure, I agree. Fortunately, most evil ideas are variations on a few basic ones. I do remember that in the first few years as I grew to think of myself as an Objectivist, a lot of things that I had once taken for granted, did grate and jar as I changed previous judgements, or made judgements where I had not done so previously. I think that changes over time and one merely notes the presence of garbage, but the judgement has long since been made and is so automatized that one no longer needs much focus or much process of thought to pronounce judgement. It's no longer a question of: "let's examine it, let's evaluate it, let's see if I'm right about it"; rather it's a quick observation-judgement jump.

Other than automating the judgement, the other aspect is to evaluate what one can and should do about various types of evil. Based on various factors, one might avoid some evil things, ignore others, and criticize a third set. In essence, as one evaluates variations of evil, one tries to figure out what one can change, what one can combat, what one can avoid, and so on.

The end result is that one can do things like go for a picnic with a guy who goes to church every Sunday, and still end up enjoying his company tremendously.

[~Sophia~]

I completely agree with Fact and Value, and I think it is implicit in Galt's speech where he talks about: "Is 2+2=4 right or wrong?" And further states that this is an aspect of morality -- i.e. deciding if a particular idea conforms to reality or not is an aspect of being moral.

So, if someone says that 2+2=22, one has to morally condemn that idea (and the implicit incorrect methodology), regardless if it is said by a two year old or a world class mathematician.

Mr. Miovas, you are greatly mistaken in your understanding if this issue.

Because a man must first discover proper values in order to choose them and because justice is a principle applied to human CHOICES and their products not every wrong idea is automatically immoral.

A statment of 2+2=22 comming from a child who is still learning is most likely an error of knowledge and as such not a breach of morality (not a product of choice). In such case, to say to this child "your idea is immoral" is an act of INJUSTICE.

It is NOT enough to determine weather an idea is true or false in order to make a moral evaluation of it - one ought to take into consideration the mental process which led to the idea - and that is a crusial part of this evaluation - in this case that fact that this child is yet unaware of the correct answer.

Falsehood NOT always implies a process of vice.

Edited May 8, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think one has to keep the following passage from Fact and Value in mind:

Just as every "is" implies an "ought," so every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates. The evaluation, to repeat, comes from the answer to two related questions: what kind of volitional cause led people to this idea? and, to what kind of consequences will this idea lead in practice?

There is an existence side to morally evaluating an idea and there is a consciousness side to morally evaluating an idea. I have been focusing on a moral evaluation of an idea on the existence side of the issue: Does it conform to reality or not, and will it benefit you or not if you put it into practice? It is on the consciousness side of the issue that one gets into morally evaluating the process of arriving at the idea by a volitional consciousness; and therefore morally evaluating the person.

If an idea does not conform to reality it is untrue, and one has to morally evaluate the idea as bad because of that. Putting into practice an idea that is not true sets one against reality, which is not good to do; so the idea is morally wrong.

This doesn't yet get into the issue of the producer of that idea and his method of consciousness. Aside from mistakes and the equivalent of mental typos, every idea is produced either by a consciousness that was adhering to reality or avoiding it. The person who adheres to reality (is rational) is morally good; the person who avoids reality (is irrational or evasive) is morally bad.

When even a young child says that 2+2=22, it is a bad idea -- and it implies a bad methodology, which is why he is corrected to the proper methodology by his parents or teachers. The child did do something wrong with his volitional consciousness: He did not remain focused on the facts and on the correct methodology.

He is still learning, so one shouldn't imply that he did something wrong in such a way as to say that he is going to burn in hell forever. And I think religion is one of the worst aspects as to why some people cringe when someone says that a child (or a student) did something wrong.

If your mind functioned according to a wrong methodology, then correct it.

If it was just a mistake, then correct it.

This is just keeping one's mind in tune with reality.

[~Sophia~]

Judging an idea morally is in essence judging individual's conscious mind.

What goes into a moral evaluation of an idea is clearly stated in this passage (Fact and Value):

In judging an idea morally, one must (as in the action case) determine, through the use of evidence, whether the idea is true or false, in correspondence with reality or in contradiction to it. Then, in exact parallel to the case of action, there are two crucial aspects to be identified: the mental process which led to the idea, and the existential results to which the idea itself leads (which means in its case: the kind of action that flows from it).

(bold mine)

Please note the phrases in bold ""crusial aspects to be identified". One CAN NOT IGNORE a very significant part of this evaluation and claim a truthful moral conclusion (truth if reached would be a matter of chance).

If one wants to evaluate if an idea conforms to reality - one must call one's conclusion something else as it won't be by definition a moral evaluation of this idea (which involves both cause and an effect).

re: "in exact parallel to the case of action" (from above quote)

Fact and Value:

Now let us consider what is involved in judging a man's actions morally. Two crucial, related aspects must be borne in mind: existence and consciousness, or effect and cause.

later:

Both these aspects, I repeat, are essential to moral judgment. An action without effects on man's life (there are none such) would be outside the realm of evaluation — there would be no standard of value by which to assess it. An action not deriving from ideas, i.e., from the cognitive/evaluative products of a volitional mental process (....) could not be subject to moral judgment.

(bold mine)

It is therefore very relevant if 2+2=22 comes from a child or a philosopher.

Edited May 9, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think we need to break this down into steps, because cause and effect are operative at several stages when one considers an idea.

The first step is that someone has to come up with the idea. The person (cause) volitionally creating the idea (effect) had to put things together in his consciousness a certain way before it can be expressed. Since it was done with an act of free will, it is open to moral evaluation. If the person put those things together according to the facts of reality, then he is virtuous; if he put those things together in contradiction to reality, then he is not-virtuous (leaving aside honest mistakes). Conforming to reality (rationality) is the standard.

Now this idea is out there, and we reach the next stage; someone has to consider the idea by bringing it into his consciousness and then deciding if he is going to act on it or not. In this step, the idea can be considered a cause, while the action it leads to, if followed, is the effect. An idea that conforms to reality, if followed, will lead to benefits for he who follows it -- it is a good idea. An idea that contradicts reality, if followed, will lead to harm for he who follows it -- it is a bad idea.

When a person is considering an idea, in order for him to remain rational, he must determine what will happen to him if he follows that idea. This is morally evaluating the idea.

He can then decide, if he has sufficient evidence, that the person coming up with the idea remained true to reality or not. If he determines that the person coming up with the idea remained true to reality, he grants that person moral praise; if he determines that the person coming up with the idea did not remain true to reality, he gives that person moral condemnation -- he morally evaluates the person.

A rational individual has to do both, he must morally evaluate the idea and morally evaluate the person who came up with the idea.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[softwareNerd]

If the person put those things together according to the facts of reality, then he is virtuous; if he put those things together in contradiction to reality, then he is not-virtuous (leaving aside honest mistakes). Conforming to reality (rationality) is the standard.

I am not clear what you consider to be putting things together "according to the facts of reality"? For instance, are you implying that Aristotle, and indeed everyone before Rand was "non-virtuous"?

[~Sophia~]

Your idea of breaking moral evaluation into steps is incorrect. Furthermore, virtue/non-virtue assessment is a moral evaluation and as already explained in my previous post - it can not be performed without evaluation of the cause (see below for explanation).

The first step is that someone has to come up with the idea. The person (cause) volitionally creating the idea (effect) had to put things together in his consciousness a certain way before it can be expressed. Since it was done with an act of free will, it is open to moral evaluation. If the person put those things together according to the facts of reality, then he is virtuous; if he put those things together in contradiction to reality, then he is not-virtuous (leaving aside honest mistakes). Conforming to reality (rationality) is the standard.

Your interpretation of what IS the cause is incorrect. When it comes to moral evaluations, to determine the cause is to determine what kind of mental process lead to the idea. Was it an evasion of the truth or was it a lack of knowledge? Was it a deliberate misinterpretation or was it an innocent misunderstanding? Those are the type of questions one ought to be asking and "gut feeling" is not enough to draw conclusion. One needs to have evidence.

When a person is considering an idea, in order for him to remain rational, he must determine what will happen to him if he follows that idea. This is morally evaluating the idea.

There is no such thing as morally evaluating an idea as an abstract concept removed from the person who originated it. One can determine if it is true or false but moral evaluation is something totally different.

He can then decide, if he has sufficient evidence, that the person coming up with the idea remained true to reality or not. If he determines that the person coming up with the idea remained true to reality, he grants that person moral praise; if he determines that the person coming up with the idea did not remain true to reality, he gives that person moral condemnation -- he morally evaluates the person.

I will repeat again, falsehood in itself does not necessarily imply a process of vice therefore it is not sufficient for moral evaluation.

A rational individual has to do both, he must morally evaluate the idea and morally evaluate the person who came up with the idea.

To morally evaluate an idea IS to morally evaluate the person. There is no separation between the two.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I am not clear what you consider to be putting things together "according to the facts of reality"? For instance, are you implying that Aristotle, and indeed everyone before Rand was "non-virtuous"?

Not at all. It is quite possible for a person to be fully rational (virtuous), but not come up with later developments in philosophy or science (and, done properly, philosophy is a type of science). This is the position that Aristotle was in. He was as rational as he scrupulously knew how to be, especially in the writings that we know come after him leaving Plato to form his own school of thought. He could not have come up with every facet of Objectivism because he simply didn't have the evidence.

For example, he didn't have the Industrial Revolution to study, so that he could then come to the conclusion that free men are productive men, and that political freedom was necessary for men to be productive. At the level of civilization back then, slaves and lower-level workers could accomplish what they thought they needed (food, shelter, and so on).

This would be similar to saying that Newton was immoral because he didn't come up with E=mc^2. He simply didn't know enough to be able to come to that conclusion. I'm not even sure Newton had the (modern) concept of energy, so there is no way he could have done it.

The same is true for every rational man of any age. If they were rational about what they knew, then they were moral; if they were irrational about what they knew, then they were immoral.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

There is no such thing as morally evaluating an idea as an abstract concept removed from the person who originated it. One can determine if it is true or false but moral evaluation is something totally different.

I disagree, a moral evaluation of an idea, using the terminology the way Dr. Peikoff does, goes in two directions: 1) what the application of the idea will do to oneself if accepted, and 2) what mental process was followed leading to the formation of the idea.

The evidence for both of these considerations is in the idea itself and the context in which it was stated.

In other words, it is possible and necessary to judge someone's epistemology and psycho-epistemology based on the ideas that they advocate; which logically leads to being able to morally evaluate their character. That is, in the presentation of the idea, one has the evidence to show if they were remaining true to reality or not.

Sometimes, one may not have enough evidence to morally condemn a person's character based on just a few ideas that he advocates; there may not be enough context to do that. However, one can still project what will happen to oneself if one accepts that idea that will lead to one's destruction if one follows it. One can say that it is an evil idea, but I'm not sure if the person advocating it is evil.

For example, take that program "The Sun" that I watched the other day and spoke about earlier.

If one accepts the idea that one ought to live the way the Hopi Indians did, then all of civilization will collapse. We would no longer have science and technology, freedom and capitalism, reason and pride.

That is why the idea has to be evaluated as being evil.

Maybe the guy who put that program together was just being conventional. It is customary for producers of science programs to work environmentalism into everything. So, maybe the guy just didn't think it through. I mean, we were talking about the sun, so why not talk about sun worshippers?

At the very least, I would have to say that he was highly irresponsible; which is not to say that he was being virtuous.

Maybe it was put together by a committee. The scientists had the first 45 minutes, and the rest of the hour was turned over to someone else.

It was very much on the order of: thesis, anti-thesis, syn-thesis.

And because that abstract idea was not morally condemned, people -- like some unthinking television program producers -- do it all of the time and don't think they will be called out for it.

I actually got the impression that it was put together with Ellsworth Toohey as the final editor.

I mean, it had to be intentional.

[softwareNerd]

Not at all. It is quite possible for a person to be fully rational (virtuous), but not come up with later developments in philosophy or science ... ...

The same is true for every rational man of any age. If they were rational about what they knew, then they were moral; if they were irrational about what they knew, then they were immoral.

Fair enough. Would it then follow that all today's adult non-Objectivists are immoral?

[~Sophia~]

I disagree, a moral evaluation of an idea, using the terminology the way Dr. Peikoff does, goes in two directions: 1) what the application of the idea will do to oneself if accepted, and 2) what mental process was followed leading to the formation of the idea.

The evidence for both of these considerations is in the idea itself and the context in which it was stated.

You have been repeatedly shown the source of your error and yet you continue to assert your mistaken position. You are crossing the line of this being an honest error on your part.

Edited May 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Fair enough. Would it then follow that all today's adult non-Objectivists are immoral?

No, of course not. It is possible for someone to be rational, even in today's philosophic quicksand, without ever having heard of Objectivism.

Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart are good examples of this, as is Eddie Willers.

These characters were as rational as they knew how to be in all the contexts of the novel.

You have been repeatedly shown the source of your error and yet you continue to assert your mistaken position. You are crossing the line of this being an honest error on your part.

And just what are you trying to morally condemn me for? Saying that there are evil ideas? or saying that one is morally culpable for the types of ideas that one advocates?

[softwareNerd]

Thomas, Excuse the brevity of my posts, but I am still trying to understand your position, and I find that focused questions are the best way for me to learn exactly what the other person is saying.

Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart are good examples of this, as is Eddie Willers.

These characters were as rational as they knew how to be in all the contexts of the novel.

So, you're saying that Rearden was virtuous even when he held such evil ideas about sex? Why was he not immoral to think of sex the way he did, even after he met Dagny? Was it because he "was just being conventional"? Did he not have enough context? After all he was a full grown man for whom sex was not an abstract idea but a concrete experience -- more than that, he had experienced sex with Lillian and Dagny, so he had that pretty stark comparison. He did not need to project different types of sexual experiences in his mind, he had two concrete examples to compare and contrast. So, would one judge his epistemology and psycho-epistemology as immoral, given the ideas he held?

I'm curious to understand why Rearden gets off without being judged immoral, at least to some degree.

What about Dagny? Once she was in the valley, what excuse did she have: she had seen all there was to see, and she now knew all the ideas she would know. Yet, she went back to the world. Why was this not an evasion after having been presented with all the context any human being could ask for?

[~Sophia~]

And just what are you trying to morally condemn me for? Saying that there are evil ideas? or saying that one is morally culpable for the types of ideas that one advocates?

Let me remind you what is, in fact, that you are advocating here:

So, if someone says that 2+2=22, one has to morally condemn that idea (and the implicit incorrect methodology), regardless if it is said by a two year old or a world class mathematician.

If the person put those things together according to the facts of reality, then he is virtuous; if he put those things together in contradiction to reality, then he is not-virtuous (leaving aside honest mistakes). Conforming to reality (rationality) is the standard.

Moral judgement works the same both when it comes to judging man's actions and ideas. So...

In essence, you claim that if a man kills a person - one has to morally condemn him regardless of the circumstances of his action. And you are trying to rationalize this INJUSTICE by focusing solely on the fact that killing another human being as an abstract idea, removed from the actor - is immoral.

You want to bypass a crusial element on which moral evaluation is based - the cause.

And then you answered above:

What are you trying to morally condemn me for? Saying that there are evil actions? or saying that one is morally culpable for his actions?

Is this honest?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Killing another human in the abstract is a rights violation and thus immoral but killing in self defence (the cause) is NOT. It is UNJUST to pass moral judgment solely based on the identity of an action or falsehood/correctness of an idea.

To determine the cause when it comes to ideas is to determine what kind of mental process lead to it.

Correctness of an idea does not necessarily imply virtue either.

From Fact and Value:

It is possible for a man to embrace an idea blindly, on faith from others or simply by his own whim, without the effort of understanding or integrating it. In such a case, the idea, no matter what its content, reflects negatively on the individual.

(bold mine)

This idea could have been rational and true and yet if embraced without understanding/intergration (wrong mental process) - the correctness of it (its correspondance to reality) would not have changed the negative moral evaluation of this individual.

One could say "this idea is true/good" but it would have been a false conclusion to say "this man is virtuous".

Same thing with a five year old child stating: 2+2=22. This idea is clearly false but its identity - its correspondance to reality, by itself, does not determine this child's moral standing. It is very much relevant that this child made an honest error because he is still in the proces of discovering the right answer.

Edited May 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

A rational individual has to do both, he must morally evaluate the idea and morally evaluate the person who came up with the idea.

I think this is where your mistake originates from. You apply the concept of morality to both 'things' (actions or ideas) and to people where in fact morality is ONLY an attribute of men.

Edited May 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

I think this is where your mistake originates from. You apply the concept of morality to both 'things' (actions or ideas) and to people where in fact morality is ONLY an attribute of men.

I want to explain what I mean.

When discussing abstract principles we have become accustomed to saying: Killing another human as an action open to man is generally immoral. In this way we grade the choices and actions open to us.

However, immoral here is not an attribute of the concept "kill' in itself (an object such as a table can not be immoral as a table is not a violitional being facing two alternatives, same thing with an idea) instead it is an attribute of an abstract man (some person facing a choice) in an abstract scenario. There is no such thing as injustice against an abstract person.

Moral judgement is a form of evaluating men - it is a measurement (a concrete) of a degree to which a particular person adheres to the laws of morality. Moral judgement is an identification of principles that shape man's character and in order for this identification to be objective one has to consider all of the facts that determine his context - both cause and effect of his actions and ideas. One is not operating in the abstract anymore. Part of man's moral evaluation is moral evaluation of his ideas. To evaluate man's idea morally is to evaluate him morally. Part of moral evaluation is conceptual evaluation (adherence to reality) but conceptual evaluation alone is not enough to conclude moral judgement. Doing so would be dropping a significant part of the context and it would be unjust.

From GS:

.... a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge.

In order to conclude immorality one has to have evidence for the above.

Edited May 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

So, you're saying that Rearden was virtuous even when he held such evil ideas about sex? So, would one judge his epistemology and psycho-epistemology as immoral, given the ideas he held?

<snip>

I'm curious to understand why Rearden gets off without being judged immoral, at least to some degree.

What about Dagny? <snip>Why was this not an evasion after having been presented with all the context any human being could ask for?

HanK Rearden's views on sex were developed inductively, and based on the lack of appropriate responsiveness woman had to his advances. He was very disappointed in the woman that he had sex with, because they did not understand it as a supreme celebration of life -- especially his life and her life. But he couldn't bring himself to condemn those woman (for not being man worshipping enough), so he began to conclude that his desire for sex must be inappropriate -- i.e. wrong. This was a very big mistaken view on his part, and it became so ingrained psychologically (in his subconscious) that he no longer consciously held the view that sex was good, at least theoretically. To him, it was very frustrating having sex with those woman, so he damned his desire for sex; which is why he stuck with Lillian -- that cold dead fish in bed.

When Rearden came across Dagny's open desire for him, he had to check those premises, but because he had let his desire for sex become damned, he couldn't do it over night. In effect, it had become a psychological problem; and psychological problems are not rooted out by one or two incidences that are contrary to the deeply held premises arrived at inductively-- i.e. by very bad experiences.

That Rearden continued to see Dagny and continued to come to enjoy having sex with her is proof of his virtue. He was actively checking his premises and overcoming his problems with sex by continuing to inductively validating that sex -- with the right woman -- is good; that it didn't have to bring nothing but frustration and disappointment.

I think this is similar to someone having a string of very bad dating experiences when they are young, and then coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. And I can certainly tell you that some woman are more trouble than they are worth.

So, yes, sex is good; but one has to find that right type of partner to validate that. Otherwise, it's just a theory.

Regarding Dagny and her decision to leave the valley; no, she wasn't being evasive.

One can say that she came to agree with Objectivism (especially after Galt's speech), but she disagreed on an application of it. She didn't think that it was necessary to let the world collapse because she thought that man was basically rational and that they would see things the right way. There was a sense in which she was too innocent or too benevolent. She didn't believe in the existence of or the motivation of evil men. In fact, she thought the battle was won with Galt's speech. I mean, to her, who could possibly not agree with it? She couldn't imagine that some people would hate Galt enough for that speech to want to kill him. And she didn't realize that by continuing to run Taggart Transcontinental that she was supporting her own destroyers. She had to see those evil men torturing and threatening to kill John Galt for the existence of evil to become real to her. And it was only after understanding this that she decided that the strikers were right in their stance to go on strike.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I may answer ~Sophia~ more thoroughly later, but I can tell from some of the things that she is saying that she is taking some answers from Fact and Value (Objectivism) and some answers from Truth and Toleration (anti-Objectivism). I'm not going to morally condemn her for this mixture at this point, because I think she (and others who agree with her) are being duped -- and it makes for a big mess that I am under no moral obligation to untangle.

From Fact and Value: "Justice is an aspect of the principle that cognition demands evaluation; it is that principle applied to human choices and their products. Since man is volitional, evaluation of the man-made is of a special kind: it is moral evaluation." [emphasis mine]

And further: "Just as every "is" implies an "ought," so every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates. The evaluation, to repeat, comes from the answer to two related questions: what kind of volitional cause led people to this idea? and, to what kind of consequences will this idea lead in practice?" [emphasis mine]

In other words, one could not conclude, based on my example of "The Sun," that living the way the Hopi Indians lived is the right way to live, is not an evil idea because the producers of that show may not have known any better. That idea, as a man-made product, is evil; because it can only bring destruction to civilization if put into practice.

[KendallJ]

I may answer ~Sophia~ more thoroughly later, but I can tell from some of the things that she is saying that she is taking some answers from Fact and Value (Objectivism) and some answers from Truth and Toleration (anti-Objectivism).

You may be under no moral obligation to untangle anything, but if you make an assertion such as this, you should be prepared to substantiate it. Your "may" ought to turn into a "will" else a retraction would be warranted.

[~Sophia~]

Mr. Miovas, you have demonstrated that you believe in a certain way of approaching people and you are trying to rationalize your behavior by using passages from this essay either taken out of context or by twisting the meaning of concepts used (like what is the cause ). Isn't it a warning sign for you that other paragraphs in the same essay and even sentences right after your small area of focus - contradict your conclusions?

From Fact and Value: "Justice is an aspect of the principle that cognition demands evaluation; it is that principle applied to human choices and their products. Since man is volitional, evaluation of the man-made is of a special kind: it is moral evaluation." [emphasis mine]

And further: "Just as every "is" implies an "ought," so every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates. The evaluation, to repeat, comes from the answer to two related questions: what kind of volitional cause led people to this idea? and, to what kind of consequences will this idea lead in practice?" [emphasis mine]

(last sentence bold - mine)

Please consider that if moral evaluation of an idea was not tied to moral evaluation of the person who originated this idea it would not have been necessary to consider what kind of volitional cause led to it. The consequences of this idea, its correspondance to reality - would have been enough. The mental process would have been irrelevant. The only reason it is not only NOT irrelevant but AN ESSENTIAL part of moral evaluation of an idea is because it is, in essence, a moral evaluation of the person (just in this case based on this man's ideas instead of actions).

Edited May 13, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

You may be under no moral obligation to untangle anything, but if you make an assertion such as this [that ~Sophia~ is making arguments based on Truth and Toleration], you should be prepared to substantiate it. Your "may" ought to turn into a "will" else a retraction would be warranted.

I think her whole approach of not wanting to pass moral judgement on an idea or a set of ideas comes from Truth and Toleration -- unless she came up with the same approach regarding ideas entirely on her own.

There are also these indicators:

There is no such thing as morally evaluating an idea as an abstract concept removed from the person who originated it. One can determine if it is true or false but moral evaluation is something totally different.

I think this is where your mistake originates from. You apply the concept of morality to both 'things' (actions or ideas) and to people where in fact morality is ONLY an attribute of men.

However, immoral here is not an attribute of the concept "kill' in itself (an object such as a table can not be immoral as a table is not a volitional being facing two alternatives, same thing with an idea) instead it is an attribute of an abstract man (some person facing a choice) in an abstract scenario. There is no such thing as injustice against an abstract person.

Moral judgement is an identification of principles that shape man's character and in order for this identification to be objective one has to consider all of the facts that determine his context - both cause and effect of his actions and ideas. One is not operating in the abstract anymore.

Now, it is quite possible that ~Sophia~ read Truth and Toleration a while back and hasn't rooted out all of the mistaken and even evil assertions made in that pamphlet or book; but checking those premises is something she definitely ought to do.

Besides, her approach, regardless of where she got it from, can only lead to moral skepticism with regard to ideas. For example, if someone came across an idea that advocated mass murder, one would not be able to condemn that idea until one did research to find out if the person advocating mass murder who wrote that track was being out of focus, mistaken, or willfully evil.

Take the militant Muslim's statements that America ought to be annihilated. Given the tremendous value of America, that is a hideously evil idea. I don't have to know the "cause" in the sense of finding out if they are out of focus, mistaken, or willfully evil to say that. Learning more about their motivations as to why they would advocate the destruction of America is a related question, and one that has to be done to morally evaluate them. And one cannot excuse them because they hold religion -- i.e. highly mistaken views of the nature of existence -- as their guiding pseudo-principles. The idea that America as we know it today as a secular nation ought to be destroyed because it violates religious edicts is evil.

[blackdiamond]

Please consider that if moral evaluation of an idea was not tied to moral evaluation of the person who originated this idea it would not have been necessary to consider what kind of volitional cause led to it. The consequences of this idea, its correspondance to reality - would have been enough. The mental process would have been irrelevant. The only reason it is not only NOT irrelevant but AN ESSENTIAL part of moral evaluation of an idea is because it is, in essence, a moral evaluation of the person (just in this case based on this man's ideas instead of actions).

Sophia, I think your argument can be used against you in the same way. If moral evaluation of an idea IS moral evaluation of a person, then it would not be necessary to ask about an idea's consequences. The volitional cause would be enough to make this judgment.

If you insist that both questions (in the passage from Fact and Value) are necessary to judge the morality of the person, then what happens if you determine that the volitional process was fine but the idea has bad consequences? If you still judge the person as moral or good in that case, then you believe that the second question (about the idea's consequences) is irrelevant. If the answer to the second question is that the idea has good consequences but the answer to the first question is that the person did not rationally involve his mind (and so on) to come up with the idea, and you therefore judge the person negatively, then you have confirmed that the second question (about consequnces) is indeed irrelevant.

The only way out of this problem is to consider that moral evaluation of an idea is NOT moral evaluation of a person, which is why you can get two different answers to the two questions in that article. The question about volitional process is for judging a person, and the question about consequences is about judging the idea.

Thus, socialism is evil, no matter who started it or how they started it, but every socialist is not necessarily evil. If a socialist has consciously rejected an aspect of reality (for example) in accepting this philosophy, then he is evil even if he did not originate the philosophy himself. If he is even spreading this philosophy he is even more evil; again, it doesn't matter if he originated the idea.

[aequalsa]

Thus, socialism is evil, no matter who started it or how they started it, but every socialist is not necessarily evil. If a socialist has consciously rejected an aspect of reality (for example) in accepting this philosophy, then he is evil

Is it possible to be a socialist without rejecting quite a few aspects of reality? Or do you mean to say that subconscious evasion of those facts would alleviate their responsibility for their views?

[~Sophia~]

I think her whole approach of not wanting to pass moral judgement on an idea or a set of ideas comes from Truth and Toleration -- unless she came up with the same approach regarding ideas entirely on her own.

You are wrong. I don't believe in the policy of moral neutrality (as evidence you have a variety of my posts here on this forum and others) - and one of reasons why I don't is because I feel very strongly about justice which is further tied to having a strong undestanding of why it is important that moral judgment is performed correctly.

For example, if someone came across an idea that advocated mass murder, one would not be able to condemn that idea until one did research to find out if the person advocating mass murder who wrote that track was being out of focus, mistaken, or willfully evil.

That is not true and not what I said. You seem to be missing a distinction between conceptual evaluation and moral evaluation. An idea is right/wrong regardless of the mental process that lead to it. It is only moral judgment that depends partially on the mental process.

If this came from an adult, sane, individual - I would not have hesitated to call him immoral. It is clear that one can not be innocently mistaken about advocating mass murder unless insane. There is a certain point beyond which it is no longer reasonable to allow the room for innocent errors.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

You are wrong. I don't believe in the policy of moral neutrality

Excellent.

If [the advocacy of mass murder] came from an adult, sane, individual - I would not have hesitated to call him immoral. It is clear that one can not be innocently mistaken about advocating mass murder unless insane. There is a certain point beyond which it is no longer reasonable to allow the room for innocent errors.

On what grounds could you possibly say that he was being immoral unless you determine what the consequences of that idea will be? And can't those consequences be judged? And aren't you morally judging him before the fact? I mean, he hasn't committed mass murder, he is only advocating it.

And besides, you are saying that he is "an adult, sane, individual" and yet you are calling him immoral. By what evidence? Wouldn't the evidence be gathered by what he advocated -- i.e. based on the ideas that he advocates? You certainly seem to be implying that certain ideas are immoral, regardless of who advocates them; so long as they are sane adults.