Would Roark Invite Tooheyites?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

In my opinion, a person would have to be a complete idiot to say that an idea, as a conscious Platonic Form-Space being, is morally responsible for its decisions.*

Someone sent me a private note saying that the above could be interpreted as me calling my opponents complete idiots.

I did not say that.

I'm reminded that Ayn Rand once said that one can make something fool proof, but one could not make it damned fool proof.

I don't think Plato ever considered any of the Forms to be conscious, except by implication, as in the Form Knowledge or the Form Consciousness.

It took the Dark Ages to come up with the idea of angels -- a kind of mixture of the Pagan view that the Pagan gods had messengers but with a Platonic twist. I don't think anybody here, including my opponents hold that view about ideas being conscious in and of themselves. But if they do, well they have my views on that.

[blackdiamond]

[Mr. Moivas, I thought you'd have finished the debate by now ]

Sophia, I only have one question for you: If a young person comes up with a good idea, would you say to him, "that's a good idea, John!"?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

When evaluating one's own ideas one has all the information/insight about one's own mental process.

True, but one can also have evidence of someone else's mental process if one has enough information. This information is contained in the presentation of an idea. One can usually tell if someone just doesn't get it, is being rationalistic, or being irrational, or being evasive. The manner in which a mind operates is evident in the ideas that it presents to the world and the way these are presented.

This discussion however has been about moral judgment of another's ideas and a proper method of doing so.

There is a whole other level of this debate, and that is whether or not one can morally praise or morally condemn an idea; and not just say that it is true or false.

Let me put it this way: A person can think through the facts and formulate the concept of communism in a completely rational manner; this is virtuous. But the idea of following communism as an ideal is an evil idea; because it is against rationality, individualism, and man's life on earth qua philosophy.

If someone were to tell you: "Sophia, you ought to throw away everything you have earned, since you have earned it; because that is virtuous." Your proper reaction, if you hold man's life as the standard, should be: "That's an evil idea!"

If I now told you, "Sophia, don't use your mind to resolve this issue; just go by your emotions, because they are superior to reason." Your proper reaction should be: "That's an evil idea!"

This would be the proper reaction to someone saying that you ought to operate according to principles that are counter to man's life on earth.

Some ideas have to be judged according to what it would do to a rational man, if he were to follow it. If the idea commands him to be anti-virtuous (irrational), and he follows it, then he would not be virtuous; which is why he condemns the idea as being evil.

[~Sophia~]

In judging an action morally we must not only look at its consequences but also its motives. The consequences of killing another human deliberately or by accident are the same but the moral status of those two actors is not the same. There is also no question/confusion about the fact that if we assign moral status to man's actions - it is a moral judgment of HIM.

We can (and often do) evaluate actions in the abstract but when faced with a concrete - when evaluating actions of a particular man - we can not be evaluating his actions in the abstract (only based on its effects - with a man's life as the standard) as removed from his context, separate from his motives. It is clear that it would have been unjust to do so.

Same thing with evaluating particular man's ideas morally. The method is the same. Consequences of two (the same) ideas, when implemented, in relation to man's life would be the same but the moral status of two different people holding those ideas will depend on the evaluation of their particular mental process and thus may not and often won't be the same.

And, similarly to the case of actions, even though we can evaluate ideas in the abstract, when evaluating particular man's ideas morally - one can not treat his ideas in the abstract (only based on its effects) as removed from their context of how they came to believe what they do. It is unjust to do so.

Those are the correct PRINCIPLES of moral judgment.

If one is to be just one must obey those principles when dealing with others. If you do - you won't find yourself in a situation of being faced with morally condemning a two year old child for making a mistake while learning addition. And if ever in your intelectual journey, while applying your ideas (which often are results of manipulation/integration of complex abstract concepts) in practice - you find yourself at similarly bad conclusion - that is a clear sign that you ought to check your premises. This is the way we eliminate rationalism.

Edited May 17, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

I think "how to properly evaluate someone's mental process, the cause" when evaluating people's ideas would be a worthy topic of further discussion. I will give it some thought before posting. I also welcome your input.

Edited May 17, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[blackdiamond]

Sophia, did you see my question to you above? I believe it's important (and I came back just to ask it) because it will settle the difference in understanding between the two sides here.

If your answer is yes, as I expect, then my next question would be if you would similarly tell the young person that his idea is bad if it was bad. If your answer would then be 'no', as I expect, then you would have to explain why you would make a positive moral evaluation of the idea (and that reflects on him?) but NOT a negative moral evaluation of the same young person's ideas. That's why I asked the question.

Thank you.

[edit: I couldn't tell whether your last post was your response to my question or it was just a different statement.]

Edited May 17, 2007 by blackdiamond

[~Sophia~]

True, but one can also have evidence of someone else's mental process if one has enough information. This information is contained in the presentation of an idea. One can usually tell if someone just doesn't get it, is being rationalistic, or being irrational, or being evasive. The manner in which a mind operates is evident in the ideas that it presents to the world and the way these are presented.

It is often not enough to simply look at the presentation of an idea. A person maybe making logical errors and not notice or they may have not have considered all of the components.

I think where your problem lies (and why you have run into problems with people) is in your poor ability to fairly judge the cause as you seem not to be able to tell the difference (or consider it irrelevant) between a two year old child and a math professor.

Sophia:

There is a whole other level of this debate, and that is whether or not one can morally praise or morally condemn an idea; and not just say that it is true or false.

Of course you can but you have to do it fairly.

If someone were to tell you: "Sophia, you ought to throw away everything you have earned, since you have earned it; because that is virtuous." Your proper reaction, if you hold man's life as the standard, should be: "That's an evil idea!"

If I now told you, "Sophia, don't use your mind to resolve this issue; just go by your emotions, because they are superior to reason." Your proper reaction should be: "That's an evil idea!"

Yes, when comming from an adult, sane person, in those cases, it would have been a proper response.

BUT I have NEVER encountered anyone who would say such things in that way. What you fail to understand is that often people don't have such a clear, through and through, understanding of complex ideas. They may say X and you and I know that it means/implies Y but they may have not made this connection themselves. Most people are not Tooheyites either.

And when this happens and you proceed to attack the efficacy of their mind, insult them, condemn them evil, often, little or no progress can be made in persuading them to your, perhaps correct, point of view. You may want to continue the discussion but they don't - not because they are evading your evidence but because they don't want to have anything more to do with you.

Some ideas have to be judged according to what it would do to a rational man, if he were to follow it.

I am assuming you mean morally judged. This is false. Abstract ideas can be but particular man's ideas must be judged, as explained by both cause and effect - even in this example. What makes your examples different from MOST CASES (highly unusual) is that both the cause and the effect are clearly visible - there are no assumptions to be made.

In majority of cases in our interactions with people - they won't be this clear and like I said intelectually you can reasonably expect a lot more understanding of complex issues from a philosopher than you can from a layman. There is no "one size fits all" - people must be judged on individual bases. As I mentioned the answer to "are all (ideology)ists necessarily evil" is NO (and if you would judge them based on effects alone - the answer would have been yes - clearly collectivism).

I am taking your ideas to their respective conclusions.

Edited May 17, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, did you see my question to you above? I believe it's important (and I came back just to ask it) because it will settle the difference in understanding between the two sides here.

If your answer is yes, as I expect, then my next question would be if you would similarly tell the young person that his idea is bad if it was bad. If your answer would then be 'no', as I expect, then you would have to explain why you would make a positive moral evaluation of the idea (and that reflects on him?) but NOT a negative moral evaluation of the same young person's ideas. That's why I asked the question.

Thank you.

[edit: I couldn't tell whether your last post was your response to my question or it was just a different statement.]

I have not forgotten. I just don't always have time to respond to all questions at once. I will respond today.

[~Sophia~]

If someone were to tell you: "Sophia, you ought to throw away everything you have earned, since you have earned it; because that is virtuous." Your proper reaction, if you hold man's life as the standard, should be: "That's an evil idea!"

If I now told you, "Sophia, don't use your mind to resolve this issue; just go by your emotions, because they are superior to reason." Your proper reaction should be: "That's an evil idea!"

I am reconsidering my previous response.

Who is this "someone" here? The answer to this question would guide me toward either doing what I said in my previous post or answering:

"Self-sacrifice is not a virtue and this is why....."

"Emotions are not superior to reason and this is why...."

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, if a young person comes up with a good idea, would you say to him, "that's a good idea, John!"?

I do this all the time with my 5 year old. I ask why he thought this or wanted to do this (in case of an action) and if the reasons are good he gets my praise - not just for his idea but for right reasons. If some reasons are right and some wrong or all wrong - I explain to him the relevant principles.

The first time I encounter statement such as "I would like to share my cookie with my cousin". I don't automatically say - that is a wonderful idea. I ask: Why? Then I guide him into understanding the right reasons for sharing and the wrong reasons for sharing (thinking we ought to, it is a duty, or similar). The second time this happens - I may bring this to his attention again but in time I won't be repeating the same lessons - I will just assume he understands the concept.

If your answer is yes, as I expect, then my next question would be if you would similarly tell the young person that his idea is bad if it was bad.

Of course. I also would ask: Why did you think this or wanted to do this? Then I would say: "Hmm... this is not a good idea because....." "Those reasons are not right because..."

Please notice how different it is from saying: "Your idea/this idea is evil" or "Your idea/this idea is immoral". Both terms imply morally reprehensible, arising from bad character/mind.

The idea here is to educate without insulting their mind or character.

Edited May 17, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

I am reconsidering my previous response.

Who is this "someone" here? The answer to this question would guide me toward either doing what I said in my previous post or answering:

"Self-sacrifice is not a virtue and this is why....."

"Emotions are not superior to reason and this is why...."

In case you are wondering what made me change my mind about both cause and effect being clear or not - it was because I started thinking of Catherine Halsey. It is clear to me but may not be to everybody.

[blackdiamond]

Then I would say: "Hmm... this is not a good idea because....." "Those reasons are not right because..."

Please notice how different it is from saying: "Your idea/this idea is evil" or "Your idea/this idea is immoral". Both terms imply morally reprehensible, arising from bad character/mind.

The idea here is to educate without insulting their mind or character.

With due respect, I see that your argument then is possibly just a rationalisation of what you believe, Sophia. This is because "NOT a good idea" is really "a BAD idea" whether you say it or not. Which means, by saying this is NOT a good idea, you are telling someone "this is a bad idea," the former is just and only just a negative form of the latter. Which means that, if judging an idea is judging a person, you have *in fact* judged the person as a BAD person when you say "not a good idea".

Please notice how different it is from saying: "Your idea/this idea is evil" or "Your idea/this idea is immoral".

Yes it is different from SAYING it that way, but in fact it is not different. Saying "you are well below average height" is different from SAYING "you are short," but what you have said in both cases is that you are short. Primacy of existence. How you say it does not change the facts or your evaluation of the facts.

The important point here is whether you are right in saying that morally judging an idea is morally judging the person who gave that idea; and if this is so, then calling your son's idea "not good" is calling your son "not good." And calling him not good is calling him bad - if your premise is correct. (Like I said earlier, you can't have your cake and eat it too.)

Is there any wrong step in my logic so far?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I agree that when it comes to judging a person morally based on his ideas, that one must take into account their level of knowledge, their context, how they arrived at it, whether they were rational but merely mistaken, etc., etc. But I never meant the opposite of that when I said that one has to judge ideas morally by man's life as the standard.

When I asked you those questions earlier, Sophia, I was not asking you to judge the person, but rather asking: Do you recognize that to following their advise (i.e to sacrifice everything you own, or to go by emotions rather than reason) would injure your integrity?

If you know that rationality is the highest virtue, then you must condemn the suggestion to follow irrationality. If you know that honesty (the recognition that the unreal is unreal) is a virtue, then the advise to lie, in most cases, means the exact opposite; and a rational person ought to recoil from that suggestion as if he were asked to jump into a raging volcano. If someone were to ask you to go by everyone elses' standards, instead of your own rational standards, then this would be a breach of your rational independence; and a rational man would condemn the suggestion as if his very life depended on it, because it does.

One can do the same thing for all of the virtues.

And it doesn't matter who is asking you to breach your rationality, and it doesn't matter about his virtue or lack thereof; to follow the advise to breach your rationality must be judged as being immoral and evil by a rational standard.

This is what I mean by judging an idea morally; meaning to judge the value of the idea in relation to man's life as the standard.

If your five year old son told me that the best way I could preserve my spirit was to believe in God, I would condemn the idea as immoral and evil, because it would mean that the best way I could preserve my spirit is to turn away from reality as it really is.

I would not condemn you son, because he doesn't know any better, and at that age, doesn't know what the invalid concept "God" is demanding of someone.

Nonetheless, as a rational man I have to reject it as being immoral to believe in God; whether it came from your son, or the Pope, or a philosopher -- selfishly, because of what it would do to me to follow that advise.

And don't tell me no one has ever advised you to not be rational or to not have integrity or to not go by your own best judgement. That kind of advise is heard every day in every medium known to man!

To say that an idea is evil is to say that it is not morally healthy for a rational man to go along with it; so one morally evaluates it as being an evil idea -- who says it is irrelevant.

[softwareNerd]

So, when it comes to judging people's morality, it sounds like everyone here agrees that one has to consider the person's context. There's also been some mention, earlier, of "advocacy" being taken into account: does the person do more than merely contemplate the idea of (say) "prudent predator"; or does he actively seek to propagate it; or, for that matter, does he actually practice it? There could also be the question of scope: how much evil does the person do? is he a petty thief or a mass murderer? I assume all this is mostly uncontroversial.

In spite of agreeing on the broad principles to judge someones morality, people still make very different judgements. So, I suppose there must be some other differences that aren't as easy to put into words!

[~Sophia~]

Blackdiamond,

What is important here is to be able to effectively communicate what you intend to say. And in this case it was to educate: "You have made an error and here is why....." without attacking the efficacy of the child's mind, without being insulting.

We can debate the technicalities - what would have been better words or phrases to use. Perhaps I would have said instead "You are incorrect and here is why....". or even "This is a bad idea because..." Those two are pretty not threatening statements and people use them interchangeably.

If you mean to condemn someone because that is what you think you ought to do based on simply the identity of an idea - you can even do that without directly stating it.

The important point here is whether you are right in saying that morally judging an idea is morally judging the person who gave that idea;

Notice that my argument was not grounded simply in what kind of words one may choose to use. I have already given the reasons behind my argument - you can go back and re-read it.

[~Sophia~]

Blackdiamond,

Good/bad are categories of evaluations which can apply without any sense of morality even to the non-man made, for example: "too much sun exposure is bad" (and this broad application make the negative a lot less treatening) whereas moral/immoral/evil certainly ARE moral evaluations - are attributes of people, they apply only to the man-made where volition comes to play.

When you use attributes which apply to people such as "that is a stupid argument" it is no different than saying "“only someone stupid would make such an argument.”

(I have received this clarification through a PM - thanks!)

[~Sophia~]

I agree that when it comes to judging a person morally based on his ideas, that one must take into account their level of knowledge, their context, how they arrived at it, whether they were rational but merely mistaken, etc., etc. But I never meant the opposite of that when I said that one has to judge ideas morally by man's life as the standard.

I am not here to debate what you actually did or did not say - everybody can read it for themselves. The second sentence is a contradiction of the first. To judge an idea morally by man's life as the standard - is the existance part of the evaluation which is the EFFECT.

When I asked you those questions earlier, Sophia, I was not asking you to judge the person, but rather asking: Do you recognize that to following their advise (i.e to sacrifice everything you own, or to go by emotions rather than reason) would injure your integrity?

If you know that rationality is the highest virtue, then you must condemn the suggestion to follow irrationality. If you know that honesty (the recognition that the unreal is unreal) is a virtue, then the advise to lie, in most cases, means the exact opposite; and a rational person ought to recoil from that suggestion as if he were asked to jump into a raging volcano. If someone were to ask you to go by everyone elses' standards, instead of your own rational standards, then this would be a breach of your rational independence; and a rational man would condemn the suggestion as if his very life depended on it, because it does.

Another person simply holding a false belief (similarly to someone keeping a gun in their house) or even stating it to me does not commend me in any way or affect me. Talking to someone like Catherine Halsey would not have been a treat. I would have been able to tell her appart from someone like her uncle - you on the other hand would have responded to their statements to you exactly the same.

Nonetheless, as a rational man I have to reject it as being immoral to believe in God; whether it came from your son, or the Pope, or a philosopher -- selfishly, because of what it would do to me to follow that advise.

It is clear to me that you have not moved an inch from your original position some 10ths of posts ago despite being shown the source of your error. You switch again between the abstract and the concrete.

What you state above is not Oism. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical and this also applies to social interactions. The reason why you have failed in your dealings with others (Oist or not) is because you have not been following the right principles. To be an Oist does not mean that you have to be in the attack mode toward most people you encounter eventough we are not living in an Oist society- yet.

This thread started with you asking "What Roark would do?"

Roark would:

- recognize owners/operators right to set the standards of what takes place on their property and he would act according to this principle or he would leave.

- act based on correct principles of moral judgement when dealing with others.

- he would not have made excuses (and use rationalizations) for not acting on right principles.

I think "how to properly evaluate someone's mental process, the cause" when evaluating people's ideas would be a worthy topic of further discussion. I will give it some thought before posting. I also welcome your input.

My further interest in participating is limited to this issue.

Edited May 18, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

In spite of agreeing on the broad principles to judge someones morality, people still make very different judgements.

The goal is and ought to be - to be as objective as possible.

[blackdiamond]

Blackdiamond,

Good/bad are categories of evaluations which can apply without any sense of morality even to the non-man made, for example: "too much sun exposure is bad" (and this broad application make the negative a lot less treatening) whereas moral/immoral/evil certainly ARE moral evaluations - are attributes of people, they apply only to the man-made where volition comes to play.

When you use attributes which apply to people such as "that is a stupid argument" it is no different than saying "“only someone stupid would make such an argument.”

(I have received this clarification through a PM - thanks!)

True: good and bad can apply to the non-man-made as well as to the man-made.

However, when specifically applied to man, they (good/bad) do have a sense of morality. A bad man is an immoral man, a good man is a moral man. When Victor Hugo describes someone as a good man, that does not mean an intelligent man, it doesn't mean a good-looking man, and things like that; it always means a moral man. So, since the context of my (and your example(s) and this discussion is man, "good" and "bad" are very much "moralistic" terms.

Which takes me back to your statement. "That's a bad idea" is a moral statement and it should not be said to a child, if your premise is correct. And this means you should never say "that's not a good idea, because ..." either, because not good means bad, and bad idea means bad person.

Since you now seem to believe that "bad" is not always moralising (according to the PM you received), would you therefore say to a child, "you're a bad person"? I'm sure your answer is no, and this is because you do in fact still believe (like me) that the term 'bad' is moralistic when specifically applied to man.

Which means you still have to hold to a contradiction in order to continue with your premise.

[i think the point you seem to be making is that of politeness. That's okay and it's an understandable point. But I am only arguing that your philosophical arguments do not back it up, and neither does anything in the "Fact and Value" article. You could try to justify politeness in another way, for example you could say that one would lose friends, or fail to communicate, etc if they are impolite, but that's a whole different argument from the meta-ethical one you are presenting now which is building on a problematic premise. If your standard or goal, however, is just effective communication, then it is equally wrong to call an adult intellectual immoral or to refer to his ideas as immoral because that would still offend him, just as calling his ideas stupid would offend him, whether his name is Bob Smith or Karl Marx. ]

[~Sophia~]

However, when specifically applied to man, they (good/bad) do have a sense of morality. A bad man is an immoral man, a good man is a moral man.

But they have to be specifically applied to man - said in that context to imply that meaning. Otherwise they don't and they even apply to the non man-made.

BAD means an object failing to reach an acceptable standard (incorrect/faulty)

EVIL means morally reprehensible, arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

Calling an idea bad or good does not impugn the morality of the person holding it, while calling it stupid does attack his intelligence, or calling it evil does attack his character.

Is this an argument from bluring an objective meaning of words when used in specific context?

When you decide what is that you want to communicate based on principles it is not difficult to find a way to say exactly what you mean. If your intension is to condemn - the person will get the message even if you don't say it to them directly. I

I think it is clear from my 100+ post here that politeness has not been my argument.

Edited May 18, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[blackdiamond]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

When you say "stupid idea", you mean "stupid person".

When you say "bad idea", you don't mean "bad person".

Reason? Because "bad" can apply to other things besides man, so you need to specifically say "bad person"; in other words, "bad" is never implicit, it always has to be explicit, to apply to a person; whereas these other terms functionally apply only to man and therefore imply an indirect (or direct) judgment or evaluation of him when you use them on his products.

So, i presume you can't ever say "that's a silly idea" or "that's a silly thing to say" to a kid, because that implies he is a silly person.

And you can't say "that's a dumb thing to say" (or indeed, that's a dumb thing to do) to a kid because that implies the kid is dumb.

Well then. Interesting.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[~Sophia~]

So, i presume you can't ever say "that's a silly idea" or "that's a silly thing to say" to a kid, because that implies he is a silly person.

And you can't say "that's a dumb thing to say" (or indeed, that's a dumb thing to do) to a kid because that implies the kid is dumb.

If you are adressing THEIR ideas, THEIR actions and if you don't wish to call them silly or dumb - then you are right - then you just have made a mistake in communication.

SILLY means weak in intellect-foolish, exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment

DUMB means lacking intelligence - stupid, showing a lack of intelligence

Both are attributes of people.

And I can tell you that young children, like my five year old son - do understand the meaning when those words are directed toward THEIR ideas or THEIR actions. That is why a careful/precise use of language in order to communicate exactly what you intend is one of the most important skills a parent ought to master.

Edited May 18, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think a crucial point is being missed here, and that is that if one is rational, then one must morally evaluate ideas in the abstract. By "in the abstract" I mean here that one must deal with the idea for what it is -- a statement about reality and the consequences that would follow logically from the idea in the abstract; in other words, by man's life as the standard. If one holds that abstraction, man's life as the standard, as a real standard (or a reality based standard), then one also has the capacity to judge in the abstract those ideas that are in compliance with that standard or are counter to that standard.

Those ideas that are in compliance with man's life as the standard (will be beneficial if followed in the abstract and in the particular), are good ideas; meaning are worthy of moral praise qua idea. Those ideas that are counter to man's life as the standard (will be harmful if followed in the abstract or in the particular), are bad ideas; meaning are worthy of moral condemnation qua idea.

The inability or unwillingness to judge ideas in the abstract is a form of concrete-boundness, and leads to a type of moral skepticism along the lines of: "Well, maybe he didn't really mean it;" "Maybe he was only mistaken;" "We shouldn't take ideas seriously, after all, they are only abstractions;" etc. Which is one of the aspects of Fact and Value that Dr. Peikoff is arguing against as not being a part of Objectivism.

Yet such is the essence of David Kelley's viewpoint. "Truth" and "falsity," he says, apply primarily to "ideas"; "good" and "evil," to "actions, and to the people who perform them." In regard to evil [i.e. actions], he says, we must not be tolerant; but in regard to ideas, moral judgment is a mistake. In the cognitive realm, he says, the virtue to be practiced in regard to all comers, no matter what their viewpoint, is "tolerance" and "benevolence," i.e., cool, open-minded, friendly discussion among civilized moral equals.

In other words, if someone came onto this board and advocated communism, one's first reaction should not be: "Let's not morally evaluate the idea of communism as being evil; because, like a two year old, he might not know what he is talking about and he may not really mean it." Rather one should openly proclaim that the idea of communism is evil, and that if he continues to advocate it, then he will be removed from the board, since he is promoting evil ideas.

If you take ideas seriously, this is the only moral stance one can take to someone advocating an idea that threatens the removal of individual rights on all levels.

If he is mistaken, then he can show that he is mistaken and promote more rational ideas.

And it doesn't matter that Andrea may have fallen for communism on mistaken grounds. A moral, rational man would have to fight him in terms of ideology and action. In other words, had we gone to war with the Soviet Union early on and came across Andrea, he would either have to be captured or killed, with full moral rectitude, because he is the enemy.

There may well be cases where someone is promoting evil ideas as a sort of intellectual Typhoid Mary -- i.e. he doesn't know the full evil of what he is promoting -- but just as people had the right to protect themselves from the carrier of a deadly disease; so those of us who do understand the complete logical evil entailed in communism (or any other anti-reason philosophy) have the right to condemn the idea as evil and that he cannot promote evil in our presence.

Moral skepticism with regard to ideas considered in the abstract is like such a disease, because once some people succumb to it, no amount of facts or arguing seem to be able to persuade them otherwise.

[blackdiamond]

If you are adressing THEIR ideas, THEIR actions and if you don't wish to call them silly or dumb - then you are right - then you just have made a mistake in communication.

SILLY means weak in intellect-foolish, exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment

DUMB means lacking intelligence - stupid, showing a lack of intelligence

Both are attributes of people.

And I can tell you that young children, like my five year old son - do understand the meaning when those words are directed toward THEIR ideas or THEIR actions. That is why a careful/precise use of language in order to communicate exactly what you intend is one of the most important skills a parent ought to master.

Well. Like I said, we probably just have to agree to disagree. I don't know if I'm just being skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that the average child will differentiate betweeen their words or actions being called 'bad' (as a non-reflection on them, thus not meaning the child is bad) and being called 'silly' (as a direct reflection on them and thus meaning the child is silly) - just because bad is applicable to other things besides humans whereas the other words functionally apply only to humans. A child who can make that "differentia" is indeed remarkable.

Since man is born tabula rasa, I can only reasonably suspect that children who "do understand the meaning when those words are directed toward their actions" only do so because someone taught them that that is "the meaning". I think that you can also find a child somewhere who has simply learnt to say "thank you" when you tell them "that's a brilliant thing to do/say" and to simply say "sorry" when you tell them "that's a silly thing to do, don't do it again," without psychologically making those particular associations (as definitive/reflective of his whole being).

Supplying those definitions for the words in question do not back up your position, I'm afraid, except if you take a circular argumentation (I can easily supply standard definitions of the same that are valid even though impersonal). Since our position is that you can distinctively say about ideas what you can say about humans (morally, intellectually, etc) because these are their products, your definitions do not in any way achieve your goal of presenting our position as invalid. The "exact meaning" you impute to them is in fact just your position in this argument, nothing more.

I know you did not perhaps intend this, but again, saying (essentially) that taking your position is (part of) what makes good parenting is effectively another argument from intimidation. Indeed one can say "precisely" and "exactly" what they want to say (to a child or whoever) without embracing any of your premises - and without lacking any "important" parental skills.

Thank you.

Edited May 19, 2007 by blackdiamond

[blackdiamond]

I just remembered something I read some years ago that I think might be interesting to readers of this thread (I am not using this as my argument or as "evidence" for my argument, although it probably won't hurt my own position that much ). It's from an interview Playboy conducted with Mr. Bill Gates some time back. I googled it to refresh my memory. Here's the relevant part:

PLAYBOY: Like your management style? We hear you're brusque at times, that you won't hesitate to tell someone their idea is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. It's been called management by embarrassment challenging employees and even leaving some in tears.

GATES: I don't know anything about employees in tears. I do know that if people say things that are wrong, others shouldn't just sit there silently. They should speak. Great organizations demand a high level of commitment by the people involved. That's true in any endeavor. I've never criticized a person. I have criticized ideas. If I think something's a waste of time or inappropriate I don't wait to point it out. I say it right away. It's real time. So you might hear me say, That's the dumbest idea I have ever heard many times during a meeting.

PLAYBOY: What do you mean when you say something is random?

GATES: That it's not a particularly enlightened idea.

-Bold mine. Edited May 19, 2007 by blackdiamond