Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jimmy Carter's malaise

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This misused virtue of his . . .

That is precisely the point--he misused honesty. Just like a person who misuses a gun to initiate force. That is in no way admirable.

I am incapable of admiring a man who is honest, if he (mis)uses that honesty to inflict a tyranny upon me. I could no more admire Jimmy Carter's honesty than I could admire the honesty of a murderer who tells me, just as he's about to pull the trigger: "In all honesty, I'm about to kill you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would one describe the character of Andrei Taganov (of "We The Living")? Is "virtuous" an appropriate description?

How is Andrei different from Toohey (of "Fountainhead" ) or Lillian Rearden (of "Atlas Shrugged")? What makes Andrei a "better human being" than the other two?

If I had to vote for one of them, would I prefer the compromising Left-winger or the committed one?

"Belief system" rankles.

Like Gail Wynand, Andrei does seem to be a virtuous character. He's honestly mistaken in philosophy but not vicious or hateful or hypocritical. The heroes Howard and Kira thought this -- and so did Ayn Rand.

Andrei is superior to Toohey and Lillian due to his self-consistency, idealism, and principle. This is always the right path (the Tao). It isn't really possible to be consistently wrong or evil. Not long term. Eventually you realize your error because it slaps you in the face. Self-consistency and principle eventually KILL error. The real enemy is contradicting yourself, not being true/loyal to your beliefs, and not being true to yourself.

As for compromising vs. committed leftist...tough choice. :confused:

Why does "belief system" rankle, Software?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ariana-- There is no such thing as "a noble dedication to false priciples" nor is there anything moral or good about it nor does it speak good of Carter's character.

So how would you describe yourself prior to conversion to Objectivism? How would you describe an innocent 10-year-old child who has been brainwashed her whole life to believe in God, self-sacrifice, and a mixed economy? Is everyone who makes an error evil? You make no distinction between what Ayn called "errors of knowledge and breaches of morality." You seem to obliterate the whole concept of character and integrity -- you reduce it to just true beliefs vs. false beliefs.

Carter is an extremely evil man with no virtue to speak of. You should notice by now that your "argument" can fallow with almost no changes to men such as Lenin and Stalin.

The whole world disagrees with you about Carter -- even his worst enemies. Lenin was a mindless obsessed fanatic and Stalin an unthinking crude thug. They have nothing in common with Carter, character-wise.

By the way, I notice everyone is staying away from my Elie Wiesel example. Good choice. He proves you can be a truly good man with a poorly thought-out philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even before I "converted" to Objectivism I was essentially an Objectivist with contradictions. Where I was rational I was virtuous, where I had contradictions was where I had moral flaws which others should have rightly condemned if they noticed them.

And why should I care "what the rest of the world" thinks about Carter? Those people have poor philosophies and are wrong.

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ariana--

The statement "The whole world disagrees with you about Carter -- even his worst enemies" means nothing in terms of truth and objective reality. A proper answer to Rational_One's claim about Mr. Carter being evil involves pointing to the facts of reality--which I suspect don't exist--that support your counter-position.

Now, I've noticed that the idea that a man can be "honest yet stupid" has been accepted as viable by some in this thread, that even though Mr. Carter's principles were corrupt at best, he should still be given credit for acting on them, i.e. for being "honest."

This is a mockery of honesty and of virtue as such.

"The mark of an honest man... is that he means what he says and knows what he means." [Ayn Rand Lexicon] [emphasis mine]

"Knowing" something is not the same as "believing" something. If knowledge is arrived at by non-contradictory identification, how in God's name can one call Mr. Carter's views on morality "knowledge?" That one of his guiding principles is "all uses of force are evil" means his mind's content on the matter can be called anything but knowledge, and hence his character anything but honest. If the concept of "noble" has any connection with virtue and rationality, the idea that one can have "A noble dedication to false principles" is a gross contradiction.

Furthermore, remember that all virtues are derivatives of the primary virtue-- rationality--and so any other "candidate" virtue must be consistent with it. How the hell can anyone get away with calling Mr. Carter rational?

This man was not and could not be rational, and hence he was not and could not be honest; please do not bestow him with virtues he most surely did not and could not possess. Mr. Carter, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, is the worst president I can think of--and that's saying a lot (we've had some pretty bad ones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...