mwickens

blackdiamond, for many reasons, that response makes it clear that further debate with you is pointless. I will be kind and leave it at that. Mark

He can speak for himself, but his last response indicated to me he believes only that desires that stem from irrationality or evasion can be said to be immoral. And I, only for the sake of clarity, am distinguishing between that irrationality (which can be judged morally) and its resulting psychological state (which can't). My point is simply that talking about a moral or immoral desire is unclear. In your example, you talk about deciding whether to act on it and whether to examine its roots. Those are clearly choices involving moral decisions. Thoughts are different from desires and emotions. Since the purpose of thought is to guide action, yes, they can be called moral or immoral. But here we leave automatic processes of the subconscious (emotions, desires) and enter the realm of conscious, rational, thinking. You are now talking about what a person will do as a result of his desires. Indulging in fantasy is a conscious choice, not a desire or emotion. I have no idea whether such indulgence is moral or immoral. If it keeps a pedophile from physically acting on his desires, and there are no better choices open to him, then it could be moral. On the other hand, if such indulgence makes it more likely he will offend, then it would be immoral. But I would need to be a psychologist to judge it either way. Finally, blackdiamond, you really need to show how all this relates to homosexuality. The reason we can talk about certain aspects of pedophilia as immoral is because, in action, it involves immorality. For this example to have any relevance to homosexuality, it must be shown that homosexuality involves immorality in action. As best I can tell, the form of your argument boils down to: Pedophilia involves desires. Pedophilia is immoral. Homosexuality involves desires. ---------- Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Since this obviously won't do, I think you need to fill in the missing piece; namely, draw some relevant relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality. Or forget about pedophilia and show how acting on homosexuality (whether it be indulging in fantasy or physically acting on it) involves immorality. Mark

So many questions come to mind. What is a non-essential characteristic? Why is biological sex non-essential? Is it immoral to prefer a certain body type, a certain hair color, etc.? If a person is perfectly virtuous, shares your values, but you find him or her unattractive physically and sexually, is that immoral? And how does one "choose to love a person" at all? You can (and should) examine your emotional reaction to make sure it's rational. And whether to pursue it must be decided based on your current circumstances. But otherwise, "falling in love" is not a bad phrase. Like all emotions, it just happens. Now, if you meant that you should prime your subconscious by rationally convincing yourself that certain characteristics are inessential to your romantic partners, I understand, though I still think the choice of words is misleading. This is so bizarre, I think I must have misunderstood you. You're saying that most people don't care about the sex of their romantic partner? Mark

OK, yes, I meant error of knowledge. So, then a desire that results from errors of knowledge, or from biological factors cannot, in itself, be called "immoral," right? I don't really know, never having studied it. But basic sexual attraction, regardless of its target, is so deep-rooted that I'd expect it to be one of those. Mark

OK, but errors are "man-made" facts, too. Do you believe errors are immoral? It is not the fact that something is "man-made" that makes it open to moral evaluation, but that a person chose an action knowing that it was against his long-term best interests. "Natural" is not a very clear term, but I would say it is quite obviously incredibly, sadly detrimental to one's life. Mark

Nope, I didn't at all. I said it was bad for one's life. The whole point of my post was to state my position that morality applies only to actions taken by choice, that "good" and "bad" do not equal "moral" and "immoral." The words are not interchangeable. The immoral is a species of the bad. The moral is a species of the good. Is it your position that earthquakes and errors are immoral? Mark

Yes, it sounds like we do disagree. Not everything that is harmful to one's life is immoral. Only harmful things that are the direct result of a human choice to act against what one knows to be true can be said to be immoral. An earthquake is bad for one's life, but it is not immoral. Being born mentally retarded is bad for one's life, but it is not immoral. Errors are harmful to your life, but they are not immoral. Morality requires choice. "[A] breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought." AR, Atlas Shrugged. Well, it may be that "desire" is not quite the right word. I meant it broadly, in reference to any preference, urge, attraction, etc., that one might experience. Whether we call it a "desire" or not, by all accounts I'm aware of, heterosexual or homosexual attraction does present itself out of the blue, usually around puberty. Can you describe how it might manifest itself to a person in some intermediate form, and at a late enough stage that a person is capable of evaluating it rationally (such that failure to do so would constitute evasion)? Mark

I don't follow this. If these are his only two choices, then surely choosing the less destructive option is moral. Mark

I can't see where you think I avoided your question. I said: "The predisposition itself is likely due to deep rooted psychological issues that he had no control over when it was formed. To the extent that this is true, no moral judgment is appropriate. How much clearer could I be? "Desires" by themselves are not things that can be morally judged. They are automatic. You do not decide to have a certain desire. You just experience it. Then, you need to recognize the fact, decide what caused it, and what to do about it. My supposed "straw men" were merely me taking pains to distinguish three separate elements of "being X" where X is a label that applies to someone who is disposed to experience certain desires: the roots of those desires, that fact of their existence, and what a person does about it. The first can sometimes be judged morally, the second never, and the third always. Mark

It does not. Biological factors are not changeable through an exercise of will. As for psychological causes, the primitive state of psychology cannot be glossed over by saying "but we have free will." If you have a method of changing one's sexual orientation purely via the exercise of free will, you should let the world know. I have answered this already. A pedophile's decision to act on his predisposition is clearly immoral. The predisposition itself is likely due to deep rooted psychological issues that he had no control over when it was formed. To the extent that this is true, no moral judgment is appropriate. How he conducts himself given his unfortunate situation is open to judgment. The analogy is inapt. The comparison would have to be between an alcoholic choosing to stop drinking and a homosexual choosing to stop having romantic relationships with same-sex partners. Both of these are clearly under volitional control and no one is arguing otherwise. But overindulgence in alcohol is clearly bad for one's long-term happiness, while I explicitly mentioned my view that abstaining from romantic relationships altogether would always be a worse choice. There's only so far I'm willing to go in a hypothetical, but if you want to push the issue then yes, if abstinence or dutiful participation in heterosexual relationships that one feels nothing for could be shown to be a choice superior to homosexual relationships, then that would be the moral course. Good luck making that argument. Mark

Yes, I agree. When I said only actions are open to moral evaluation, I was trying to distinguish actions from emotions and other psychological attributes that are not under the immediate control of an individual. At any point in time, these things are simply facts. For example, it is a fact that heterosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and that homosexuals are attracted to those of the same sex. (This is aside from whether you see homosexual activity as moral or immoral.) And, if you find that you are tremendously envious of successful, happy people, that is a fact, a fact that in itself is inappropriate to judge morally. But I was unclear that by actions I mean actions of consciousness, too. Rationality, after all, is the cardinal virtue. Working to understand one's psychology, for example, is a virtue, and evading that effort is a vice. To take the last example above, the thinking you did or failed to do that lead you to be envious is open to moral judgment, as is what you choose to do about it. The same goes for homosexuality (about which see more below). I hope the above clarifies it a bit. Rereading my post, I see again that I was too anxious to argue against the idea that emotions and psychological states can be morally judged and was unclear. I meant that the experiencing of these emotions and states is not under your control at the moment you experience them. You do have control over emotions and psychological states to the extent that your thought and actions were responsible for them. And you have control over them to the extent that you can evaluate them and work to change any that need to improved and can be improved through better thinking and action. To return to the subject of homosexuality, I'll just state briefly how I see it relating to the above. The causes of homosexuality are unknown, even by experts who make it their life's work to find out. But the plausible theories are that it is either biological -- and therefore out of the realm of choice and morality -- or deeply ingrained psychologically at a very early age, which would also make it inappropriate to judge morally (unless you want to blame a five-year-old for not having proper male and female role models or for not making the correct judgments at that age). Just as the causes of homosexuality are murky, the steps an individual would have to take to change his orientation are a mystery. Biochemistry and psychology have no methods to offer. The only people who claim to be able to "cure" homosexuality are religious fundamentalists whose methods have consistently proven to be fraudulent and ineffective. So even a homosexual who would prefer to be heterosexual has no way of effecting that change. Again, with no action possible, it is inappropriate to morally condemn a person for remaining homosexual. Lastly, a hypothetical point about whether a person should want to change his sexual orientation if it were possible. The questions in that case would be: First, is homosexual romantic involvement and sexual behavior inherently worse for your life compared to the heterosexual equivalents? And second, how much effort would be involved? If the answers are (1) yes, heterosexuality is better and (2) all you need to do is take this pill, then it's obvious you should do it, and that not doing so would be immoral. But if the answers are yes, and it will take 20 years of intensive therapy, a perfectly moral decision would be to make the best life you can as a homosexual. (I do not consider the possibility of remaining celibate and alone -- that's obviously a disastrous course.) And if the answer to the first question is no, heterosexuality holds no significant benefits over homosexuality to your life, then it's also moral to remain homosexual. Personally, I am not ready to say that being heterosexual is clearly superior for one's long-term happiness (and given my own homosexuality, I find it very difficult to even imagine the alternative), but I think it's a plausible position to take. However, given the fact that this fundamental aspect of a person's psychology is not open to change, no one who knows it should spend much time thinking about the prospect. Obsessing over what you can't change, after all, is clearly an (immoral) waste of time. Mark P.S.: Thanks, RationalCop, for asking the questions. Answering them helped me clarify my thinking on this subject.

We need to define terms. Racism is not primarily an emotion, or a personal preference. It's a consciously held belief that some races are inherently inferior to others. Why a person would hold this to be true and then not act on it, I can't imagine. However, if you're talking about someone, say, whose first instinct on seeing a black person is that they are inferior, and then catches himself, and doesn't let that emotion interfere with what he knows to be true, then of course he is fully moral. This is not true. It would mean all mistakes are indications of immorality. Is that really your position? It's certainly not the position of Objectivsm. Please don't tell me what I "very well know." If you meant "having a mental problem" that would have been a clearer choice of words. But it would have required a lot more evidence than you provided (which was none), so it never entered my mind that you meant that. Given your clarification, it seems that the argument you're making is that homosexuality is a mental illness and that mental illness always involves immorality. But you've provided no evidence for either assertion. And the relevance of pedophilia is as obscure to me as ever. Mark

I don't deny that homosexuality is abnormal. That's an empirical, statistical truth. But lots of perfectly moral and good things are abnormal. Genius, for example. Normality is irrelevant to morality. If by "it" you mean the commission of immoral actions, I agree. Mark

No, it doesn't. That's the religious viewpoint, not the Objectivist one. Humans have no direct control over preferences and desires, i.e., their emotions. You can't condemn someone for something he had no choice in. No choice, no (im)morality. Further, an emotion alone has no power to harm your own life or the rights of others. It's what you do in the face of that emotion that matters. You should have quoted my next sentence: "It has also not been shown to inherently involve any other form of immorality." Of course there are immoral actions that aren't illegal. Being habitually lazy is immoral, being dishonest is immoral. The widest definition of the immoral would be, roughly, "actions that do harm to one's own life as a rational human being." (Of course I am assuming the Objectivist context here. If you disagree with the Objectivist approach to ethics, we'll never agree.) So, to show something is immoral you need to show that it's (a) an action that ( long-range, is harmful to the actor's life. Neither of these has been shown to apply to homosexuals (or to pedophiles who do not act on their desires). Mark

I think there is some evidence that pedophiles -- people attracted to children sexually -- do become that way very early in life and that it is very hard for them to change that. They are known to be practically unreformable and require constant supervision to ensure they don't reoffend. What this has to do with the debate here, however, is unclear (except perhaps as evidence that sexual preferences of any sort are deeply-ingrained and difficult, if not impossible, to change). Morality applies to actions, not preferences or desires. Acting on pedophilia is clearly immoral because it involves violating the rights of the children involved. They do not have the ability to consent. A person who has pedophilic desires yet never acts on them, on the other hand, is not immoral, qua those desires. Engaging in homosexual activity, however, involves no rights violations. It has also not been shown to inherently involve any other form of immorality. Mark

This makes no sense. The purpose of the rational faculty is to enable a man to discover what he needs to do in order to live. Misuse of it, or failure to use it, leads to pain or death. The purpose of man's procreative ability is to have children. If he does not care to have children, it is irrelevant to his life (except for the fact that he has to take appropriate precautions). Use or non-use of it matters only in relation to his desire to have his own biological children. (The procreative function of sex is also irrelevant to why most people, most of the time, engage in it.)

softwareNerd made very good points, in particular, the introduction of something sorely missing from EC's post: any mention of an individual's personal values. I'll just pick out a few other problems I see. Nature does not have reasons. It just is. That a certain activity can result in procreation is something individual men can note, and then decide if it has value for them. Who cares? Is it an Objectivist moral duty to perpetuate the species? An Objectivist asks, what will happen to me if I make a particular choice? Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Where is the evidence that anyone is arguing on that basis? Mark

It's a great movie. I've seen it twice. JohnWBales and Qwertz are right: it's about the importance of pursuing values. The gay element is not tacked on or unimportant; it provides the conflict that in classic literature might have been achieved by making the two protagonists from different social classes. A story about "impossible love" is hard to do believably these days. And even here, it had to be set in the west and in the 60s.

I'd agree that's a pretty gross estimate. :-) It is true that anyone listening to the leader, Stephen Harper, in this election would be hard-pressed to distinguish him from many US Democrats, but Harper is no Howard Dean, no Michael Moore. Indeed, before he "moderated" himself to become electable in the leftist Canadian political climate, Harper was quite good ideologically as head of the National Citizens Coalition. The NCC is an oasis of individual rights defenders in a desert of the usual statist think tanks and advocacy groups here. The Liberals have tried to discredit Harper by quoting some of his statements from that era. If he is elected, it will be interesting to see if he moves back toward the better ideas. I don't hold out much hope of that, but at least there is hope with him whereas there's none with the other parties. I also think the Conservatives are better than many Democrats in that the Conservatives are (in general) not advocating the institution of new statist measures; they are just not advocating as forcefully for repeal of existing ones as they should. As a good indicator of how the far left in Canadian politics views the prospect of a Harper win, see the piece below, which announces the formation of an ad hoc group designed to scare electors into preventing it. Except for the bit about reproductive rights (and there is simply no chance that abortion will be outlawed in Canada by any party) and, less so, on the same-sex marriage issue, I hope the author is right! Mark

You may find this series of MSDN webcasts starting Jan 16 useful: Mark Randex - Searchable database of online media references to Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Wow, this is excellent news. And just in time for end-of-year donations. It would be very cool if Ridpath is involved.

There's a ream of responses to this hit piece (and an author's rebuttal) in the December issue. Peter Schwartz and Edwin Locke are among the letter writers. A PDF version is here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12005005_1

If this question relates to a personal decision that you or someone you know is trying to make, the first order of business is to consult with a rational mental health professional. He or she can help you objectively evaluate the situation and put things in the proper perspective. Such a perspective is rarely operating when suicide is being considered. I believe Dr. Hurd provides phone and/or email consultations. Another resource is The Academy of Cognitive Therapy. At the very least, I would recommend speaking with any trusted friend or family member. Often, just discussing the issue makes it clear that some factors have been magnified beyond their proper level importance. Once the person in question has an accurate, long-term picture, only then should the question you ask be considered. All the best, Mark

Just in case it was unclear to anyone, this paragraph is not referring to Ayn Rand; the "England" is Lyndie England.

Perhaps the contract stated that transfer of ownership was to be effective at the time of official release.