Other philosophers and moralizing.

[TheEgoist]

I was not sure where to post this. It isn't really a question about Objectivism, or even necessarily some Objectivists, but it's somewhat aimed in the direction of a trend I've seen in many O'ists. It's even a trait I noticed and still do notice in myself.

Why is it we, not as Objectivists but as analyzers of ideas, are not merely critical of the ideas espoused by any given philosopher but also of the moral worth of that philosopher?

Let's take Bertrand Russell as an example, just because he's someone I've been increasingly interested in. He had some very bad philosophic positions, that I consider to be completely inconsistent with reality. However, as a person I find him to be very admirable. There were, of course, the socialistic tendencies. But are we to judge every philosopher by their system of moral valuation? Is that what makes us not only in contention but oft times repulsed?

I ask, because as Objectivists we take the moral worth of a person to be based on the application of rationality, consistently, in one's life and thoughts I don. Is it that, if someone disagrees as to just what reason and rationality are, they are acting immorally? I don't think a man like Russell was ever thinking "To Hell with what is logical, I am going to do whatever it is I want.". That goes for most philosophers as well.

Philosophers are always willing to accept what reality is.

"There can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true. I rule it out, it's impossible. Either something is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe. If it isn't true, you shouldn't."

Just using ol' Bertrand as an example here. I am wondering what is the line at which we can judge not only a philosophy but the person who advocates it

[DavidOdden]

If I believed that some philosopher had no free will in writing what he wrote, I would not make any general inferences about them based on their philosophy. Otherwise, I don't see how to avoid making some such inferences. Of course you cannot conclude that a person is a pedophile because they argue for socialism. You also cannot conclude that a person believes in the initiation of force to achieve "the greater good" because they happen to be epistemological Platonists. To determine their moral character w.r.t. individual rights, you would have to look at actually relevant facts.

When a man creates and advocates an evil idea, you have the evidence needed that he is evil.

[JMeganSnow]

If you met some guy on the street who seemed nice but had socialistic tendencies, how would you evaluate HIM? Why should philosophers be treated any differently?

If anything, intellectuals who espouse bad ideas should be evaluated MORE harshly than the man-on-the-street, because they are spreading those ideas as part of their career. Not only are they just trumpeting some nonsense, but they are actively proselytizing it to laymen. That's bad even if the philosopher seems pleasant enough and intelligent. You might have enjoyed hanging out with them as a person, but you personal relationship with them is likely to be a lot more along the lines of someone who has to combat and deal with the bad things that they've produced.

To make an analogy, suppose you play an online role-playing game. There may be people you would hang out with in real life that you don't want to game with seriously because their lack of interest will keep resulting in you getting killed. There may be people you will hang out with in game (because they are serious, responsible players) who you'd want nothing to do with in real life.

Always remember that the primary purpose of evaluating someone else morally is to evaluate their impact on YOUR life so you know whether it's in YOUR interests to keep them around or not. If YOU enjoy Russell's works and aren't much affected by the bad parts, by all means, read and enjoy. But don't say that other Objectivists are "moralizing" because 100% of their dealings with Russell have been a result of his bad ideas.

[TheEgoist]

Would it have been better if certain philosophers ignored what they believed to be in accordance with reason and reality?

[Rockefeller]

Is it that, if someone disagrees as to just what reason and rationality are, they are acting immorally?

The key here is to judge whether that "disagreement" is honest or not. In case of philosophers, it cannot be honest. This is because philosophers get ample opportunities to check their premises. They are (supposed to be) constantly drawing broadest abstractions from reality. Thus, it is only by conscious effort that they can evade significant facts of reality. Consider this: Is is even possible that Kant honestly never saw his gigantic rationalizations in his attempts to preserve faith? You can easily see his undeclared intentions. (Sorry, I don't know much about Russel.) Add to that the fact that he also spread his evil around. Now, I am not saying that pizza delivery guys who believe in government handouts are always less immoral than such philosophers, but that the latter are necessarily immoral. They are like Robert Stadlers who had the means to know better but didn't.

However, as a person I find him to be very admirable.

You may be right in that some of his premises are in accordance with reality. But that would be irrelevant if, as in case of Kant, his gigantic rationalizations in his philosophical works serve as sufficient evidence for his conscious evasion (immorality). The moral judgement in such cases would pertain only to his evasions with regard to his philosophical work. His personal life would have no bearing on this judgement.

[knast]

Would it have been better if certain philosophers ignored what they believed to be in accordance with reason and reality?

No, not really. Not as long as they do not publicly denounce and/or refute their philosophical views. Because as long as they hold their ideas to be true, and make _any_ attempt to spread them, then their false ideas will have destructive consequences. And they are morally responsible for it and should be judge. So it does not matter whether they are total hypocrites in their own personal lives, i.e., whether or not they, as the rationalists they usually are, totally compartmentalize their lives, leaving their evil, irrational philosophies at the academy and in their personal lives goes about as if their ideas mean nothing to them. That does not, morally, exonerate them.

[knast]

"Why is it we, not as Objectivists but as analyzers of ideas, are not merely critical of the ideas espoused by any given philosopher but also of the moral worth of that philosopher?"

In fundamental terms the reason you should judge ideas _and_ their creators, i.e., the philosophers, have been given by Leonard Peikoff in his essay "Fact and Value". (The alternative is a disintegration between facts and values, the moral and the practical, theory and reality, etc.)

"Let's take Bertrand Russell as an example, just because he's someone I've been increasingly interested in. He had some very bad philosophic positions, that I consider to be completely inconsistent with reality. However, as a person I find him to be very admirable."

This is a contradiction in your reasoning. You are morally compartmentalizing Russell. You make an unjustified distinction between Russell as a person and as a philosopher. Russell the person is one man, who could be admired, and Russell the philosopher is another man, who could be despised. But in reality, there is no contradiction. There is only one Russell and he should be judged as such. Which means you should judge him, among other things, on his explicit ideas.

This is, by the way, the very same moral compartmentalizing that allow some people rationalize when they say, without blushing: "How can you be categorical about Adolf Hitler? Was he not nice to his friends? His wife? The children of his friends? Was he not nice to his dogs? Sure, as a dictator I loath him. But as a person, he was a pretty nice guy! And boy, could he throw a great party! Don't get me wrong. That whole dictator thing was... not good. No doubt about it. I am just saying that I would not mind having him as my neighbor. As a person, that is..."

This is, of course, ridiculous and I say it is just as ridiculous to morally compartmentalize philosophers.

"I ask, because as Objectivists we take the moral worth of a person to be based on the application of rationality, consistently, in one's life and thoughts I don. "Is it that, if someone disagrees as to just what reason and rationality are, they are acting immorally?"

No, it depends on their reasons, their arguments, and the context. I say that philosophers in general have fewer excuses than anybody else for saying the things they say, precisely because it is their job to think thoroughly about these issues. And many think for years, even decades. And all they have to show for it is what is now known as the depraved philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

And speaking from years of studying philosophy, I find it ludicrous to say that philosophers "are always willing to accept what reality is". In fact, I could not help myself laughing when I read that, because it is so obviously not true.

In fact, from my own personal experience, of all the different groups of people I have dealt with, philosophers have probably been the LEAST interested in what "reality is", with the possible exception of devoutly religious people.