hernan

Galt: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. Perfect, and thanks for the virtue page.

Regarding Aristotle, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride#Philosophical_views Interesting that there was no mention of pride on the Aristotilian ethics page.

Justice comes up in the context of trade as an alternative to sacrifice. She says "virtue of justice" but it's not listed explicitly in her short list of virtues. This is one reason I don't take her short list as exhaustive. I don't think her essays were organized that way. Where did you find the explicit list "rationality, productivity, justice, honesty, pride", that's two more than I found (justice and honesty). I really like Tara Smith's Viable Values but I've been warned before not to rely on her as representive of Objectivism. She did discuss honesty. But I'll find a copy of "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics", thanks. Interestingly, I didn't find pride on the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics

In "The Objectivist Ethics" she defines virtue as "the act by which one gains and/or keeps" value. She lists three cardinal values: reason, purpose, and self-esteem. And corresponding virtues: rationality, productiveness, and pride. She defines each but that's pretty much it. But I think more is implied by the rest of the book and other works.

Rand's book title: "The Virtue of Selfishness" was quite provocative but imprecise. How would you express Objectivist ethics in terms of virtues? For example, the Christian virtues are: prudence (wisdom), justice, courage, temperance, faith, hope, and charity. Aristotle, perhaps Rand's favorite philosopher, listed: justice, courage, temperance, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, gentleness, prudence, and wisdom.

I have an unusual request that I hope is not inappropriate to this forum: I'm working on a novella and there is one scene that is a turning point in the story, a cable interview/debate. I want it to be as credible as possible so I'm posting it here for your criticism. (Note: It's supposed to piss you off.) I would appreciate any suggestions for improving it, particularly making it sound more authentic. I've done my best to capture the dominant media philosophy and rhetoric but it's easy to slip into caricature. (If you are interested in critiquing the full novella, it's available free here: http://conquistador.org/document?documentEntityId=1118335323671) Here it is: Voiceover: In the Hotseat. Tom Dahl, award-winning journalist with the New York Times. His recent exposé of Central American sweatshops shook up the garment industry. And Carl Flores of Guyer Apparels, a subject of the investigation and the man behind the campaign attempting to justify garment industry practices. Putting profits before people, a pan American tragedy. Tonight, In the Hotseat. Sara Trimble: We’re back and tonight we look at the story about the story. Tom Dahl knew he was taking on Goliath when he exposed sweatshop practices in Central America but he had no idea what he would be stirring up. Carl Flores joins us to explain his industry-financed public campaign against the New York Times and Tom Dahl for their reporting. Sara: But first, I’d like to express everyone’s wishes to Carl for a speedy recovery. As we reported earlier, Carl was injured in a kidnaping attempt while recently visiting Guatemala. Carl Flores: Thank you Sara, but first I’d like to clarify… Sara: Hang on there, Carl, first we want to speak with Tom Dahl. Tom, what led you to write this story? Tom Dahl: As we all know, American companies have been exploiting the poor since, well, since the so-called founding of this country. So I decided to look into one representative industry, the garment industry of Guatemala, to help illuminate the human costs of social injustice for our readers. What I found was truly shocking. Sara: Your article detailed long working hours for very low wages, even by third world standards. Were you surprised by what you found? Tom: Not at all, Sara. This is nothing unique to Guatemala, this is happening all around the world even as we speak. Sara: And what did you hope might be the result of your reporting? Tom: Well, I had hoped, at a minimum, that those American companies involved would clean up their act if only to keep their profits flowing. I didn’t expect to find myself the target of a vengeful campaign to silence me. Sara: Has this ever happened before? Tom: Not to my knowledge, Sara. I think this was a shocking display of arrogance on the part of greedy businesses and if this is any indication of where our country is headed, we’re in big trouble. Sara: What about it, Carl? Are you concerned that your attempt at justifying your own business practices might encourage others to ignore ethical concerns? Carl: First of all, Sara, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to share our side of the story. And I’d like to encourage you to ask Tom how he researched his story because we found absolutely nothing to substantiate his claims at our factory in Guatemala. Sara: But what about your public campaign, don’t you think you crossed a line there in attacking the free press? Carl: Sara, don’t you think it matters whether the story that started all this is true or not? Tom: Carl, you can afford lawyers and PR consultants to protect your profits and spin your lies, but what about the poor people working in your factories who can’t afford lawyers, who can’t afford PR consultants. Who will speak up for them? Carl: Tom, you have no idea how many lives you disrupted with your irresponsible reporting. You very nearly shutdown an entire factory. Those workers need to put food on their table. Our business provides that. Your reporting almost destroyed that. Sara: But Carl, what about the public campaign? Don’t you agree that was unprecedented? Carl: Sara, the New York Times has over a million readers who rely on honest reporting. And many more beyond that follow the Times’ lead; our own local paper carried the story on the front page. We had to find a way to get the truth out to the public. And the truth is that Tom’s article bears no resemblance to the truth. Tom: I’ll have you know that the New York Times is one of the most reputable publications in the United States, in the world. Carl: Tell us, Tom, who were your sources? I’ve thoroughly documented that our manufacturers are adhering to industry standards. Tom: Carl knows very well that we can’t reveal our sources, they’d probably lose their jobs, or worse. Guyer makes a big deal out of whether or not they kept to some industry group’s code of conduct but everyone knows what a sham those standards are. Carl, what I don’t understand is why you are putting profits ahead of your own people and betraying them for a few silver coins. Carl: Tom, as hard as it may be for you to understand, my ‘people’ are my customers, my shareholders, my employees, and my business partners. Sara: Well, I’m afraid that our time is up. I want to thank Tom Dahl and Carl Flores for joining us tonight In the Hotseat. Next up, are your pets being poisoned by discount store treats?

One thing that I have long noticed is that most people (and I don't exclude yours truly from this generalization) don't see all the choices open to them. People often get into routines and ruts because they don't think for themselves or simply don't think. In short, people miss opportunities. So maybe withdrawal of sanction of the victim is not a magic solution to every problem but I suspect it is very central. A slave can't necessariy free himself by rejecting his situation but by rejecting his situation he is open to opportunities to free himself. What is then required is good ol' fashioned problem solving. But someone who accepts their situation will never bother to seek an escape.

I think most people would agree that the spread of new ideas is facilitated by modern technology. Of course, people are the same as they always were. And there is certainly a lot more to distract people from important subjects.

There is no question that Rand drew together many preexisting threads. That is not to slight her insight and brilliance but, as you say, she recognized that America had something that Russia (and many other places) lacked. The American Founding Fathers were certainly on the right track even if they were overly focused on government. And we can find proto-Objectivism popping up here and there. But that's for academics. The more important situation is Post-Rand. Of course, ideas spread at some pace but what influences that pace? Rand pegged the industrialists as the "disenfranchised" and I think we got a small taste of that with Perkins' letter to the WSJ defending the rich and subsequent firestorm it ignited. The disenfranchised are not only the rich and successful but all those who aspire to be so, to succeed, to meet life head on. Not every ambitious person will give up if society disrespects them but certainly there will be many who do.

This, I think, is where a serious discussion begins. "Sanction of the Victim" is certianly an important element of a general theory but it is no, alone, a sufficient explanation of why coercion works and, thus, withdrawal of sanction is not a general solution. Ragnar was one of the weakest characters in AS. On the one hand, I wish he were not included. But, on the other hand, the story lacked that element otherwise. I think Rand recognized the need for a Ragnar but she didn't want to focus on that aspect prefering, instead, to tell the story of the Strike. The practicality of force is, indeed, an enigmatic topic. Clearly it is the right choice in some circumstances but equally true it is the wrong on in most and human nature is to overrely on it.

Conspiracy is the wrong word. There is a concensus that Rand's philosophy is either (usually both) kooky and dangerous. When everyone openly agrees on something there is no need for a conspiracy.

I'd say in many ways including that. One thing I most appreciate about Rand is that she demonstrated a philosophical appreciation for practical things. That shines through in Atlas Shrugged. She made practical men and women heroes and those opposed to practical thinking vilians.

I am skeptical of that explanation. And did Ayn Rand really proclaim herself a philosopher? Was that on her resume or her speaking bio? Maybe the fact that she gave a name to her philosophy. But I've heard also that professional philosophers were more annoyed at the fact that she didn't go through academic channels to reach an audience. What could be more annoying to a philosophy professor than to have some snot nosed kid challenging you in class by drawing from a novelist? In any case, I think if her ideas were more in line with the profesoriate they would have overlooked her nonacademic background. Peikoff may have taken away the excuse but I doubt you will see any significant increase in respect for Objectivism from the mainstream. Those writing surveys of philosophy will continue to ignore Objectivism. But, again, this brings us back to my central question. What would it take for people to take a serious look? Where are the fruits of Objectivism?

I think we both know the answer to that: To the extent that they are even aware of her existence, they wish she (and her philosophy) would just go away. Why? Because she overturns so much that they (and I am obviously generalizing grossly by the use of that word) despise. I don't buy the argument that she was not a professional philosopher or that her philosophy is immature for the obvious reasons that most philosophers of history were not professaionals and any shortcoming in a philosophy is an invitation to later scholars to address. This is not irrelevant to the topic, of course. Why is Objectivism so marginalized? It would be much harder to marginalize if it were the source of more success. If, for example, you had a prevelance of Objectivist ethics among successful business executives who said, "I am successful because I read Rand." Instead it is generally dismissed as a philosophy of adolescents and cranks. Unfair? I'm not sure.

Yes, I know. I actually like William James original concept, I think it has great merit. (He actually shared Rand's original motivation: to take philosophy back from philosophers and make it useful to living life). But the school took a bizare turn. Duey was definitely the sort of "pragmatist" that Rand rightly hated. But, yes, I think we both agree that Objectivism is very small p pragmatic.

That's reasonable enough except for the fact that Objetivism is a relatively new concept. We woudln't say, for example, that the Romans practiced slavery because they were anti-Objectivist. Nor is it realy fair, even post-Rand, to say that most people practice coercion because they are anti-Objectivist. Most people have never heard of Objectivism. The problem is, thus, deeper than merely people ignoring Rand's arguments when they hear them. I think we need to be careful about looking at this as if Rand were at the center of the matter and people were forming up for and against her. Life is like that, though. It's complex and multi-faceted. I'll grant that slavery is a hard case in that sense but it's also easy in the sense that it seems, at least, as if that level and form of coercion ought to be obviously self-destructive if coercion can be said to be so. I do agree that Rand was primarly concerned with expressing her philosophy and only later did she take an interest in promoting it and reflecting on why it was not obvious to more people, i.e. why people rejected it or didn't take enough of an interest to inform themselves. However, it's not as if all those who followed her couldn't take up the matter themselves (e.g. ARI, AS, etc.). Whenever I come to a philosophy book I check the index for Rand or Objectivism. Seldom do I find either. Never mind a chapter to her. In world politics today socialism is cool and there is a growing concern about income inequality. "Tax me more," cry the rich.

I think, then, that we are in some agreement. Let me dare to press further toward what I think is the most interesting claim: that Rand believed Sanction of the Victim to be an explanation for the prevalence of coercion and other manifestations of opposition to Objectivism. Now I happen to believe that it is not a complete explanation but I do think it is an idea worth exploring just to see how far it goes. And slavery is a really good example because it is so very difficult (and because it a safe topic, nobody will get in trouble for studying how to slaves can throw off their chains). If Sanction of the Victim is a good explanation of slavery then how do slaves withold their sanction and what affect does that have on the slaves status? (Remember, the Romans were very good at dealing not only with runaway slaves but also slave revolts and Roman law allowed a slave owner a pretty free hand against his slave.)

In a vague sense, yes of course. But I'm not satisfied with the vagary. What I find most attractive about Objectivism is that it defines morality in terms of enlightened self interest. Rand hated the term "pragmatism" but Objectivism is very pragmatic. So in what sense are free markets moral and proper? I think we can agree, also, that if a society consisted of Objectivists alone that there would be free markets (or, to be more precise, the more Objectivist a society, the freer its markets). See Galt's Gulch. Further, I would suggest that we should expect such a society to outperform its neighbors. I won't say that's definitely true but I'm inclined to believe it. However, something is standing in the way. What?

I think this is much closer to the truth. Much more of a realistic view of the natural state of man.

It obviously depends on what you mean by a "natural state". The normal meaning of the term is that which we find in nature. We do find states and monopolists interfering with free markets in nature (obviously to the harm of individuals). That is natural. We do not find free markets (as we would idealize them) anywhere in naure. They are not a natural state. On the other hand, we could broaden the concept of a free market to include the market for coercion. Thus, in a totalitarian state, those with power "own" everything. That's a bit of a perverse meaning for free market but at least it would make them natural.

I think you are aluding, here, by your "enough" qualification, to a political solution of some sort. And admittedly perhaps this is more a matter of gray than black and white since we can imagine a small protest mushrooming into a political movement. But my point was simply that the marginal value to withdrawing sanction by an individual is negligable. There is no profit in protesting the IRS.

I think you are aluding, here, by your "enough" qualification, to a political solution of some sort. And admittedly perhaps this is more a matter of gray than black and white since we can imagine a small protest mushrooming into a political movement. But my point was simply that the marginal value to withdrawing sanction by an individual is negligable. There is no profit in protesting the IRS.

Economists are divided on the question of whether slavery was profitable. But slavery persisted for most of human history. To give but one example, the sun rose and set on the Roman empire while slavery was in practice. I understand, of course, that Atlas Shrugged was fiction. I don't agree that I am solely confused on where to draw the line between her art and her philosophy. I think it is an open question subject to debate. Certainly it seems to be the case that everyone here assumes that "sanction of the victim" was nothing more than artistic license and that the true solution must be political. I'm not convinced. I think there is more to "sanction of the victim" than art and I think Rand thought so too.

I appreciate your joining the discussion. I hope to persuade you that I'm not as confused as you seem to believe. I'll take on some chunks as time permits. Well, yes, $#!7 happens. But the central claim of Objectivism is that it is realistic. Morality is defined, firstly, in terms of survival. A choice is good if it enhances survival, it is bad if it harms survival. Irrespective of the vageries of life, one would expect that, over a sufficient length of time, those who follow Objectivism should have a survival advantage over those who do not. Insofar as people make their luck (as opposed to be dragged along by random chance), good things should come to Objectivists. It is quite obvious that Rand was very interested in this question. She was quite vexed by the fact that socieity was so irrational and that we so often find ourselves ruled by those who show no regard for Objectivist values. She offered an explanation for this: the sanction of the victim. The implied solution: stop sanctioning your own victimization. I am challenging that explanation (and much else).

Yay! I'm looking forward to his new creation.