Roark the dynamiter

[Jonathan13]

Are you here addressing whether all laws are inherently moral?

 

No. I'm addressing Tony's view that he can whimsically turn any situation into an emergency, and therefore make any action moral. As long as one claims to objectively value and desperately need something, Tony believes that any action he takes is moral. Others no longer have the right to their property when Tony objectively values and needs it.

 

I'm just saying that, in principle, the same should apply to rape. If one can justify violating property rights, why not use the same method to justify violating personal, individual rights?

 

J

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

do you actually equate the current understanding of the idiom"having sex with.." to rape?

 

No. You've missed the point. Having sex with someone against their will is like wishing to control what someone can or cannot do with a work of art that you've sold to them. It's like initiation force against someone who is destroying property that you sold to them. It is no longer your property, and just because you value it highly doesn't give you the right to it.

 

J

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jonathan13

[whYNOT]

When one justifies inaction because of the NIOF principle ("the basic political principle

of the Objectivist ethics..AR) one is placing individual rights/politics above moral egoism.

It would be a dreary, boring - ultimately self-sacrificial - life and society, that would impose

politics as its only measure of individual standards, virtue and values.

This road leads to collectivism.

The dog you sold must continue suffering because of 'property rights'?

An artist who cannot sit by while his supreme work is trashed, must just be happy he got paid,

and do nothing?

Hell, no. Let them follow their value (if it's their greater value, I repeat) without physical violation (um, rape?) and, absolutely! - pay the penalty they receive to the full extent of objective laws - willingly.

Individual rights is never going to be the standard and purpose rational egoists live by.

Politics is not an end in itself, but a means to rational citizens' ends.

(btw - it is certainly moral to force one's way onto an island when one is drowning; it would be immoral not to do so. But I'll leave emergency ethics out of it.)

All this turns on the objective vs. the subjective. As close as they might seem at times, Jon,

I believe you are crossing the lines invalidly.

[DonAthos]

When one justifies inaction because of the NIOF principle ("the basic political principle

of the Objectivist ethics..AR) one is placing individual rights/politics above moral egoism.

It would be a dreary, boring - ultimately self-sacrificial - life and society, that would impose

politics as its only measure of individual standards, virtue and values.

This road leads to collectivism.

The dog you sold must continue suffering because of 'property rights'?

An artist who cannot sit by while his supreme work is trashed, must just be happy he got paid,

and do nothing?

Hell, no. Let them follow their value (if it's their greater value, I repeat) without physical violation (um, rape?) and, absolutely! - pay the penalty they receive to the full extent of objective laws - willingly.

Individual rights is never going to be the standard and purpose rational egoists live by.

Politics is not an end in itself, but a means to rational citizens' ends.

(btw - it is certainly moral to force one's way onto an island when one is drowning; it would be immoral not to do so. But I'll leave emergency ethics out of it.)

All this turns on the objective vs. the subjective. As close as they might seem at times, Jon,

I believe you are crossing the lines invalidly.

 

Holding to the principle of the non-initiation of force is not "placing individual rights above moral egoism"; it is the political consequence of moral egoism (and, more generally, of reason).  That is why Rand wrote at such length about how rights must never be violated, and so clearly.  She did not beat about the bush on this topic. 

 

From Galt's speech:

 

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.

 

Your proposal -- that moral egoism allows for the violation of others' rights (or even demands it) -- is reintroducing the very kind of "selfishness" that Rand sought to distance herself from, where one man's happiness requires another man's destruction.

Edited February 11, 2013 by DonAthos

[Jonathan13]

When one justifies inaction because of the NIOF principle ("the basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics..AR) one is placing individual rights/politics above moral egoism.

 

First of all, I haven't "justified inaction." I've only rejected immoral action. One is always free to take moral action.

Secondly, actual individual rights cannot be placed above moral egosim. They are moral egoism. The fact that you think there can be a conflict between rights and morality should be an indicator to you that you've made a mistake and that you need to rethink your contradiction.

 

It would be a dreary, boring - ultimately self-sacrificial - life and society, that would impose politics as its only measure of individual standards, virtue and values.

 

I haven't suggested imposing politics as a measure of standards, virtues and values. You're constructing straw men, or you're somehow failing to read and comprehend my posts. You keep stating and repeating arguments against positions that I haven't taken. My argument is ethical in nature, just as Rand's was, yet you insist on falsely labeling it political.

 

This road leads to collectivism.

 

Wrong. What leads to collectivism is the morality that you're preaching on this thread. Under your theory, it would be an immoral act of self-sacrifice to not support socialism/collectivism. Under your theory, someone's immediate need of food and medicine for their children is a valid claim on everyone else's lives and property.

 

The dog you sold must continue suffering because of 'property rights'?

 

You appear to be advocating animal rights. Do you understand that Objectivism vehemently disagrees with you on the subject? Objectivism views the ownership of animals as the ownership of property.

 

An artist who cannot sit by while his supreme work is trashed, must just be happy he got paid, and do nothing?

 

Who said that he must be happy and do nothing? He can be as angry as he wants, and he can take any number of actions against the person who bought and then trashed his art, but they must be moral actions, i.e., he doesn't have the right violate their rights like you're advocating.

 

Hell, no. Let them follow their value (if it's their greater value, I repeat) without physical violation (um, rape?) and, absolutely! - pay the penalty they receive to the full extent of objective laws - willingly.

 

Taking actions against someone's property is a physical violation!

 

Individual rights is never going to be the standard and purpose rational egoists live by. Politics is not an end in itself, but a means to rational citizens' ends.

 

Your position amounts to saying that morality is great except when it's inconvenient, or when you're really mad about something. And then it's okay for you to violate others' rights.

 

(btw - it is certainly moral to force one's way onto an island when one is drowning; it would be immoral not to do so. But I'll leave emergency ethics out of it.)

 

But you haven't left emergency ethics out of it. Your entire argument is an appeal to emergency ethics. You're arbitrarily treating certain things as emergencies even though they're not. Apparently, when you want to do something that violates others' rights, it automatically qualifies as an emergency.

 

All this turns on the objective vs. the subjective. As close as they might seem at times, Jon, I believe you are crossing the lines invalidly.

 

You're the one who has crossed the line. You are advocating a morality based on need and emergency. Your position is that your need of others' land, food or medicine gives you the right to it.

J

[whYNOT]

When a man's values are being violated it is an attack on his mind.

This is force.

If no other recourse is open to him, he should defend against that force, or surrender to

impotency.

"Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper

to man - in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in

in itself, which is his own life." [VOS]

This is Rand's primary.

Individual rights are a blanket protection of all rational society, but have no influence

in the examples I used earlier - nor should they.

As someone, in another context, said recently: the police are minutes away, when you only

have seconds. Act for yourself and take the consequences.

[Jonathan13]

When a man's values are being violated it is an attack on his mind. This is force.

 

I value the money that my neighbor owns. Does that mean that if he destroys it he is violating my values and therefore using force against me? You've apparently become very confused on this subject.

 

If no other recourse is open to him, he should defend against that force, or surrender to impotency.

There is no force in someone's doing whatever he wants with his own property, or in his not allowing you to use his property. And you do have options other than violating others' rights. One option would be to not sell to others that which you claim is your highest value (if it's your highest value, why did you trade it for the lesser value of the money that he paid you?). See, that's what selling/trading means -- when you sell or trade something, it is no longer yours! You no longer have control over what happens to it. Your wanting your caking and eating it too is not a good basis for rights, because everyone else is also going to claim the right to have their cake and eat it too. When you complain that someone is misusing an artwork that you sold to them, someone else can complain that you're misusing the money that they traded to you. They can claim that wealth is their highest value and that you're abusing their highest value by wasting it on things that they think are frivolous. Using your method above, you're using force and attacking their minds by violating their highest value.

 

Act for yourself and take the consequences.

In other words, as I said earlier, you're advocating the idea that people are acting morally when they rape others if they're willing to do the prison sentence.

J

[whYNOT]

Jonathan:

Misinterpretation. "Animal rights and Objectivism"?
What! I'm talking about an individual's values, not animal rights....
Then you make no attempt to distinguish between emergency ethics and objective values, as I already had in my previous post. It never was a major point in my argument, only an illustration.


Error. "Secondly, actual individual rights cannot be placed above moral egoism. They are
moral egoism."
Wrong, not in Objectivism, they aren't - rights are derived from moral egoism.

Sophistry. If one, then all instances: "...claim on land, food and medicine...is a valid claim on.. etc.etc.
Still on emergencies: and yes, it is moral to break into a pharmacy to save life.
OK, you won't break into a pharmacy. Fine.

Correct. "Taking actions against someone's property IS a physical violation!" You are right.

General bad faith argumentation. "You are advocating a morality based on need and emergency..."

Nope. If you'd read me honestly, starting from Howard Roark, I am advocating Rand's ethics in defence of one's highest -objective- values. I had a simple point to make from the start, and you have created a 'cause celebre' from it.

(The simple point: To think and act for oneself - contextually and hierarchically.)

I have no desire to pursue this with you further.

I'm happy to debate this generally.


 

Edited February 12, 2013 by softwareNerd
Enabled HTML

[intellectualammo]

Jonathan: To your first paragraph - definitely!

You don't think that that would be morally wrong to do?

[DonAthos]

When a man's values are being violated it is an attack on his mind.

This is force.

 

What?  I must be misunderstanding this.

Let's say that I sell you a painting. No particular conditions on the sale, just a normal transaction, like buying a stick of gum at the market. But I value the painting very highly, you know? It means a lot to me.  And I deeply hope that you will treat it well, and hang it in a place of pride (as opposed to say your bathroom).

And then... let's say that you decide to destroy the painting. It is for that reason that you purchased it in the first place. You despise what I value, and you want to watch it burn, insofar as you're able.

Are you claiming that you are initiating the use of physical force against me? And, therefore, I am morally justified in now responding with force against you?

[whYNOT]

Damn, the system mangled my post.<br /><br />J.<br />It may appear to a fair reader that I've been speaking of metaphysical values and moral virtues.<br />Somehow, individual rights do not protect one here, not that they should.<br /><br />"Cake and eat it"? I.E. When something is sold by one, you lose control of it. Yes.<br />Who's arguing that a buyer does not have property rights?<br /><br />I'd appreciate you staying with my two examples which were entities which continue to have value<br />to certain types of seller:<br />Dog seller and sculptor. Abused by a new owner, do you really think the breeder would<br />stop caring for the dog's welfare? One with no integrity, maybe. The idealistic artist, no different.<br />The good-will for both in making the trades, would certainly be the assumption of good treatment<br />of animal or artwork. For them to 'do a Roark' (or not) would be according to their metaphysical values. Not profit - evidently.<br /><br />You presented sophistry going as O'ist principles.<br />

Edited February 12, 2013 by softwareNerd
Enabled HTML

[whYNOT]

What?  I must be misunderstanding this.

Is the only force, physical? Is the only value, physical?

Do you understand the metaphysical value creators perceive in their work?

Or the rational egoism that it takes to truly value and create?

Do you understand why Rand would have Roark act the way he did?

I've no idea if you misunderstand me.

[DonAthos]

I've no idea if you misunderstand me.

 

Nor do I. I was trying to clear that up, by posing an example and some questions... but for some reason you decided not to answer my questions, despite my efforts to make them clear and direct.  And further, you respond with a series of your own questions, I suppose expecting me to do for you what you were unwilling to do for me. It strikes me as disrespectful.

I've been seeing people do this a lot lately, and I find it very frustrating.  Dodging argument.  Dodging questions.  Non-responsive answers and responding to questions with questions.

 

If you understand the position you're advocating, and can express it clearly, then why not do so?

 

So let's try this again, and this time I will leave off the rhetorical snippet that you used to frame your entire reply:

 

Let's say that I sell you a painting. No particular conditions on the sale, just a normal transaction, like buying a stick of gum at the market. But I value the painting very highly, you know? It means a lot to me.  And I deeply hope that you will treat it well, and hang it in a place of pride (as opposed to say your bathroom).

And then... let's say that you decide to destroy the painting. It is for that reason that you purchased it in the first place. You despise what I value, and you want to watch it burn, insofar as you're able.

Are you claiming that you are initiating the use of physical force against me? And, therefore, I am morally justified in now responding with force against you?

Edited February 12, 2013 by DonAthos

[whYNOT]

DonAthos, on 12 Feb 2013 - 02:40, said:

Nor do I. I was trying to clear that up, by posing an example and some questions... but for some reason you decided not to answer my questions, despite my efforts to make them clear and direct. And further, you respond with a series of your own questions, I suppose expecting me to do for you what you were unwilling to do for me. It strikes me as disrespectful.

I've been seeing people do this a lot lately, and I find it very frustrating. Dodging argument. Dodging questions. Non-responsive answers and responding to questions with questions.

If you understand the position you're advocating, and can express it clearly, then why not do so?

So let's try this again, and this time I will leave off the rhetorical snippet that you used to frame your entire reply:

DonAthos, on 12 Feb 2013 - 02:40, said:

Nor do I. I was trying to clear that up, by posing an example and some questions... but for some reason you decided not to answer my questions, despite my efforts to make them clear and direct. And further, you respond with a series of your own questions, I suppose expecting me to do for you what you were unwilling to do for me. It strikes me as disrespectful.

I've been seeing people do this a lot lately, and I find it very frustrating. Dodging argument. Dodging questions. Non-responsive answers and responding to questions with questions.

If you understand the position you're advocating, and can express it clearly, then why not do so?

So let's try this again, and this time I will leave off the rhetorical snippet that you used to frame your entire reply:

DonAthos, on 12 Feb 2013 - 02:40, said:

Nor do I. I was trying to clear that up, by posing an example and some questions... but for some reason you decided not to answer my questions, despite my efforts to make them clear and direct. And further, you respond with a series of your own questions, I suppose expecting me to do for you what you were unwilling to do for me. It strikes me as disrespectful.

I've been seeing people do this a lot lately, and I find it very frustrating. Dodging argument. Dodging questions. Non-responsive answers and responding to questions with questions.

If you understand the position you're advocating, and can express it clearly, then why not do so?

So let's try this again, and this time I will leave off the rhetorical snippet that you used to frame your entire reply:

DonAthos,

Your frustration is valid, and shared at times. The questions were a preliminary, not a tactic.

I've put myself out on a limb with this one, but don't intend defending it to the ridiculous.

Simply, my position is that individual rights don't make a society rationally moral - a (mostly)

moral society implements individual rights.

As you know, it all starts and ends with the individual. I think there's over-emphasis sometimes

on individual rights as the Holy Grail.

Has anyone reading all this caught a glimpse of what an entire citizenry of rational egoists

would be like? That's the crucial point of all this for me.

"Value", in all its forms, as well as virtue, would be recognized in others' life, activity and property, as in one's own.

This would be a 'given'. These would be a free, expressive and honest people, with nothing to fear.

Governments would be reduced to bare minimum as reliance on them reduces to the essentials.

My feeling is, the very people who most deserve individual rights, don't have much need of them.

To look around one now is to see people clamoring for more 'rights'. I want. I need.

Wherever I have been - or heard of - has been slight variations on the the same theme, of

surrender of self to the collective via the State. This is the destroyer of the human spirit: 'rights' are force, that must be made for my gain at the expense of - who? - uh, somebody. Until some other

"group" takes them away for their gain. All one sees are sullen and resentful faces of people who

lost something precious but who cannot begin to know what that was.

Howard Roark stands (and will always) against that tide of human misery.

Because he doesn't recognize others' needs for him. He finds value in himself, and through

his creation, and in certain other individuals.

This is the spirit of one who will not be deterred in his quest to make his metaphysical value,

concrete. (Literally.) To take it to the nth degree as Rand dramatically demonstrated, is metaphor,

obviously. Could a man go to that extreme to protect his highest values? Hardly.

But are such values always to be subsumed by individual rights? When is it moral to break the law?

I'm not sure. (Outside of emergencies). I do know though, that individual rights are not a moral code; they aren't a guide to virtue and value - they are a social code, towards a rational egoist's freedom from intervention or constraint.

Not a confinement for him.

Forgive my long-winded reply: not dodging you, hey.

(SNerd: thanks for the clean-up.)

[Jonathan13]

"Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force." - AR

 

J

[Jonathan13]

Forgive my long-winded reply: not dodging you, hey.

(SNerd: thanks for the clean-up.)

I think Tyler was looking for clarity through simple yes or no answers. I'd be interested in your answers to his questions. Answering them might lead to an actual conversation in which both sides are discussing the same thing.

J

[DonAthos]

Your frustration is valid, and shared at times.

 

I'm sure that's true.

 

I've put myself out on a limb with this one, but don't intend defending it to the ridiculous.

 

If that means what I think it means -- that, no, you do not consider the example I'd provided to be an initiation of the use of physical force, and no, you do not think that I would be justified in responding with physical force -- then I'll not press you to address that scenario again. Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting.

But I will again note that you have not responded directly, and have left me to infer your position.

On the subject of "putting yourself out on a limb," look... I certainly don't agree with Ayn Rand on every matter. And I think it's fine if you don't either. But it's in our interest, in all sorts of ways, I believe, to be as clear as possible, with ourselves and with others, on where we agree and where we do not. Or perhaps you don't yet consider yourself to disagree with her in any way? But again, that's why clarity is so important. Let's find out whether you do or do not, and hopefully also the reasons why!

 

Simply, my position is that individual rights don't make a society rationally moral

 

Agreed.

But this is not the same thing as saying that individual rights have no connection with a rational morality, or that a rationally moral person is somehow not beholden to individual rights (which is what I believe I've heard you say here), and can violate them morally.

 

- a (mostly) moral society implements individual rights.

 

Yes, agreed.

Though I might observe here that I would view "implement" in your usage as meaning: "the recognition of," or "the protection of," and not, as some might mean, "the granting of."

 

As you know, it all starts and ends with the individual. I think there's over-emphasis sometimes on individual rights as the Holy Grail.

 

They aren't the Holy Grail where ethics are concerned -- and if that's your point, you're absolutely right. Individual rights aren't a guide to moral action.

But they are the Holy Grail politically, and they are a limitation on moral action.

Don't make me quote that Galt again, but I will if I have to!

 

Has anyone reading all this caught a glimpse of what an entire citizenry of rational egoists would be like?

 

I think that's what Galt's Gulch is meant to provide? Though otherwise, I guess we must imagine such a thing.

 

To look around one now is to see people clamoring for more 'rights'. I want. I need.

 

Yes, this is a problem. People invent "rights" out of thin air.

And one of the ways to address this problem is to be very clear on the nature of rights: what actually constitutes a right, and what does not. Ayn Rand believed that the line of demarcation was physical force, and that you uphold every actual right by forbidding the initiation of physical force; correspondingly, to initiate physical force is necessarily a violation of a person's rights.

 

Howard Roark stands (and will always) against that tide of human misery.

 

I like Roark and The Fountainhead, though it's been a long time since reading it. I haven't touched on the matter of the novel under debate -- and I don't know that I plan on it -- but if people wish to discuss such things, then in my opinion, they must be willing to consider the facts and the arguments, as presented. Same as with any other matter.

 

When is it moral to break the law?

I'm not sure. (Outside of emergencies).

 

I would argue that it is moral to break the law when the law itself is immoral; i.e. when it operates contrary to individual rights, and initiates the use of force.

 

I do know though, that individual rights are not a moral code; they aren't a guide to virtue and value - they are a social code, towards a rational egoist's freedom from intervention or constraint.

Not a confinement for him.

 

I disagree in this sense: individual rights -- which are a necessary and inescapable social corollary of the moral code presented by Ayn Rand (which is to say, they form the Politics that goes hand-in-hand with Objectivist Ethics) -- do absolutely confine the rational egoist to only those actions which do not violate another human being's rights.  In initiating the use of physical force, the rational egoist is inviting others to constrain him and intervene against him physically, in retaliation.

But then, it might be worth asking: how do we recognize the "rational egoist" in the first place? It is not simply a label a man wears, and thereafter every action is recognized to be "the work of a rational egoist." We know a man by his actions. And if a person goes around violating others' rights, initiating the use of force, then I do not believe we would be discussing a "rational egoist" at all.

 

Forgive my long-winded reply: not dodging you, hey.

 

In this spirit, let me return to the questions you asked of me.

 

Is the only force, physical? Is the only value, physical?

 

Physical force is the only force that matters when it comes to the matter of individual rights.

We could speak of "persuasion," for instance, as being "another kind of force." But Rand drew clear and important distinctions as to why the initiation of physical force is immoral, and it has to do with the nature of physical force itself. Please see the quote I'd provided.

And if we're discussing some "non-physical force," then certainly a man could fight his enemies with those weapons, and initiate the conflict, with no issue politically. That alone would not guarantee moral action. But at least it would not necessarily be immoral.

For instance, this board is organized around the "non-physical force of persuasion." It is still immoral to evade and be a Nazi and come here and argue for antisemitism. But insofar as the owners of this board allow such a thing, politically a man has the right to do it... and it would be immoral for the government to step in and shut him down.

As a (probably inadvisable) shorthand, I'd say that we morally may fight words with words, and fire with fire, but not words with fire. (Though again, this simple observation doesn't guarantee moral action at all; one must yet be fighting on the right side, for the right reasons.)

 

Do you understand the metaphysical value creators perceive in their work?

Or the rational egoism that it takes to truly value and create?

 

I would hope that I do? I mean, I do "create" things in my own fashion. But the tenor of your questioning seems like maybe you're suggesting that I cannot possibly understand these things, if I don't agree with you that a "creator" has the right to destroy other peoples' property, if it should fall afoul of their values... So I don't know how to answer you properly.

 

Do you understand why Rand would have Roark act the way he did?

 

To answer this fully would require a lot more investigation and discussion, as I believe that it really forms the matter for this entire thread. I will say that I'm not altogether convinced that Roark's actions in The Fountainhead are fully consistent with the philosophy that Rand ultimately developed or set forth in her non-fiction especially. Whether that constitutes some great criticism of either Rand or The Fountainhead or Objectivism...? I am equally unconvinced.

Edited February 12, 2013 by DonAthos

[Jonathan13]

Do you understand the metaphysical value creators perceive in their work?

 

As a creator, yes, I understand.

 

Or the rational egoism that it takes to truly value and create?

 

 

More so than you can possibly imagine. In fact, my rational egoism is such that I would take pride in finding -- creating -- a morally proper response to someone who messed with my artwork. I would make them pay for destroying something I had created and valued highly, but without initiating force. I would set for myself the goal of making them wish that I had initiated force instead of what I had done to them.

 

Do you understand why Rand would have Roark act the way he did?

 

Yes, I understand why Rand had Roark act the way he did. She did it for its aesthetic effect, and to portray aesthetic integrity. It is not a guide to moral action.

 

J

[intellectualammo]

The aesthetics in his action would be...? I can't find ANY. All I see is that what he did was a crime, him a criminal, and what he did was immoral.

Edited February 13, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Jonathan13]

The aesthetics in his action would be...? I can't find ANY.

 

The aesthetics of his action is his artistic independence and rebelliousness.

 

All I see is that what he did was a crime, him a criminal, and what he did was immoral.

I don't think you're unreasonable for having that view. My view differs. I place more importance on Roark's artistic integrity than on his ethical lapses. That's the nature of art. We each bring different values and contexts to our judgments of it. We each place different importance on different elements within the art.

J

[softwareNerd]

It's called poetic license.

There are all sorts of forms of poetic licence, from a poet using a word that does not quite rhyme in a poem where everything else does, or a screen-writer putting script in Lincoln's mouth, etc. Is there a particular sub-type of poetic licence being used here? I think of it as the "audience as God" type. I'm interested in your ideas on this.

Aside: Today I learnt that "Poetic Licence" is a shoe-brand (or something related to shoes). Googling tells me it is all about shoes!

[whYNOT]

Yes, I understand why Rand had Roark act the way he did. She did it for its aesthetic effect, and to portray aesthetic integrity. It is not a guide to moral action.

 

J

Hereby splitting the 'aesthetic' from the 'moral', and demolishing the essence

of Romanticist Art.

"What Romantic art offers him is NOT moral rules, not an explicit didactic message,

but the image of a moral PERSON - i.e. the concretized abstraction of a moral ideal."

[and]

"Please note that art is not his only source of morality, but of a moral sense of life."

[Art and Moral Treason; TRM]

(Not "a guide to moral action" - uh, naturally!

A concrete abstraction of a moral ideal, of a moral sense of life.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by whYNOT

[Jonathan13]

Hereby splitting the 'aesthetic' from the 'moral', and demolishing the essence

of Romanticist Art.

 

That's totally false. Rand split the aesthetic from the moral, and she very successfully created great Romanticist art while doing so.

 

As I said here:

Howard Roark's actions were not moral, just, rational, fair, etc., according to the convictions that Rand held at the time, just as the heroic criminals in The Night of January 16th and her unpublished novel The Little Street did not behave morally according to Rand's beliefs at the time.

As Rand wrote (Journals of Ayn Rand, 22):

"I do not think, nor did I think when I wrote this play, that a swindler is a heroic character or that a respectable banker is a villain. But for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict of independence versus conformity, a criminal – a social outcast – can be an eloquent symbol. This, incidentally, is the reason of the profound appeal of the "noble crook" in fiction. He is the symbol of the rebel as such, regardless of the kind of society he rebels against, the symbol – for most people – of their vague, undefined, unrealized groping toward a concept, or a shadowy image, of man's self-esteem.

"That a career of crime is not, if fact, the way to implement one's self-esteem, is irrelevant in sense-of-life terms. A sense of life is concerned mainly with consciousness, not with existence – or rather: with the way a man's consciousness faces existence. It is concerned with a basic frame of mind, not with rules of conduct."

 

In other words, as an artist, Rand was focused on portraying an ideal "sense of life," and not necessarily on the ethical particulars presented in her art. Her goal was not to present morally perfect characters, or for them to become the basis of anyone's ethics.

 

So, as I said earlier, your apparent attempt to derive a proper ethics from Rand's fictional characters is mistaken and misguided.

 

J

[DonAthos]

Howard Roark's actions were not moral, just, rational, fair, etc., according to the convictions that Rand held at the time, just as the heroic criminals in The Night of January 16th and her unpublished novel The Little Street did not behave morally according to Rand's beliefs at the time.

 

This may be way off-base on my part -- I'm no Ayn Rand scholar -- but is it also at least possible that Rand's views may have changed or shifted or further developed after writing The Fountainhead? Do we know whether she arrived clearly at a "non-initiation of force principle" by that point in time?

I've heard it said that Rand went through something like a Nietzschean (sp?) phase during her youth... and the idea that maybe certain "moral rules" don't quite apply to a heroic creator like a Roark (which maybe are echoed in some of whYNOT's posts here, too) strikes me as being sympathetic to my ignorant layman's conception of Nietzsche.

[whYNOT]

Hereby splitting the 'aesthetic' from the 'moral', and demolishing the essence

of Romanticist Art.

"What Romantic art offers him is NOT moral rules, not an explicit didactic message,

but the image of a moral PERSON - i.e. the concretized abstraction of a moral ideal."

[and]

"Please note that art is not his only source of morality, but of a moral sense of life."

[Art and Moral Treason; TRM]

(Not "a guide to moral action" - uh, naturally!

A concrete abstraction of a moral ideal, of a moral sense of life.)

Hereby splitting the 'aesthetic' from the 'moral', and demolishing the essence

of Romanticist Art.

"What Romantic art offers him is NOT moral rules, not an explicit didactic message,

but the image of a moral PERSON - i.e. the concretized abstraction of a moral ideal."

[and]

"Please note that art is not his only source of morality, but of a moral sense of life."

[Art and Moral Treason; TRM]

J. "Rand split the aesthetic from the moral..." Where do you get this? Are you claiming Rand

contradicted herself? Is it that you don't approve of morality within aesthetics? Or is it

that you do not agree with the morality, rational egoism, itself?

I believe you could read those quotes again.

"Her goal was not to present morally perfect characters..." [J.]

"...but the image of a moral PERSON." [AR]

Second, an out of context quote - about a criminal! - from her Journals, on 'Jan16', means little, here.

Do you think she changed her mind about Roark "as the image of a moral person" in later life?

Apparently you do.("According to the convictions she held at the time." [J.])

Show me that, in her words, then.

Third, it's disingenuous to claim I am deriving a morality from TF.

(I read it last at least 20 years ago, if that says anything one way or other.)

I was the one who opposed literalism ("a text-book") repeatedly, earlier - you recall?

I made the statement that AR meant readers to take the morality literally, NOT Roark's acts.

I've used my own examples, my own reasons - and just once mentioned Rand's intent, with Roark's

actions. That I might be wrong, on morals over rights, is hardly relevant, here.

My morality is derived elsewhere, and only supported to some extent by Rand's characters'

moral sense of life.

And you?