HATE

[Betsy]

Continue to hate something, not someone, to say that you hate even the most anathema historical character is to say that you pay credence to the superiority or validity of their errors and admit that you don't know why someone did such an aggregious act or can't come up for an explanation for it, whereas if you truly understood their error you would not "hate" them, but simply understand that they were mistaken and move on.

In other words, there is no such thing as evil? People are either good or mistaken?

Ayn Rand was wrong when she said that we should distinguish between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality because every bad thing some person does is always an error of knowledge and never a breach of morality?

Is that your point?

[RationalBiker]

i don't really think i beleive in hate.

I knew a guy once who said, "I don't believe in the authority of the United States over my person."

My response was, "Okay, then you can also choose not to believe in the bars of the jail cell you may sit in."

Reality is not affected by whether an individual believes in it or not. And the reality in this case is, there is an emotion identified as hate, and actions have been taken as a result of that emotion. How can you ignore that and not believe in hate?

My suggestion, without trying to be insulting, is that you don't have much value for your own life. If you were to allow someone to take dominion over your life and control your actions by use of pain or death, I can't see how the proper response would not involve an emotional reaction of hatred unless you have little to no value in your own existence.

VES

[RationalBiker]

In other words, there is no such thing as evil?  People are either good or mistaken?

Ayn Rand was wrong when she said that we should distinguish between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality because every bad thing some person does is always an error of knowledge and never a breach of morality?

Is that your point?

You beat me to it Betsy, but with a better wording.

VES

[Neurosophist]

Ayn Rand was wrong when she said that we should distinguish between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality because every bad thing some person does is always an error of knowledge and never a breach of morality?

My point is that at the basis of all "breaches of morality" there is a simple element of irrationality, while it may be useful to assign blame to the choice of an individual who "should have known better", their option to continue on the correct moral path was in some way obstructed, whether it be because they literally thought their action was moral when it was not or if they for some reason elevated themselves above morality. Fundamentally, being immoral is like being amoral, in that you have oriented yourself along the wrong value system and do not know what the right one is. Absolute knowledge would imply absolute morality, would it not?

[Betsy]

My point is that at the basis of all "breaches of morality" there is a simple element of irrationality,

Objectivists don't hold that irrationality is as "simple" nor as excusable as you seem to be claiming. In fact, Objectivists regard irrationality as a major vice.

while it may be useful to assign blame to the choice of an individual who "should have known better", their option to continue on the correct moral path was in some way obstructed,

Through no fault of their own?

whether it be because they literally thought their action was moral when it was not or if they for some reason elevated themselves above morality.  Fundamentally, being immoral is like being amoral, in that you have oriented yourself along the wrong value system and do not know what the right one is.

How about the people who don't care and don't want to know what the right value system is?

Absolute knowledge would imply absolute morality, would it not?

Knowledge does imply values. The Objectivist position is that our values should be derived from our knowledge of facts and that we can and should do so.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Neurosophist]

Ugh, my response was eaten it seems, but basically, there is no instance when some one has sufficient evidence to make an irrational choice, but rather some element of misunderstanding of reality lends itself to their incorrect and immoral choice (which in itself has rational causes). I agree that morality and value should be based on the most real evidence we have regarding reality, but if there were absolute knowledge, there would be no "breaches of morality". The person who "doesn't want to know" can sit on a rake for all I care, but they are simply laboring under the misconception that their apathy is warranted, which is the greatest breach of morality possible.

[Betsy]

Ugh, my response was eaten it seems, but basically, there is no instance when some one has sufficient evidence to make an irrational choice, but rather some element of misunderstanding of reality lends itself to their incorrect and immoral choice (which in itself has rational causes). 

Are you saying that incorrect and immoral choices are always due to "misunderstanding" reality?

I agree that morality and value should be based on the most real evidence we have regarding reality, but if there were absolute knowledge, there would be no "breaches of morality". 

Whatever do you mean by "absolute knowledge?" Omniscience? Reality as it "really" is? Or something else?

The person who "doesn't want to know" can sit on a rake for all I care, but they are simply laboring under the misconception that their apathy is warranted, which is the greatest breach of morality possible.

Is this "greatest breach of morality possible" just a "misconception" on their part?

The reason I am asking all these questions is because I trying to determine whether our disagreement is basically ethical or epistemological, and I beginning to suspect the latter.

[Neurosophist]

1) Yes, there is no situation, it seems, in which some misunderstanding does not occur, if someone were to cheat in a game, they are simply not knowledgeable of the fact that cheating is wrong, because it invalidates anything their success

2) Absolute knowledge would be either of the former, to have complete knowledge of reality as it is would mean to be omniscient

3) Yes, as with all other situations, their choice, as contrary to what the person who continues to be interested in life as it may be, stems from a misunderstanding of the value of knowledge.

[RationalBiker]

1) Yes, there is no situation, it seems, in which some misunderstanding does not occur, if someone were to cheat in a game, they are simply not knowledgeable of the fact that cheating is wrong, because it invalidates anything their success

2) Absolute knowledge would be either of the former, to have complete knowledge of reality as it is would mean to be omniscient

3) Yes, as with all other situations, their choice, as contrary to what the person who continues to be interested in life as it may be, stems from a misunderstanding of the value of knowledge.

I definitely have to disagree. People cheat because they see short term value gain and / or they don't think they will get caught, and they know it's wrong. This is evident by the actions they take when caught such as flight or fight to preserve their value of their own life.

They don't misunderstand the value of knowledge, they choose to ignore the value of knowledge.

Mistakes preclude intent. Without intent, there is no moral accountability. This does not stand to reason.

VES

[Richard_Halley]

What I mean by "repeating rhetoric", is that it serves no useful purpose to me. I can read a book, and the perceptions I apply to its meaning are mine. By simply repeating what you read, while I can appreciate a persons excellent memory, tells me nothing of their interpretation of it. What needs to be added, is why you believe it to be true, insights to you're thinking. This offers me an alternative view of the same information, and more knowledge.

You have come here and offered views which are contrary to Objectivism while giving no reason why you think those views are better than the Objectivist ones. You then expect me to offer you a blanket refution for all possible objections to my own (and Rand's) views?

Frankly I don't have the time for such a venture. Instead I provided you with the Objectivist views, and waited to hear your reasons for disagreeing, with the intent of then showing you why you were wrong.

For example, when you said that all emotion is good (and provided no objection to the Objectivist view), I presented you with the Objectivist arguement like so:

No, emotion is subconcious, so it is exempt from all moral judgment.

Now, if you fail to see how subconsciousness exempts something from moral judgment, than you should ask (1, you will see why I am counting in a moment)... if you fail to see that emotion is subconscious, you should ask (2)... if you disagree outright with one or more of my premesies (infinity, one for each possible argument against my point).

In order to present you with a proof I would have to make an infinate number of points. Then, when I was done, I would have to answer all possible objections to each of my points in answer to 1, 2, infinity.

Granted, I could have presented an entire inductive proof of Objectivism, but this would require much work (much more than I have time for), and even this could garner many objections and questions.

So, rather than guess at exactly what your disagreement was, as don has, I decided to hear your arguement first.

Also, I find your persistance in targeting me somewhat disturbing--such comments as "does anybody here have any independant thought" (quoted roughly from memory), which are now obviously targeted at me, are completly uncalled for. Furthermore, given your continued use of me as "an example," if find any sincerity in your apologies to be far-fetched at best.

You will excuse me if I am wrongly suspecious of you... You have certianly given me reason to be.

[Neurosophist]

People cheat because they see short term value gain and / or they don't think they will get caught, and they know it's wrong.  This is evident by the actions they take when caught such as flight or fight to preserve their value of their own life.

They don't misunderstand the value of knowledge, they choose to ignore the value of knowledge.

That is my point, the cheater's actions come from ignorance as to the failure of their actions, based ultimately on what they feel the true nature of the universe is, namely that its ok for them to break moral codes, for what ever reason, because they need to feed their family, because they're a narcissist, etc.

Also my point, people who "choose to ignore the value of knowledge" have inherent misconceptions that the value of knowledge is nil, or think they know what's right so much that other's interpretations don't apply to them, etc.

If you could provide an example in which someone was informed of the ultimate effects of their actions, and I mean ultimate as in down to the hurricane their butterfly wings cause halfway around the world, as well as a true moral system, also based on reality, they wouldn't act immorally.

[Betsy]

If you could provide an example in which someone was informed of the ultimate effects of their actions, and I mean ultimate as in down to the hurricane their butterfly wings cause halfway around the world, as well as a true moral system, also based on reality, they wouldn't act immorally.

Are you saying that holding people morally accountable for their actions requires omniscience on the part of the judger or the person being judged?

Do you believe people have free will or are their actions reducible to the effects of a butterfly flapping its wings halfway around the world?

[Neurosophist]

I'm saying that while people often act illogically it is based on their own misunderstanding of the true nature of reality. Holding them accountable is requisite to social functioning.

People act based on their knowledge of reality, so while they have some choice in their actions they have a definite diminished capacity simply as shown by the fact that they have committed an immoral deed.

I repeat that if one knew the effects of their actions it would be impossible for them to act in a way contrary to reality or their best interests and therefore they would be by definition moral.

[Betsy]

I'm saying that while people often act illogically it is based on their own misunderstanding of the true nature of reality.  Holding them accountable is requisite to social functioning.

People act based on their knowledge of reality, so while they have some choice in their actions they have a definite diminished capacity simply as shown by the fact that they have committed an immoral deed.

I repeat that if one knew the effects of their actions it would be impossible for them to act in a way contrary to reality or their best interests and therefore they would be by definition moral.

Is it your view that we hold people morally accountable strictly as a means of socially controlling them?

Are you saying the real reason they do bad things is ignorance which isn't their fault?

Are people ignorant because human beings are incapable of really knowing reality?

Is that your position?

[Neurosophist]

While people are capable of knowing reality people who do bad things do not have a firm grasp on it. People are fully capable of being wrong, being bad however, or evil, would connote that somehow their existence is intrinsically flawed, which I wouldn't concede.

Ignorance is the source of wrong acts, however I don't think you can merely constrain any wrong act to an individual, they, if they have a rational mind, had a reason to commit the crime.

[RationalBiker]

If you could provide an example in which someone was informed of the ultimate effects of their actions, and I mean ultimate as in down to the hurricane their butterfly wings cause halfway around the world, as well as a true moral system, also based on reality, they wouldn't act immorally.

I don't need to provide that example, because you have stated your theory but you haven't proven your theory. Your sentence above starts as though you are challenging someone to provide an example that proves what you are saying, not provide an example that challenges what you are saying.

I don't even think you can even prove that more knowledge (but less then ultimate knowledge) coincides with more likelihood to be moral.

Again, I don't think your theory of mistakes holds water.

VES

[AwakeAndFree]

Hey - what happened to my response?!

Is this system secure?

[AmbivalentEye]

woah! I didn't this I'd get this type of a response, but alright.

Betsy, I'm sorry if my grammar has bothered you and if it really does, I could fix it. I usually don't pay attention to how it is written as long as it does. i rearely get sufficient time to say all the things I want to, and I'm not the fastest typer either.

Also, I may have said that I didn't beleive the emotion existed only because I had no need for it in my way of being. I never thought that suddenly "hate would become a necessity for living". No, it sort of bothers me to hear that. I mean, I'm not some pacifist or anything like that, the word HATE just seems too extreme. Yes, I get "frustrated by many things", sometimes i may even feel rather "irrate", but just in your basic, "seething insides, I can't satand this" type of way, but it doesn't matter. Every situation I encounter, however hurtful or maddening I guess i just see it as a part of life and i have to accept it. I've worn myself out from trying to battle every situation I can't control. So therefoe I accomodate or learn to deal with whatever burdens I may have to carry. Besides, to hate someone, I sort of give them what they wished to accomplish, sometimes I feel like the whole world is feeding off of the anger they can cause in one another...or pain. I have been told that I've become cold. This is because I don't let any of it bother me. I grew up in an extremely unstable environment where I knew that i could come home to news such as "We're going to France next week", or "Your mother died", and I was forced as a form of survival to accept those things. Nothing shocks me anymore and nothing wounds me without some pert of me giving consent to such pain. I know what I live by and my convictions and also know that the actions or influences of whatever person or moment doesn't have to affect that about me. It is set, and i may be shot in the leg tomorrow by my father and still continue on with those ideals and goals. To not dispute any longer, I'll say that yes, there is such a thing as hatred. I know people out there have felt it and deal with it each day. I don't. It doesn't mean that i don't value my life. I really do. It's just that type of thing you constantly see in the Ayn Rand characters, they simply do not respond. Like the look of Howard Roark like you are either not existing in that moment, or entirely too real. I won't disregard the idea that if someone entered my house and shot my sister who I love immensely, i would probably want to kill them too, and even HATE them. But like i said, i haven't been faced with a situation like that. Anything that has affected me, in any manner, i have made myself grow to understand and live with it, because that's all you can do. I don't see point in wasting time with thoughts on hatred. It's unproductive. While hating a person i could be doing something else, like putting together a novel, making myself a nice meal, or craeting something from my imagination. I know at times I seem to erase all of humanity from my conscience, even if I am in a crowd. I've accepted that this is because of my selfish conscience that wishes to poneder other things, and other ideas.....not the existence of another person. I've fugured that if they wish to be known, then they will make themselves known, and thus I will find them. The only I have met all of you is because you chose to post here, if you don't wish to, there is nothing I can do about that and I'm not about to try to control the functions of another's reality. I see reality as perception. What i choose to accept and acknowledge as a part of my way of living. I don't require hatred to live, and am not looking forward to the day that I may accidentally find it.

[RationalBiker]

I don't see point in wasting time with thoughts on hatred. It's unproductive. While hating a person i could be doing something else, like putting together a novel, making myself a nice meal, or craeting something from my imagination.

First, let me clarify, I'm not trying to make you hate. My efforts consist of attempting to explain why I think you shouldn't just automatically dismiss it or demonize it. Hate, like any other emotion, is contextual. You appear of have this notion that just because someone is capable of hating (and recognizes it) that they obsess about it and do nothing else. Hatred, and acting upon it in the right context is natural and moral. Hating someone killing the sister you love and acting upon that hate as an example. That does not mean you have to continue to obsess about it afterwards. Likewise, taking the attitude that "stuff happens" and going to cook a meal while someone is killing your sister that you love is quite a different matter.

I have personally been involved in several situations where my life was in imminent danger of ending. This is an "extreme" circumstance. I think about losing my life that I love, my son's life and experiences of having to grow up without me, my wife's love, and a multitude of other values which can be gone at the whim of an irrational person. "Extreme" emotions and actions / reactions in "extreme" circumstances are quite normal. However, while hating the person, I can't lose sight of the fact that I must remain calm, clear and level-headed (for the most part) in order to survive some of these situations. Then there are other circumstances upon which rage is the only thing that will save you in a tooth and nails fight to the finish. You may not seek this experience, but it may find you when your not looking for it.

At any rate, I needn't go on. There are factual and historical examples of why hatred is or was a proper emotion and basis for subsequent response. You can learn from them, or you can wait to experience them. That is obviously your choice.

VES

PS: BTW, I can't help but point out the irony of you nickname in relation to this topic. Ambivalence is frequently misidentified as not caring one way or the other. In fact, it is quite the opposite:

Ambivalence: The coexistence of opposing attitudes or feelings, such as love and hate, toward a person, object, or idea.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[AmbivalentEye]

yes, I completely undertand and agree with everything you just said. I don't debate against that. That would become obnoxious and immature. I know, i have been seen as a hypocrite by many and maybe I am, but that is another issue regarding my thoughts and emotions always contradicting themselves, which doesn't make any sense according to the objectivist viewpoint, so i won't even discuss it. I'm still trying to figure myself out. Sorry if this sounds wrong or weak, but like I've said before. I'm only 14, most may say i have seen nothing and have much ahead of me. that is true, so I'm simply setting my opinions. I know they have faults, but for now, I beleive I'm still free to expiriment and refine my methods of being.

[RationalBiker]

You needn't be sorry and I'm not attacking you. I hope maybe I'm challenging you, which is another way to learn.

VES

[Neurosophist]

Sorry, I didn't mean you had to provide my example, I misspoke and meant to challenge you (plural) to give me an example of someone who had knowledge of their actions' real effects and still knowingly committed an immoral act, I don't think it's possible.

I don't even think you can even prove that more knowledge (but less then ultimate knowledge) coincides with more likelihood to be moral.

Of course merely having more knowledge about a subject does not necessarily make you a more moral person, but more knowledge does provide more opportunity for moral action because you will be behaving in a way consistent with the way that things really are.

[Betsy]

I'm only 14, most may say i have seen nothing and have much ahead of me.

Indeed you do!

If it's any consolation, 14 is a bad as it gets: no longer a child, not yet an adult, wanting everything, unable to get much, confused, frustrated. As all of us who have been where you are now and have survived can attest, it does get better from here.

Right now there is a lot you can do to prepare for a wonderful life in the years ahead. This is a good time to think about the things you most enjoy doing and to try new things that seem interesting. Somewhere out there in the world of possibilities are many things you might do that will make you happy.

You're lucky to have discovered Objectivism. It has so many good ideas to guide you toward making good decisions, coping with difficulties and achieving success.

I see the angst in your posts, it's so normal, but it's not forever. Hang in there. It all really will make sense if you keep trying to understand.

[dondigitalia]

You must be a wonderful parent, Betsy. Those are exactly the words I needed to here when I was 14.

[stephen_speicher]

You must be a wonderful parent, Betsy.

Indeed she is.

(And, not too bad of a wife. )