David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism

Ethics
21

You are confusing the issue by equating tiny concrete issues with broad issues of principle. For instance, I don’t associate with *anyone* who steals music, movies, or video games online because they are violating a fundamental moral principle: the idea of property rights. Show me the moral principle that would universally condemn smoking or being overweight. Those issues are a trade-off between, say, your personal enjoyment or *potentially* increased risk of a heart attack twenty years down the road.

Advocating evil and advocating lifestyle choices that you personally don’t like are COMPLETELY different things. Tolerance of the latter can be beneficial to you because you can enjoy, say, an overweight person’s company without obsessing over their health or visit your friend in their cluttered house without going insane and attacking the drapes with a flamethrower. Tolerance of the *former* is a DISASTER.

Actually, you probably associate with and trade with people who believe in the concept of legalized theft. This is what I would consider a huge crumb of irrationality. How do you deal with such people? Is it moral tolerance to choose to deal with such people? I think that the rational is the moral. Lifestyle choices are not exempt from epistemological significance nor moral significance. The purpose of morality is to know how to act, and how to live. A person who degrades his self worth by not respecting his body is acting toward his own self destruction. This includes choosing to allow oneself to be obese. Damage is damage. Smoking is very damaging, and I think any objective pleasure that it offers does not objectively outweigh the hazards it can pose to your health. Now there is a spectrum here, smoking is not as bad as using heroin, and being 5 lb. overweight is not as bad as being 100 lb. overweight. When it comes to toleration, it is not moral to sanction ideas or actions which will in fact lead to your self destruction. But not all false ideas do in fact lead to total destruction. If that was the case than no person would be alive today. Some false ideas have a disastrous effect, some do not.

In regards to principles:

“A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.” - Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/principles.html

Principles do not universally condemn actions because principles are general truths, this means they are contextual. A principle applied regardless of context is rationalism. Every abstraction regardless of how abstract, can and must be tied to reality. That being said, there would be no difference between someone who steals a CD valued at $9.99 vs. any other CD valued at $9.99 from a store. These 2 actions are equivalent. Meaning you do not condemn someone to death for stealing a Beetles CD and just fine someone else who steals a B-52’s CD. Now compare the moral crime of stealing a B-52’s CD to someone that believes that universal healthcare is good, and moral. Which is worse? Note that in the United States there is no jail time for holding the belief that universal healthcare is good, even though it requires more theft than what we have now. We should also consider that if and when universal healthcare is implemented it would certainly be far more damaging than having a B-52’s CD stolen from my or your house. Actions are far more significant than words. This is mostly because people do not know what they really think. They are often sloppy in their thinking, and in their conversations.

22

Actually, you probably associate with and trade with people who believe in the concept of legalized theft.

Not on a personal level, I don’t. Tolerance is also not about chance or impersonal associations because those do not imply a moral sanction for a person’s beliefs. If I buy milk or t-shirts from someone, the only thing I’m conceivably sanctioning is the particular business practice they use in the context of that particular transaction. If I call someone my friend, however, I’m saying that I generally condone this person’s behavior.

23

Not on a personal level, I don’t. Tolerance is also not about chance or impersonal associations because those do not imply a moral sanction for a person’s beliefs.

So on a professional level you are willing to deal with people that hold irrational ideas? Do you think that ideas hold moral significance? If so, I am confused on how you calculate and apply tolerance in your life. I would like to make sure I am being clear on this point. I think that tolerance is only appropriate in regard to errors of knowledge. Toleration is not appropriate in regard to people that are willful evaders and clearly evil.

If I buy milk or t-shirts from someone, the only thing I’m conceivably sanctioning is the particular business practice they use in the context of that particular transaction.

Does this mean you would buy milk from the KKK?

If I call someone my friend, however, I’m saying that I generally condone this person’s behavior.

Do you not judge them for their convictions?

24

Maybe “complete lack of moral worth” was pushing it but what I said in NOT irrational. For a man or woman to be fully moral they MUST act as a man or woman should act since man is a unity of body and mind and all that that implies. Males and females have different genitalia because it is in their nature to be attracted to one another and mate. NOT males and males. To be gay one is at war with one’s own nature. This is a fundemental contradiction. How is this irrational? And please think twice before you accuse me of “irrationality” again without at least asking for a clarification of my posts.

There are many primates in nature that have gay/bisexual tendencies depending on the male to female ratio. In fact, many mammals have shown gay/bisexual tendencies and even preferences depending on a variety of other factors as well. Just because sexual organs have a function of reproduction does not mean that it is “in their nature” to be used just for reproduction. A study of nature shows that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and I think it is irrational to deny that.

25

Hey Brandon,

I agree with your post. However, the reason why I pulled the quote from EC is to show that there is often disagreement on what is and is not rational. The purpose of this thread is to discuss how Kelley differs from Peikoff in regard to how one should evaluate a person based on their convictions and beliefs. We can also discuss to what degree ideas hold moral vs. epistemological significance. In this case, can we infer that EC is in honest error or is his position automatically representative of his moral character? As I understand Kelley this quote should apply:

I believe it is fruitless to define a category of inherently dishonest

ideas, and then try to list its members. A more accurate approach would be

to rank ideas on a continuum defined by the likelihood that adherents of

the idea are honest. At one extreme are issues about which any error is

almost certainly innocent. As we move along the continuum, the probability

shifts toward the assumption that the error springs from irrationality,

and proponents of the ideas must bear an increasingly heavy burden of

proving their intellectual honesty. The far end of this continuum is the

open rejection of reason as such.

  • The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, Page 58
26

Hey Brandon,

I agree with your post. However, the reason why I pulled the quote from EC is to show that there is often disagreement on what is and is not rational. The purpose of this thread is to discuss how Kelley differs from Peikoff in regard to how one should evaluate a person based on their convictions and beliefs. We can also discuss to what degree ideas hold moral vs. epistemological significance. In this case, can we infer that EC is in honest error or is his position automatically representative of his moral character?

Obviously there are disagreements of perception when it comes to what is or is not rational. I think if an idea is not in honest error and is a case of willful irrationality then we can say that that idea is representative of an immoral and dishonest character. More than likely, one incident of willful irrationality could/will lead to others.

There is a enough scientific and psychological evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition and that humans, and many other species of animals, display that condition throughout their population. Therefore I think EC’s denial of those supported facts is a willful case of irrationality. I will not speak for Kelley’s side of the argument, but I think that Peikoff would look at the situation and label EC as irrational. Peikoff himself was the leading figure within Objectivism to speak out against Rand’s position on homosexuals.

27

Therefore I think EC’s denial of those supported facts is a willful case of irrationality. I will not speak for Kelley’s side of the argument, but I think that Peikoff would look at the situation and label EC as irrational. Peikoff himself was the leading figure within Objectivism to speak out against Rand’s position on homosexuals.

Hey Brandon, :slight_smile:

Would you be willing to say that EC is immoral for his convictions relative to his views on the issue of Homosexuality? I agree with the method that Kelley suggests and I am willing to say that EC’s position would land in an area for which honest error is unlikely. Therefore, I think his morality is in question based on his position alone. However, I am also willing to assume that EC’s motives are not anti-life, anti-reason, anti-Objectivism. He might be willing to change his position, he might be interested in asking those of us that are Gay-Objectivists questions that may contradict or confirm his views. EC may also hold the opinion that we are evaders and be unwilling to sanction us any more than you or I would be willing to sanction him. I am concerned that if both of us assume this attitude that the conversation would be pointless.

Consider these quotes:

Of all the points I made in “A Question of Sanction,” none has

been so thoroughly discussed, or so often misunderstood, as the distinction

between error and evil. Peikoff has interpreted my position as a defense

of ivory-tower amoralism, a demand that ideas and intellectuals be

exempt from morality. This is a complete distortion. But he is right that my

position is quite different from his.

  • David Kelley, The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, Page 40

To pass a moral judgment on

someone for the ideas he holds, it is not enough merely to evaluate those

ideas by their consequences. We must also consider his motive: we must

consider whether and to what extent his beliefs are the product of a rational

process of thought.

  • David Kelley, The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, Page 50

The principles of justice also determine the limits of toleration.

Tolerance is not appropriate, as I said in “A Question of Sanction,” when

a person is willfully irrational. Thus I do not hold, as Peikoff claims, that

tolerance means suspending moral judgment in the realm of ideas. It means

suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence.

  • David Kelley, The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, Page 62
28

Obviously there are disagreements of perception when it comes to what is or is not rational. I think if an idea is not in honest error and is a case of willful irrationality then we can say that that idea is representative of an immoral and dishonest character. More than likely, one incident of willful irrationality could/will lead to others.

There is a enough scientific and psychological evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition and that humans, and many other species of animals, display that condition throughout their population. Therefore I think EC’s denial of those supported facts is a willful case of irrationality. I will not speak for Kelley’s side of the argument, but I think that Peikoff would look at the situation and label EC as irrational. Peikoff himself was the leading figure within Objectivism to speak out against Rand’s position on homosexuals.

There is also plenty of scientific “evidence supporting” global warming–supposedly. This doesn’t mean that it actually exists or is man-made. Rather it shows a fundamental philosophical error in the case of most of these scientists. The same arguments can be made regarding homosexuality.

Please refrain from attacking my character on an anonymous message board where I can not fully and properly defend it. Thank you.

29

… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence.

Much could be said, but I think this is an incorrect usage of the word “tolerance” under any of the ordinarily-accepted senses and definitions.

The principles of justice – such as implemented in criminal law as “presumed innocent until proven guilty” (who has the burden of proving a positive), the specific acts and intent that must be proven by the evidence (what must be proven to establish the positive), and even the evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (how the evidence must be evaluated) – do not mean “suspending” (or any kind of holding in abeyance) of logical presumptions, standards, and judgment. This is not “tolerance” for a person accused of murder or other crime – the judgment is and remains: “innocent until proven guilty.” Although the particulars may vary, the same principles of justice apply to every “realm.”

30

The same arguments can be made regarding homosexuality.

Are you saying there is no scientific evidence of homosexual behavior in any mammal species except humans?

31

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how Kelley differs from Peikoff in regard to how one should evaluate a person based on their convictions and beliefs. We can also discuss to what degree ideas hold moral vs. epistemological significance.

If you want to discuss this topic the debate section of this forum is the proper place for it. I be happy to engage you if you like.

32

If you want to discuss this topic the debate section of this forum is the proper place for it. I be happy to engage you if you like.

Hey Sophia,

Thanks for your participation. I’d be happy to participate in a debate on this issue. However, Brandon opened this thread to discuss Kelley contra Objectivism (Peikoff). As I understand the concept of a forum, I hope I am free to engage in a discussion here. Is there something special about the debate forums vs. this thread?

33

Is there something special about the debate forums vs. this thread?

Yes. Read here.

34

Much could be said, but I think this is an incorrect usage of the word “tolerance” under any of the ordinarily-accepted senses and definitions.

The principles of justice – such as implemented in criminal law as “presumed innocent until proven guilty” (who has the burden of proving a positive), the specific acts and intent that must be proven by the evidence (what must be proven to establish the positive), and even the evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (how the evidence must be evaluated) – do not mean “suspending” (or any kind of holding in abeyance) of logical presumptions, standards, and judgment. This is not “tolerance” for a person accused of murder or other crime – the judgment is and remains: “innocent until proven guilty.” Although the particulars may vary, the same principles of justice apply to every “realm.”

In light of the objectivity of

knowledge and the distinction between error and evil, I will show in Section

IV that tolerance is the proper attitude toward people we disagree

with, unless and until we have evidence of their irrationality

.

  • The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand - David Kelley - Page 16

The concept of toleration is used in many different contexts, but its core

meaning is to endure, allow, or put up with something. The concept presupposes

an object that is tolerated: something wrong, false, threatening,

painful, disagreeable—something of negative value significance. And it

presupposes an action one forbears from taking against that object. Where

no action is possible, tolerance is not an issue. We do not tolerate the law

of gravity, even when its consequences are inconvenient. To define toleration

in any context, therefore, we must specify the nature of the particular

object and action in question.

In regard to ideas, the object is a person with whom we disagree,

who holds a conviction we believe to be false. One action we forbear from

taking is that of silencing the person coercively, or compelling his assent

to our own ideas. This is political toleration, or freedom of speech and

conscience, which is not at issue here. We are concerned with tolerance as

an ethical virtue, a way of dealing with people that goes beyond respect

for their political rights. In this case, the action we forbear from taking is

that of condemning and ostracizing the person. It’s important to note that

the object of toleration is the person, not the ideas per se. Tolerance does

not mean refusing to express one’s belief that the ideas are false or that

their consequences are destructive. These issues are part of the normal

content of discussion and debate among people concerned with ideas.

Tolerance is a matter of one’s policy toward such people as individuals,

including one’s willingness to engage in discussion with them at all.

  • The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand - David Kelley - Page 61

Toad,

Are you willing to tolerate EC’s ideas? Would you be willing to engage him in discussion or will you infer that he is guilty of evasion based on his point of view alone? If you do conclude that he is guilty of evasion, would it not then be appropriate to remove your sanction?

Is this the approach that you think is livable, practical and moral? Is this what you do in your daily life? Consider this:

Objectivism, therefore, is “rigid,” “narrow,” “intolerant” and “closed-minded.” If anyone

wants to reject Ayn Rand’s ideas and invent a new viewpoint, he is free to do so—but

he cannot, as a matter of honesty, label his new ideas or himself “Objectivist.”

  • Fact and Value - Leonard Peikoff

I have no interest in Peikoff’s version of Objectivism any more than it seems that EC is interested in a version of Objectivism that accepts homosexuality. When there is disagreement among rational men, I prefer this approach:

When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

Ayn Rand - John Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged, Page 1023

I would also like to ask why Ayn Rand would have bothered to name an intellectual heir if there is nothing to add or correct in regard to Objectivism? What makes someone right? What makes something consistent with Objectivism? What is more important to a true Objectivist, to be consistent with reality or to be consistent with “Objectivism?” I can only imagine that Ayn Rand named an intellectual heir because she wanted to trust in someone to protect her name. In my prideful opinion, such protection is not possible. Peikoff would have been exremunicated had Rand known that he would sell the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged (which includes the right to make any changes by the new owner). Is that behavior tolerable?

:lol:

35

Yes. Read here.

It is also one of the forum rules:

  1. Consistency with the purpose of this site
    Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, “moral tolerationism,” and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules

I think that so long as Donavon A. was discussing or talking about David Kelley’s moral theory, that would be fine, but he seems to be a proponent of that moral theory, which is quite contrary to Objectivism and the purpose of this site.

Besides, I think he finds himself in a contradiction by claiming to be against irrationality and yet supporting David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, and Barbara Branden as he does on his website and as he has presented that on various forums on this website.

36

Yes. Read here.

Awesome,

Which particular issue between Peikoff and Kelley would you like to debate?

  1. Open vs. Closed System

  2. Judging ideas vs. actions

  3. Tolerance

  4. Libertarians

  5. Sanction

  6. Error vs. Evil

I have to admit, I am unfamiliar with how to start or accept participation in a one-on-one debate forum. Let me know.

:thumbsup:

37

It is also one of the forum rules:

  1. Consistency with the purpose of this site
    Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, “moral tolerationism,” and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules

I think that so long as Donavon A. was discussing or talking about David Kelley’s moral theory, that would be fine, but he seems to be a proponent of that moral theory, which is quite contrary to Objectivism and the purpose of this site.

Besides, I think he finds himself in a contradiction by claiming to be against irrationality and yet supporting David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, and Barbara Branden as he does on his website and as he has presented that on various forums on this website.

Hey Tom,

Are you in agreement with what EC is saying is consistent with Objectivism? That homosexuality is immoral! If so, then I wonder how you or he can claim any right to be here. As for my support of the Branden’s, I support the works that they produced with Ayn Rand, the ideas that she endorsed. I am also aware that you had planned on attending The Basic Principles of Objectivism audio -lectures which were hosted by Nikki Allen. So I don’t see what your point is, unless you wish to condemn your prior intentions. I also have skimmed over a copy of a paper you wrote in college in reference to David Kelley’s The Evidence of the Senses . You wrote a note to Harry Binswanger stating that you found no errors in his book. I find so much of David Kelley’s work to be fascinating and there are many of his views that I agree with. If you honestly believe that my arguments are worthless, my convictions irrational, then there should be nothing to fear in having a discussion or a debate with me, regardless of what that might mean to Objectivism.

Thanks for stopping by,

Donovan

38

Are you in agreement with what EC is saying is consistent with Objectivism? That homosexuality is immoral! If so, then I wonder how you or he can claim any right to be here.

Oh, about 20 years or so I would have agreed with him that homosexuality is immoral. However, Dr. Peikoff has convinced me that it is not, and he discusses that issue in one of his recent podcasts. I’m not a homosexual nor do I have tendencies in that direction, but morality is about explicit choices, and who we find sexually attractive is not open to immediate volition. As Dr.Peikoff explains, there is a very long process involved in becoming who we are sexually, and they don’t always involve actually explicit choices. Like sense of life it develops over time. Ayn Rand said that she found homosexuality to be disgusting, but she didn’t say it was immoral.

As for my support of the Branden’s, I support the works that they produced with Ayn Rand, the ideas that she endorsed. I am also aware that you had planned on attending The Basic Principles of Objectivism audio -lectures which were hosted by Nikki Allen. So I don’t see what your point is, unless you wish to condemn your prior intentions.

Well, I’m curious about it, since Ayn Rand was present and endorsed it, but I don’t really care to give the Brandens my moral sanction, not after what was said in The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s position that becoming an Objectivist can lead to serious psychological problems. So, I would certainly never host anything produced by them. I might listen to it, but I am suspicious of people who want to promote it, as if it is totally fine to endorse Nathaniel Branden.

I also have skimmed over a copy of a paper you wrote in college in reference to David Kelley’s The Evidence of the Senses . You wrote a note to Harry Binswanger stating that you found no errors in his book.

That paper was written over twenty years ago, and my stance on the evidence of the senses has changed. I now understand that the senses being accurate is axiomatic in nature, and that there is no need to write a 300 or so page book on the topic. Besides, I think there are errors in that book, as some of David Kelley’s arguments come across as skeptical. But I didn’t know that twenty years ago, and at the time, Kelley was an up and coming Objectivist intellectual, or so we thought.

I find so much of David Kelley’s work to be fascinating and there are many of his views that I agree with. If you honestly believe that my arguments are worthless, my convictions irrational, then there should be nothing to fear in having a discussion or a debate with me, regardless of what that might mean to Objectivism.

I think you are new to Objectivism, but you did state earlier that you reject Fact and Value, which I think summarizes the Objectivist position on morality as it applies to ideas very well. And I think if you reject that paper, then you are not an Objectivist. That doesn’t mean that I am going to condemn you outright, because I don’t think you understand Objectivism, but past a certain point of understanding Objectivism, trying to hold onto Kelley’s moral theory and be an Objectivist would result in evasion. You cannot have both Objectivism and Kelley’s moral theory.

39

Donovan,

I explained that this definition given by Kelley is wrong: “… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence.” Citing another defintion is irrelevant and not responsive.

When we lack sufficient evidence, the judgment should be insufficient evidence – in any “realm.” This is not “tolerance” or refusing to judge.

As for the rest much could be said, but I do not have time right now.

– Toad

40

Which particular issue between Peikoff and Kelley would you like to debate?

My offer refers to the statement I quoted in a post #31. It would be the issue of objective moral judgment with the emphasis on judgment of ideas as that seems to be at the heart of that disagreement.