Lorenzo de' Medici (old)

Benevolence is appropriate if someone deserves it. When you lack the evidence that someone is guilty, offer them benevolence. But certainly, benevolence isn't a virtue is it? What value can be obtained by benevolence anyway? Why bother with such a marginal issue.

No it has nothing to do with the thread. This is what happens when and if someone falls into a straw man. I expected intellectual honesty, I am concerned that the straw man you are presenting is not an error of knowledge. Check your facts. Have you actually read The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand? If not, then here is a link for you. Judge for yourself the validity of Kelley's arguments: The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand The confusion comes from people who accuse Kelley of something he does not say, not from David Kelley. If you want to debate the topic in person, I am willing to engage you, that is if you can abide by your own rules of civility. Just because the shoe fits, that does not mean it is your shoe. Why are you ignoring the supporting quote I provided from Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism Course?

Life is the standard of value, rationality is the standard of virtue. Rationality is the only virtue that is not contextual. There are contexts in which it is perfectly acceptable to be dishonest, such as when a Nazi is at the door looking for the Jews you hid in your closet. It would be irrational to be honest in that context.

If you are concerned about endorsement, any and all of the works that were endorsed by ARI when Kelley worked for them, at the minimum: The Art of Reasoning, The Evidence of the Senses and his lecture course on The foundations of Knowledge. Fundamentally, all of a person's works should be judged on there own. I don't think it is necessary to always agree with everything that a person writes. I certainly do not agree with everything Ayn Rand ever said. If you do not find it valuable to study David Kelley's works, then don't. Why are you evading, and not answering my question?

An example of the mind-body dichotomy would be only focusing on motives or only focusing on consequences. Just as a person might focus only on reason or only on emotion. A person might feel they must choose between either reason or emotion, never seeing any correlation or connection between the two. If you were accused of murder, one of the importance considerations in the trial would be motive. The fact that someone kills another person by mistake does not make him a coldblooded, evil, murderer. The consequences between someone who commits manslaughter by mistake or murders someone is the same, death, but the moral judgment we must pass is not the same.

This is not an example of the mind-body dichotomy. As I have stated before, people can be disintegrated, meaning they do not have to act in accordance with their stated convictions. This is implicit in the fact that people have freewill. Aside from disintegration, to recognize that a person has a mind and a body and that they are not the same, which is why we have two different words for the concepts does not mean I or David Kelley regard the mind as in conflict with the body. The point you are trying to make here has no validity in my opinion. You could drop the word tolerance and instead call it benevolence when dealing with a person's ideas. A person can have conscious convictions that contradict their subconscious evaluations. You would benefit from listening to Edwin Locke's lecture on Reason and Emotion. I have already dealt with this. When motives are not consistent with consequences, this is called an accident. An accident can be good, it can be bad, it might even be neutral. I'm sure everyone here has done something they did not intend to do. You do not deserve praise or condemnation for an accident, but you may be legally responsible depending on the context. I agree with Kelley on this point. A person's motives should be judged by the standard of rationality, just as virtues are all variants of rationality. The metaphysical results of actions are appropriately evaluated by the standard of life. I do not see anything here that is worth commenting on.

Kelley applies toleration mainly to the realm of ideas and benevolence mainly to actions. I believe that this is a helpful differentiation. You act with benevolence when you see that someone is suffering and you have little evidence that it is out of justice. With ideas, you can see that a person has accepted some false premises, or is confused, but you can and probably should give a person the benefit of the doubt before you judge their character on the whole. One often needs more evidence before you can know that someone is acting with malice intentions. And even when and if you do find that a person has been willfully evasive, and there are degrees of evasion. People can change and make amends for their evils. A moral judgment should fit the crime. Relationships between men are built on trust, past experiences and mutual investment. The more you have invested in a person, the more you are likely to offer toleration. This is most evident when it comes to how we judge family members and life long friends who do not share all of our values or ideas. Not all evasions are equal. The degree of evasion constitutes the degree of evil. The greater the mind the longer the range, the greater their virtue. I hold that there can be degrees of virtue just as there are degrees of vice. It is quite obvious with the virtue of productiveness that some people can be more productive than others.

That is a good answer, but politics is the application of your ethical theories of philosophy. It seems to me that it is problematic to use the word evil as it is being used. You say that initiating force is the most evil thing possible, but then say that persuading people to self-destruct is more evil. Well, which is it? Which one is more evil? If words and thoughts are more dangerous than actions, then why not eliminate such a threat, if it is so clear that it will cause destruction? I thought that actions speak louder than words? Perhaps book burning is a good place to start? Also, who has the ultimate responsibility for their actions? The persuaded or the persuader? There is an element of determinism in the idea that by writing a book, that people will necessarily take to the ideas and implement them. It has taken thousands of years for a great mind to appear and make the discoveries that Ayn Rand did, but I do not think that her achievements were just a matter of being the most honest person that ever lived, I think she was a genius. I believe that Peikoff and I agree on that point, that she was not just honest but a genius.

The point is, a person can be just as unfair to Peikoff's position as anyone here can and has been that opposes Kelley. Not that I believe that Peikoff is totally guilty of moralizing, and injustice.

That is not fair to Kelley's argument. I could argue the same way about Peikoff because I think far more harm and danger comes from the opposite of Kelley's approach, which is: judge fast, judge now, forget waiting for all the facts, forget if you are right or wrong, ask questions later, if at all. Forget proportions (not one crumb), there are few errors in philosophy - so you are most likely evil, and you don't understand Objectivism unless you agree with me.

Nobody tolerates virtue or rationality. Tolerance can only be applied to a specific spectrum of ideas or actions that a person disapproves of. If you state that only a person who deserves tolerance should receive it, fine. But that begs the question, how do you judge, how do you know who deserves tolerance, how much time should a person have to adapt, how much time should a person be allowed to learn, how much time does a person deserve? These are not easy questions, no magic bullet will work. For rationalists, moral judgment is quite easy because context is ignored. If we hold that ideas and actions are either good or evil, then what is the moral status of tolerance? Is tolerance, when practiced rationally, evil? Was the patience that Ayn Rand was often praised for a virtue or a vice?

I don't think that is the debate, I think the debate involves knowing if one is guilty of sanctioning evil. For instance, you could spend a lot of time avoiding buying gas from Iran, if you can find out which gas is and is not from Iran. Is it sanction to buy gas that is 10% Iranian? Sanction means you morally approve, morally agree. The reason why the sanction issue even came up between Kelley and Peikoff is because Kelley spoke to Libertarians about why you need a rational philosophy to support capitalism. Consider this quote by Ayn Rand: "This is an insidious kind of intimidation: it equates a speaker’s views with those of the discussion’s sponsors. A man of integrity is conscientiously precise about the nature of his views on any subject. If his views are going to be judged, not by his own statements, but by the views of those who invite him to speak... then his only alternative is to accept no speaking engagements. If so, what happens to our freedom of speech?” “The Disenfranchisement of the Right,” The Ayn Rand Letter I (Dec.20, 1971), p. 26. This is false. You only judge to suspend moral appraisal of a person when you lack evidence. And this is not inconsistent with Objectivism. I quote again: “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 ground of mercy but on the ground 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 and 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.” - The Basic Principles of Objectivism - Nathaniel Branden, Justice vs. Mercy Track 1 at 9:23 (This course was endorsed by Ayn Rand) "The principles of justice also determine the limits of toleration. Tolerance is not appropriate, as I said in “A Question of Sanction,” when a person is willfully irrational. Thus I do not hold, as Peikoff claims, that tolerance means suspending moral judgment in the realm of ideas. It means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence." – David Kelley (The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand)

Notice that Kelley states primarily, this does not mean that ideas cannot be judged by ethical standards. Kelley is also pointing to the different respects in which a person can be evil. Obviously you do not use force against people just because they believe in socialism or communism. This is correct, this is the link between epistemology and ethics. Otherwise your ethics are floating, disconnected from epistemology, aka: rationalism. I think his point here is to consider degree and measurement. Obviously, going to a party dressed inappropriately is a bad idea but I seriously doubt it warrants the label EVIL.

I believe in the debate between Peikoff and Kelley the concrete was that Kant was more evil than Stalin because he made Stalin possible. I believe it is moral to shoot a Stalin or a Hitler on sight. If Kant is just as evil as or even more evil than Stalin, would you assassinate Kant? Would you assassinate an academic marxist? If you do not think you should assassinate an academic marxist, then it seems that you agree with Kelley because while it is true they are both evil, it is in different respects. It is because of that difference in respects that you can engage in discussion with a marxist and not with Stalin. Consider this quote by Ayn Rand: "I could deal with a Marxist with greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That's the libertarian movement." [FHF] - Ayn Rand Answers, P.72. (bold mine)

Provide proof of this claim please.

On motives and consequences: When a consequence does not match a person's motives, I believe this is called an accident. What seems to be in dispute here is: Can we deduce (without a doubt) a man's motivation solely by evaluating the results of his actions? In my view, it is illogical to think that you can always know a person's motives based on the consequences of his actions.

Tolerance, in Kelley's view as I understand it means acknowledging a person's context. It means waiting to make a final judgment until you have enough evidence to know if a person is willfully dishonest, evasive or in honest error. This is not inconsistent with Objectivism. See these relevant quotes: “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 ground of mercy but on the ground 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 and 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.” - The Basic Principles of Objectivism - Nathaniel Branden, Justice vs. Mercy Track 1 at 9:23 "The principles of justice also determine the limits of toleration. Tolerance is not appropriate, as I said in “A Question of Sanction,” when a person is willfully irrational. Thus I do not hold, as Peikoff claims, that tolerance means suspending moral judgment in the realm of ideas. It means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence." – David Kelley (The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand) “Therefore in place of the slogan “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” Objectivism answers: judge and be prepared to be judged and more, be prepared to be judged for your judgments. Because, one of the solemn responsibilities entailed in the act of passing moral judgments and one of the reasons why most men are frightened to pass them, is precisely because any third person is then able to look at your judgment and to look at the object of your judgment and to judge you on the bases of the kind of moral judgment you have passed. And that is precisely the responsibility which many men dread.” - The Basic Principles of Objectivism - Nathaniel Branden, Justice vs. Mercy Track 2 at 14: 35

Tom, that is a great post. Thank you for your incite.

Because psychological visibility, like any other human value, cannot be obtained by fraud. And because persuasion, speaking up for one's convictions is generally in one's self-interest. In deeper terms, are you asking why do people need or want friendships or romantic partners? Why is it necessary to live authentically?

Hi Nick, I think it is essential to define what self-esteem is. I find this definition to be one of the most useful: "Self-esteem is the experience that we are appropriate to life and to the requirements of life. More specifically, self-esteem is... 1. Confidence in our ability to think and to cope with the challenges of life. 2. Confidence in our right to be happy, the feeling of being worthy, deserving, entitled to assert our needs and wants and to enjoy the fruits of our efforts." - The Power of self-esteem p.8 - Nathaniel Branden, PH.D. Self-esteem is something a person has to give to themselves. No man can give another man confidence anymore than he can breathe for another man. Much like physical health, the level of a person's self-esteem is not established overnight, it is the result of many choices, stemming from their contextual knowledge. Sometimes (quite often), people can develop a pseudo self-esteem and look to their friends, lovers, family etc. as a source of their self-efficacy and thus they create a false confidence. A social metaphysician is a person that is unable, or, has not yet learned to self generate their self-esteem, think and act with independence and of course, true happiness becomes impossible for them to reach. Instead a social metaphysician in principle ties the value judgments of others to their self-worth. This does not necessarily mean that the value judgments of others must be positive or negative. Generally, to be of help to your friends, I'd suggest being a good role model and learn to improve your own self-esteem. If you cannot help yourself, you are not ready to help others. Consider these six pillars of self-esteem: 1. Living Consciously. To live consciously is to be present to what we are doing; to seek to understand whatever bears on our interests, values, and goals; to be aware both of the world external to self and also to the world within. 2. Self-acceptance. To be self-accepting is to own and experience, without denial or disowning, the reality of our thoughts, emotions and actions; to be respectful and compassionate toward ourselves even when we do not admire or enjoy some of our feelings or decisions; to refuse to be in an adversarial or rejecting relationship to ourselves. 3. Self-responsibility. To be self-responsible is to recognize that we are the author of our choices and actions; that we must be the ultimate source of our own fulfillment; that no one is coming to make our life right for us, or make us happy, or give us self-esteem. 4. Self-assertiveness. To be self-assertive is to honor our wants and needs and look for their appropriate forms of expression in reality; to live our values in the world; to be willing to be who we are and allow others to see it; to stand up for our convictions, values, and feelings. 5. Living Purposefully. To live purposefully is to take responsibility for identifying our goals; to perform the actions that allow us to achieve them; to keep on track and moving toward their fulfillment. 6. Personal integrity. To live with integrity is to have principles of behavior to which we remain loyal in action; to keep our promises and honor our commitments; to walk our talk. http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/pd...urgent_need.pdf

The Culture of Reason Center is proud to announce that we have again extended our bookstore list. These audiobook titles are now available for download directly from our website: Please visit: The CRC MP3 Store Anthem MP3 $19.95 Atlas Shrugged MP3 $49.95 Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal MP3 $24.95 For the New Intellectual MP3 $16.95 Philosophy: Who Needs It MP3 $20.95 The Art of Fiction MP3 $16.95 The Art of Nonfiction MP3 $16.95 The Fountainhead MP3 $41.95 The Romantic Manifesto MP3 $16.95 The Virtue of Selfishness MP3 $16.95 The Voice of Reason MP3 $27.95 We the Living MP3 $27.95 Why Businessmen Need Philosophy MP3 $13.95 These audiobook titles are available for sale from The Culture of Reason Center Bookstore. Blackstone Audio, Inc. products are only available through The Culture of Reason Center for customers in The United States and Canada. Ideas expressed in any of the materials, books or lectures offered, are not necessarily endorsed by The Culture of Reason Center. Audiobook prices are subject to change at anytime without notice. Refunds are not available for downloaded products. All sales are final. Customers are allowed 3 attempts to download audiobook products.

The Culture of Reason Center is proud to present its new logo provided by Gary Bulin.

I think it would be helpful to isolate and identify some of the various issues that are involved in this discussion. 1. The rights of babies/children. 2. How should government determine legal adulthood (when can a young person make full judgments about their body). 3. The rights of parents to use their judgment. 4. What are objective parental obligations. Circumcision deals with these issues: Is there a health benefit to circumcision? What is the esthetic significance of the practice? Does the practice of circumcision strongly impact male sexual pleasure? I do not think it is moral to circumcise babies or children unless there is a strong medical reason for the procedure, such as a birth defect, abnormal function or something of that nature. I would have a difficult time supporting laws to make the practice criminal though. Morally, the good is anything that supports, furthers, enhances the life and the happiness of a rational being. I believe the pleasure of being uncircumcised outweighs the medical risks (if there are any) of being uncircumcised. And personally I think it does look better. I am wondering if anyone has sued over being circumcised against their will?

I am pleased to announce that I have expanded The Culture of Reason Center Bookstore. To visit the store: CRC Bookstore Titles include: The Ayn Rand Lexicon – Harry Binswanger $18.48 For The New Intellectual – Ayn Rand $6.47 Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - Leonard Peikoff $16.63 Anthem – Ayn Rand $6.47 Philosophy Who needs it? - Ayn Rand $6.47 The Fountainhead – Ayn Rand $7.39 The Romantic Manifesto – Ayn Rand $6.47 The Virtue of Selfishness – Ayn Rand $6.47 Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand $7.39 Capitalism The Unknown Ideal – Ayn Rand $7.39 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology – Ayn Rand $16.63 We the Living – Ayn Rand $6.47 The Art of Reasoning – David Kelley $63.74 The Early Ayn Rand – Ayn Rand $7.39 Ayn Rand Answers – Ayn Rand $12.93 Three Plays – Ayn Rand $7.39 Ominous Parallels – Leonard Peikoff $14.78 The Voice of Reason – Ayn Rand $14.78 Unrugged Individualism – David Kelley $10.16 The Evidence of the Senses – David Kelley $16.63 The Psychology of Romantic Love – Nathaniel Branden $12.93 Book sales help to fund and support the growth of The Culture of Reason Center in Dallas, TX. Purchases can be made during our scheduled audio-lecture events or from our website. Ideas expressed in any of the materials, books or lectures offered, are not necessarily endorsed by The Culture of Reason Center. Book prices are subject to change at anytime without notice. If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, return it in new condition within 30 days, and we will gladly exchange the product or refund the cost of your purchase. Damaged items do not qualify for refunds. We are unable to refund shipping costs.

Thank you for all that you have done this past year, Toad! You have achieved a lot, I am very grateful and proud of you.