Peikoff's podcasts

[brian0918]

I am listening to all the podcasts for the first time, flying through them on my drives to and from work. I'm in the 40s and 50s now, and have noticed a few things that confuse me. He mentioned early on that he was opposed to Aristotle's "mean" theory of ethics, the idea that there are actions that are obviously bad at both ends of the spectrum, and that the proper action is the mean - somewhere in the middle. So e.g. the rejection of the material is bad, and lust for material things is bad, but somewhere in the middle is good. So for Aristotle there were definitely shades of gray when it comes to ethics, because he said sometimes the mean is not necessarily the best, and it might be a little to the "left" or "right" on the spectrum that is the true best. Peikoff rejects this. But then in many of his podcasts I see him take this stance - for example with self-defense - "no guns" is bad, and "too many" is bad, and somewhere in the middle is the optimal. If you give him an example, it will be obvious to him whether it's bad or not. Isn't this innatism/subjectivism?

In the last several podcasts (40-50) I hear this a lot. Can someone who is very familiar with the podcasts, and knows what I am talking about, please respond?

Edited April 17, 2009 by brian0918

[KendallJ]

I'm not sure if Peikoff is using the concept correctly when he does do it, nor have I listened to the podcasts in particular.

However, remember that the rejection of Aristotle's mean theory does not mean that you are saying that there is NO thing for which such a continuum holds true. Rather, you are saying that there is not something intrinsically general about the idea of a mean, as such. That means there could be some concrete cases which happen to fall in a mean sort of context, they just do it as a result of the particular not out of any general thing you can say about "mean"ness.

I think in the particulat case here, you could say that the driver in one direction is liberty, or rights (to keep and bear arms), and in the other direction you get to weapons that have so much potential for or accidental use or misuse that simply their possession would constitute a "threat" to others (i.e. keeping 20,000 lb of TNT in your backyard).

Before everyone jumps out of the woodwork and we have yet another thread on gun control, recognize that I'm not representing a side; just trying to articulate what Peikoff's methodology might be.

[khaight]

Remember, too, that Aristotle's theory was specifically a theory of virtue -- the claim is that virtuous behavior is defined by the mean between extremes. Objectivism rejects that, instead taking the view that virtuous behavior is defined by the rational identification of some class of facts and their relationship to the requirements of human life, and action consistent with such identifications. Specific concrete policy questions, like the gun case, aren't attempts to define virtues and thus don't fall under the theory in dispute.

[softwareNerd]

Send in the question, Brian.

I agree with what Kendall said.

The idea of a mean might appear to work -- after the fact -- but it it really quite useless in arriving at principles. Take food: famine will kill you, and so will gluttony. Where does that leave one? It leaves us with no guidance as to what is too much and what is too little, and why. When we search for the principle, we have to ask questions about the nature of the body and the nature of food. That is how we come up with the "right" combination. Now, once we have come up with the right amount, we -- after the fact -- see that way too little or way too much can cause some problems. So, after the fact, we might start thinking of the right amount as being the "mean" amount. It really isn't... it's just right

[TheEgoist]

I was going to post my last philosophy essay on the matter, but Kendall summed it up much better and in a briefer manner.

Darn, I'll have to find somewhere else to dump my ideas!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

But then in many of his podcasts I see him take this stance - for example with self-defense - "no guns" is bad, and "too many" is bad, and somewhere in the middle is the optimal. If you give him an example, it will be obvious to him whether it's bad or not. Isn't this innatism/subjectivism?

Yes, Dr. Peikoff rejects Aristotle's mean with regard to ethics, but he does uphold something that he calls "the principle of the beard." Some things are on a continuum, and one cannot have a definite identification of when some point has been reached that is too much. For example, how many hairs does it take to have a beard? Obviously one or two is not enough, and a full beard is obviously having a beard; but at what point during the growing of the facial hairs can one say he definitely now has a beard, whereas one hair before that he didn't have a beard? Similarly, Dr. Peikoff recognizes the right of self-defense, and even the right to have private body guards; however, at some point, which cannot be specifically defined, one has too many body guards and is attempting to establish a kind of government surrounding oneself; thus violating the monopoly on the use of force reserved for the legitimate government.

So, what he presented is not a theory of the mean, but rather the inability to exactly say when enough is enough to reach an obvious point of something occurring in some cases.