brandonk2009

The issue is not between the intended consequence or the actual consequence... it is between the motive of an action and the action itself and its consequences.

lex_aver... I wrote the post you replied to 5 months ago. I'll try to recap exactly what the purpose and nature of that post was and possibly make it relevant for you. The title of the thread is "David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism". The main reason why I think that DK's moral theory is in opposition to Objectivism mainly lies in the fact that he embraces a philosophical concept that Objectivism rejects (Mind-body dichotomy). I fail to see the irrelevancy. The "question" I assume you are referring to, is whether or not, we should judge an action by its motive (the idea behind it) or the consequences of the action itself. Objectivism rejects the very notion of such a question because the question embodies the mind-body dichotomy. This is a quote I used in the first post by David Kelley. I'll emphasize the relevant parts for you: Kelley embraces the mind-body dichotomy by framing his discussion in the manner that he did. First he cuts the action from its motive and then attempts to integrate the two into a single judgment. By merely approaching a moral judgment in this manner, by trying to determine "the proper weight to assign to" the motive and to the consequence, he does not integrate the two, he keeps them separated--he keeps the mind-body dichotomy intact. According to Objectivism, one morally judges another for what he is, in his entirety--both the mind and body, both the idea and action, both the motive and consequence. In Objectivist moral judgment, one does not determine "the proper weight to assign to" the mind and the body of a person, he judges the indivisible entirety of that person, the entire integration of his body and his consciousness, his actions and the ideas behind them. Here is a link to a great essay by Diana Hsieh that deals with Kelley's Mind-Body Dichotomy in greater detail: David Kelley's Mind-Body Dichotomy in Moral Judgment

[As a note to all posters on this thread, it may be helpful to read or re-read Chapter 7 "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" and Chapter 8 "Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" from Virtue of Selfishness. It may or may not help clear up some issues.] How is the relationship between rationality and morality, in your view, more complicated? It seems to me that the relationship between what is rational and what is moral is pretty clear cut. I hold that an idea or action can either be rational or irrational. Do you think there is a third category? I hold that nothing irrational can lead to anything moral and vice-versa. Can any rational idea or action lead to something immoral? Can any irrational idea or action lead to something moral? The rational is moral and the irrational is immoral. Do you disagree? I will grant you however, that just as there are varying degrees of rationality and irrationality, there are varying degrees of virtue and guilt (and this leads to some interesting ethical implications and considerations--but the underlying principles are the same) What exactly do you mean by "fundamentally immoral"? If you mean "evil", then no. This brings up the issue of honest error. You have to determine why they hold that opposing view and determine if they are mistaken or evaders.

I believe it is a case of willful irrationality. So yes, I think he is being immoral. It's been quite a while since I've read The Contested Legacy, and I don't remember the context of these quotes. However, I'll try to reply to them. Quote #1: There isn't much to discuss here. Peikoff and Kelley do have radically different viewpoints on the moral implications of ideas and even actions. Quote #2: I don't want to quote Peikoff, I prefer to formulate my own answers, but this is basically Peikoff's stance. According to Objectivism, when one is evaluating an idea morally, one should not subjectively attach a positive or negative evaluation to it. If an idea is consonant with reality, then its consonance implies that a logical process formed the idea, hence the idea is good and any actions derived from that idea will also be good. The other side of the coin is, if an idea is inconsistent with reality, then its inconsistence implies that an illogical process formed the idea, hence the idea is bad, etc. I also maintain that a logical process of thought cannot result in an idea that is inconsistent with reality and that an action derived from such an idea cannot be immoral (and vice-versa). The truth or falsity of an idea therefore, implies its moral significance—the relationship between fact and value. Objective value results from objective truth. I agree with Peikoff when he asserts that Kelley's moral theory denies the relationship between fact and value. Such a denial is unacceptable and is not compatible with Objectivism. A false idea is derived from an illogical process of thought or an irrational motive, both are immoral and can/should be forgiven only if that person recognizes their mistakes and their irrationality and changes their mindset. Quote #3: Insufficient evidence of what? The motive of holding a false idea?

Obviously there are disagreements of perception when it comes to what is or is not rational. I think if an idea is not in honest error and is a case of willful irrationality then we can say that that idea is representative of an immoral and dishonest character. More than likely, one incident of willful irrationality could/will lead to others. There is a enough scientific and psychological evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition and that humans, and many other species of animals, display that condition throughout their population. Therefore I think EC's denial of those supported facts is a willful case of irrationality. I will not speak for Kelley's side of the argument, but I think that Peikoff would look at the situation and label EC as irrational. Peikoff himself was the leading figure within Objectivism to speak out against Rand's position on homosexuals.

There are many primates in nature that have gay/bisexual tendencies depending on the male to female ratio. In fact, many mammals have shown gay/bisexual tendencies and even preferences depending on a variety of other factors as well. Just because sexual organs have a function of reproduction does not mean that it is "in their nature" to be used just for reproduction. A study of nature shows that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and I think it is irrational to deny that.

The proper role of government is to prevent the initiation of force. I think that the government has an obligation to retaliate against a corporation, a business, or an individual that pollutes the land, air, water, etc. of others. The justification for retaliatory action is the premise that pollution can not only damages the environment and make areas unlivable, but can seriously harm and diminish the lives of individuals who come in contact with it. Of course, the premise that part of government's proper role is to protect the environment has some very important implications... One that was brought up between a mixed-economy supporter and I, was cars and the pollution they make. I don't think an individual ought to be penalized by the gov't for driving, however in large cities (think of Los Angeles), one can't help but notice the collective effects of thousands of cars. If pollution is considered an initiation of force, and the proper role of gov't is to prevent that initiation, then would the government have the right to impose emission restrictions? Or in the case of airlines or certain industries, etc.? Where would the limits and restrictions lie?

If you have the right to prevent someone from pursuing their self interest, then rationally, they would have the right to prevent you from pursuing your self-interest. How could upholding this premise be in your self-interest? Logically, it can't be against your self-interest and for your self-interest at the same time... If you do not have the right to prevent someone from pursuing their self-interest, then rationally, they do not have the right to prevent you from pursuing your self-interest. Therefore, upholding the premise that the initiation of force is evil, is in your self-interest.

Objectivism holds that a man has one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. In "The Virtue of Selfishness" Rand writes, "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." This right stems directly from the Objectivist ethical code, which upholds the premise that a man is an end in himself, that a man must live for his own sake, and that pursuing his rational self-interest is his highest moral purpose in life. The initiation of force, therefore is immoral because it violates a man's right to guide his own life as he sees fit. Read some of Rand's writing on Physical Force from the Lexicon.

I was talking with a friend about this last night and we discussed the view that some people believe that Rand misapplied her political principles and that she should have supported the idea that all government was improper, that she should have supported anarchy. These people base their belief on the idea that that any institution of government and every action by the government is initiation of force against the individual. They hold that since initiation of force is wrong and improper, there should be no government. However, Ayn Rand's formulation of a proper government, was a government who had a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. The only role of government is to retaliate against those individuals that initiate force. If the government's only position is to retaliate against force, instead of initiate force how is it a violation of the individual? Any anarchists out there? Any responses or thoughts? Do I understand your premises?

The only proper limit that is set between two individuals, as David said, is the initiation of force. The only proper function of government in a free, laissez-faire country is to retaliate against those that initiate force. Yellow journalism is not a form of force, therefore the government does not have the right to forbid it. If people want to read the trash, you have to let them read it. It is their choice, not yours. You have the right to try to persuade them otherwise, you can try to change the culture, to move away from the lies and the smears... but you cannot tell them they can't read it. We do have laws that forbid libel (defamation by written or printed words) and slander (defamation by spoken words). When someone writes, or says something that deliberately targets an individual and tries to harm them and their reputation through lies, our government holds them accountable. However, in reference to Orwell, freedom is being able to say 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. To say that one only has the freedom to say the truth is absurd. What if we lived in a theocracy ran by the Catholic church? We wouldn't be able to talk about atheism, or our philosophy, or any other issue that directly contradicts faith. What if we lived in a government ran by nuts saying that Africans are a different species? Of course this is a subjective interpretation of the truth. What if we had laws that limited people to objectively demonstrable truth? Even then, to say that one only has the freedom to say the truth is absurd. By what right does the government, or you, have the right to tell other people what to say and what not to say—what to do and what not to do. You, as an individual have the right to do whatever is in you think is in your best interest as long as you do not initiate force against other people—that includes saying 2+2=5....

It's a good point and one that I agree with. You are immoral if you intentionally express an irrational idea or do some sort of intentional irrational action. There is a difference between honest error and being immoral. In either case though, no matter to what degree of irrationality, intentional or unintentional, there is absolutely no excuse why one should tolerate the irrational. The irrational can lead to nothing good and nothing moral, it only leads to bad and can ultimately lead to immorality. One shouldn't tolerate the irrational, one should challenge it at the beginning.

You're not the only one! haha I'm one. I've met only a few, but I know that they are out there!

To be honest I don't really know. I haven't read enough to definitely say 'yes' or 'no'. I read "A Question of Sanction" and I'm making my way through "Truth and Toleration". But even if he considers the concept to be objective he fails in delivering a comprehensive theory on moral judgment.

I'll give two examples of moral judgment without the mind-body split. You should read the link that Diana posted also, she has a few excellent examples as well. First though I'm going to discuss some things Peikoff said in "Fact and Value" (your favorite essay in the whole world, I know. ). Peikoff wrote that: "Two crucial, related aspects must be borne in mind: existence and consciousness, or effect and cause. Existentially, an action of man is good or bad according to its effects: its effects, positive or negative, on man's life." This pertains to actions. Contrary to what Kelley did (i.e. split asunder the mind and body), Peikoff ties mind and body together when he writes: "Human action is not merely physical motion; it is a product of a man's ideas and value-judgments, true or false, which themselves derive from a certain kind of mental cause; ultimately, from thought or from evasion." Earlier in the essay Peikoff explains the connection between fact and value. He shows that the facts that are true, will always be good and that the facts that are false, will always be bad. He shows that true ideas, values, etc. will always be good for one's life and that the true never breeds the bad. He also shows that false ideas will always be bad for one's life and that bad ideas can never be good. So: True ideas=good effects. False ideas or evasion of facts=bad effects. Moving on to the examples. 1) Dictator that murders a group of provably innocent people 2) Immanuel Kant, author of an evil philosophy Mind-Body integration: 1) The effect was that a group of innocent people were murdered. That's a horrible effect meaning that it must have resulted from false ideas that the dictator had or that the dictator evaded several facts. If one can show that the cause of the murders (his ideas) was evil, i.e. a purposeful evasion or rejection of facts and reason, rather than an innocent error, i.e. not knowing and not having the ability to know the facts, then one can condemn his actions as evil. It does not take much knowledge, logic, or reason to come to the conclusion that murdering innocent people is wrong regardless of the reason this means that the dictator intentionally evaded thinking and using logic to act otherwise. We can demonstrate and present facts that show why his actions were evil, what the dictator promoted and said were evil, and we can say that his conscious convictions were evil knowing full well that he did not commit an honest error. Conclusion: Morally evil. Fight against the dictator, speak out against him, and never freely support him. 2) The effect was that through the amazing consistency (consistency within itself, not reality) of his philosophical system, Kant successfully influenced enough intellectuals to create a world where the philosophical ideas were anti-reason, anti-knowledge, anti-life It also enabled and helped every movement, since his philosophy's conception, to destroy everything good about humanity. It's a bad effect meaning that it had false ideas and that it evaded reality. We know that it was not an innocent error, Kant was too smart to commit an honest error. His philosophy and his actions show a consistent and conscious convictions to ideas that equal the destruction of life. Conclusion: Morally evil. Fight against his ideas and never support someone who promotes his ideas. Notice here that I did not assign one standard for a man's effect (actions) and another for man's cause (motives). That is precisely what Kelley does: "Before we can judge an action morally, we must evaluate it in the wider sense I described above. We must ask whether the action was good or bad, using life as our fundamental standard." and then he splits open thought from action when he gives a different standard to evaluate one's motive. "We must ask what goal the person was trying to pursue, and what connection he saw between his action and his goal, so that we can assess his rationality in choosing to act as he did." In other words one's cause/motive can be positive and rational, but the effect or action can be negative. But Objectivism rejects the idea that rational motives can breed evil and irrational actions. His position is not Objectivist. To quote Diana: "According to Objectivism, valid principles of moral judgment must reflect the integration of mind and body inherent in human action. They must be well-grounded in the deep causal connections between a person's choices, thoughts, actions, and life." Kelley does not do that.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[While I am a "closed" system proponent, I do not really want to discuss that here. I shall state here that I do not consider Kelley's adjustments, developments, additions, etc. to be part of Objectivism (Rand's philosophy). While Kelley may have developed his theories in the Objectivist tradition (which is also questionable), I do not consider them part of Objectivism. This is comparative to Aristotle's philosophy and the other philosophers that studied and promoted ideas in the Aristotolian tradition (the same with Plato's philosophy vs. Platonic tradition, Kant's philosophy vs. Kantian tradition, etc.). With that said, I'll discuss the differences between Kelley's ideas on moral judgment in the Objectivist tradition, with that of Rand's (Objectivism's) theory of moral judgment.] Note: All of Kelley's quotations are from "Truth and Toleration". There is enough Objectivism in Kelley's moral judgment theory that one can say that it is almost Objectivist. Rand and Kelley both agreed on the necessity of moral judgment. Their theories deviate from one another in how they frame the discussion of it and the main problem with Kelley's theory is a product of that deviation. Kelley writes: The problem that philosophers have wrestled with so long is the dichotomy of the mind and body (or motive and consequence) and moral judgment. Two irrational products of this dichotomy are the Utilitarian and Kantian criteria of immorality. Utilitarians focus only on the consequence. Kantians focus only on the motive. Kelley is wrong when he says: "The Objectivist ethics, unfortunately, has yet to address this question in any depth." Rand completely rejected the mind-body dichotomy all-together, she rejected that there was even a question to begin with. I'll agree that nowhere did Rand explicitly write on how to morally judge another, she mostly wrote one why man needs to do it. However, Rand wrote in multiple essays and in her books about the mind and body of man. She made no distinction between what a man thought and what a man did, and she rejected every attempt at such a distinction. Every action of a man has a root in his thoughts. The very instant a man makes his thought known he is performing an action. At every level of a man's life there is a complete integration of his mind and his body. From "The New Intellectual": Objectivism doesn't address the issue of the mind-body dichotomy because it already rejects it in its every form. Kelley doesn't reject the mind-body dichotomy rather, he embraces the dichotomy by attempting to solve its "problem". One cannot create an Objectivist theory by embracing what Objectivism rejects. In order to discuss and create a properly Objectivist theory, one would have to reject the dichotomy and discuss the issue opposite of the way Kelley does. Kelley separates moral judgment into four parts: Evaluating actions, Interpreting motives, Inferring character traits, and Judging the person. Kelley attempts to make a distinction between the actions and the motives of a person. That is not Objectivist in any form. Rand said in a 1971 issue of "The Objectivist": That is where a proper Objectivist theory of moral judgment must start and that is distinguishably different than what Kelley attempts to do.

On another forum I was discussing the axiom of existence and a member began maintaining that the axiom is flawed because it fails to distinguish between the subject (the entity that perceives) and the object(the thing which is perceived). He also asserted that most of our knowledge is flawed because we have never fully distinguished the subject from the objects. From what I could gather from the internet, Kant inversed traditional knowledge theory, proposing that instead of the subject perceiving the object (in an attempt to understand the object) the possibility of knowledge came from the subject itself rather then from the object itself. Does anyone else have any insights on this? Can anyone help me to understand what it means and its flaws?

In the second edition of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" Leonard Peikoff has an article on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy that basically destroys Kant's entire view of Epistemology, pretty much hampering the rest of his philosophy.

I was on a school trip, riding in a bus to play in our pep band. A group of kids started talking about violent video games. I was surprised to find so many kids expressing their opinions. We never really came up with an answer. One good point a kid came up with was that violence on video games is becoming more and more realistic. For example, the Wii has violent video games where you actually mimic beating a person with their motion sensitive controllers. Are violent video games unethical? And if they are, how does that translate into a political position?

Which presidential Candidates do you think are the best? My personal favorite I have found so far is Ron Paul. My biggest disagreement with him, however, is abortion and his opinion on LGBT issues. (The former is a major issue for me). Are there any candidates that closely resemble Objectivist views?