David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism

Ethics
41

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

You should first decide which affirmative proposition you want to defend: examples would be “Moral evaluation is impossible” or “Objectivism is not a specific philosophy with a definite nature”. You would start a new thread in the debate forum, saying what claim you wish to defend and any other ground-rules of engagement that you feel are important (for example whether you want a standard one-on-one turn-taking debate or an unstructured blab session). “Tolerance” or “Libertarians” is not a subject for debate – a debate addresses a specific, identifiable claim, and “Libertarians” is a noun, not a claim. I am assuming that you actually understand your position on the possibility of moral evaluation, thus if you hold that it is impossible to judge another person without knowing the mental state that results in their actions, that is the assertion you should make, and try to defend.

42

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

Hey Toad,

The relationship between ideas and motives is what is in question here. Can you always know someone’s motives based on the ideas they hold? How one deals with others is the essential difference between Peikoff and Kelley. TOLERANCE IS NOT A REFUSAL TO JUDGE. In fact, tolerance is an approach that is taken AFTER one determines that there is not enough evidence that a person is immoral (willfully evading). It is an approach that one takes when one has evaluated something as not a big deal or when one has concluded that someone is sincerely mistaken. Actually, it appears many Objectivists do, in fact, suspend judgment when it comes to judging their parents, in-laws, childhood friends, etc. who are not Objectivists and are often guilty of willful evasion.

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

-Toad Quotes Kelley

Kelley means we suspend a moral judgment of the person’s character when we lack evidence of malicious intent. In a criminal judgment, evidence is gathered, the validity of the evidence is weighed, and then the defendant is either pronounced guilty or innocent.

Example where tolerance does not apply:

You drive to work one day and a policeman pulls you over. He gives you a ticket and you go to court. The evidence is strong that you committed the offense and you did. You are pronounced guilty. Tolerance would not be an issue here.

Example where tolerance does apply:

You encounter a nice waitress at a restaurant and somehow she ends up telling you that she is a Democrat. In learning this, you ask yourself what is the probability that this person has been educated in Ayn Rand’s philosophy on the subject of politics, etc. If you conclude that based on her context and the fact that her error is common; that she just has not seen or heard objective reasons why it’s irrational to be a Democrat, then you can say her ideas are just false. Her motive and intention is probably not to destroy the United States or to vote the country into dictatorship/communism. You can practice tolerance in this case because you ARE in disagreement with her ideas and you have judged that she is not likely to fit the profile of one who “should have known what the function of government ought to be.” In this situation, it is acceptable to have a civil attitude and it is not necessary to boycott the waitress or the restaurant.

In conclusion:

When there is agreement, however, tolerance is not an issue. But, when it comes to a person that is capable of reasoning and he demonstrates consistent evasion, lacks civility, or is physically threatening, it is not appropriate to be tolerant. According to Kelley: “THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE ALSO DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION.”

Kelley also states that when the action is very horrendous, you do not have to, nor should you, concern yourself about motives at all. Cold blooded murder is his example.

Tolerance in the realm of ideas is giving someone the benefit of the doubt until he demonstrates he does not deserve that benefit. Benevolence in the realm of actions is giving someone the benefit of the doubt until he demonstrates he does not deserve that benefit.

43

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.

Hi Tom,

I would like you to define what you mean when you describe me as “new to Objectivism.” If you look at the About Me on my profile, I have written a summary of my studies on Objectivism and philosophy. I find your statement to be nothing more than an Argument of Intimidation that implies if you disagree with Peikoff then surely you cannot be an Objectivist.

By the way, you never did respond to my point regarding Peikoff’s sale of all the rights to produce an Atlas Shrugged movie. I cannot imagine Ayn Rand approving of or sanctioning that action.

44

…

Such issues will be a part of our discussion so let’s not get into it here. I have started a thread in the debate section.

45

I would like you to define what you mean when you describe me as “new to Objectivism.” If you look at the About Me on my profile, I have written a summary of my studies on Objectivism and philosophy.

You can read all of that and listen to all of that in just a few years, but understanding it and seeing how Kelley contradicts Objectivism takes a lot longer, at least for some people. I was intimately involved in the original Kelley / Peikoff spilt, and it struck all of us in Dallas are out of the blue. I certainly did not understand the issues at first, and to top it off, we had had a major Objectivist conference in Dallas the weekend that Peter Schwartz came out with his original paper against Kelley. We all thoroughly enjoyed the conference, and there wasn’t a clue at the conference by anyone that a spilt was coming up. So, I sympathize with your confusions. It took me a few years to understand the issue, and that was after a serious study of Objectivism for about eight years. However, I understand quite thoroughly that Kelley’s moral stance regarding ideas is totally contrary to Objectivism.

If you take ideas seriously, then you have to realize that ideas are open to moral evaluation as is all of the man-made; and that a person must be held responsible for the ideas that he accepts and proselytizes.

I find your statement to be nothing more than an Argument of Intimidation that implies if you disagree with Peikoff then surely you cannot be an Objectivist.

You may very well be intimidated, but that doesn’t make my argument an argument from intimidation. But, I will say it again, if you disagree with Fact and Value, then you do not take ideas seriously enough to be considered an Objectivist.

By the way, you never did respond to my point regarding Peikoff’s sale of all the rights to produce an Atlas Shrugged movie. I cannot imagine Ayn Rand approving of or sanctioning that action.

Dr. Peikoff relates how it was that Ayn Rand had tried to find a producer for the Atlas Shrugged movie before she died. The problem was that no one would let her have final editing privileges. She had managed to get that with The Fountainhead movie, by a lot of persuasion and digging in her heals, but she couldn’t find anyone to work with for Atlas Shrugged. Near her time of death, she basically told Dr. Peikoff to find a producer who really wants to produce it and let him produce it. So, yes, Dr. Peikoff was following Ayn Rand’s advise.

Personally, I think the movie will be really screwed up; much worse than the James Bond movies were screwed up. But, the movie will lead to a resurgence of interest in the novel, and Ayn Rand knew that it would, and decided to let someone make the movie as an advertisement for the novel.

46

I am also aware that you had planned on attending The Basic Principles of Objectivism audio -lectures which were hosted by Nikki Allen.

By the way, I decided not to attend this lecture series because of who was hosting it and their positions against Ayn Rand and Objectivism. It was some Dallas area Atheist club and they had an on-line newsletter that wrote a raving review of a book that trashed Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I didn’t care to give them my sanction, so I did not attend.

47

If you take ideas seriously, then you have to realize that ideas are open to moral evaluation as is all of the man-made; and that a person must be held responsible for the ideas that he accepts and proselytizes.

A person can be held responsible for the fact that he holds certain ideas and for spreading them or proselytizing. This is not the same as saying that he can be judged to be immoral simply (or even primarily) on the basis of the content of those ideas or conclusions without considering in full his reasons for holding them. Moreover, the ideas themselves have no power except to the extent that people act on them and for the reasons that they do choose to act on them. My understanding of Kelley’s position is that one cannot simply ascribe a set of outcomes to the fact of someone holding a set of ideas based on your evaluation of those ideas or your evaluation of their implications. One has to evaluate what people actually do not just what they say or what you think they are saying. Otherwise, one gets into the position of telling people what they’re thinking, whether they’re thinking it or not i.e. telling them that they don’t know their own views or their own reasons for holding them. It saves time, but it isn’t rational.

More generally, and with respect to judgement, all that Kelley is saying, as I understand it, is “judge as accurately and fully as possible” not “do not judge at all”. He recognizes that it may not be possible to reach a final definitive conclusion in certain cases, due to either constraints on one’s time (or to one’s estimate of the value and importance of forming a full judgement in a particular context) or lack of information. This is equivalent to a hung jury as opposed to one that decides “guilty” or “not guilty”. Tolerance in this context is equivalent to a policy of “innocent until proven guilty”.

My understanding of Peikoff’s position is that he holds that one can evaluate the person, his motives and his psycho-epistemology solely or primarily through his ideas, and that one can do so by interpreting those ideas in terms of your own context or projection of those ideas, not those of the person holding them. Kelley’s position is both the more logical and rational, in my judgement.

You may very well be intimidated, but that doesn’t make my argument an argument from intimidation. But, I will say it again, if you disagree with Fact and Value, then you do not take ideas seriously enough to be considered an Objectivist.

The last sentence in your paragraph is essentially an ad hominem. Your posts seem to be saying that Objectivism is so incredibly complicated a philosophy that, in effect, no one can understand it without years of study, special tutelage from the experts, and that only after that process will the person be enlightened enough to accept absolutely the conclusions of those experts, in every context. And yet Rand held that philosphical truths were accessible to the ordinary mind. In fact, the whole point of philosophy, even highly original ones, but especially those that are rational, is that a person can and must work through them on their own, even if they could not discover the principles by themselves. Do you not see how close to a religious mindset the approach to Objectivism that you are defending actually is? It’s virtually sacred texts, a priesthood, disciples, dogma, the very opposite of what Rand’s philosophy actually says.

Fact and Value states Dr. Peikoff’s interpretation of the issues involved, not an official Objectivist position no matter what status Rand gave him (after all, she endorsed Branden and even after the split acknowledged that everything he’d said or written prior to that had her approval). Unless Objectivism holds that it has a Pope whose pronouncements, ex cathedra, are to be considered infallible and perfect, the only thing a rational person is obliged to consider is whether the arguments he lays out are logical. The same is true for evaluating David Kelley’s statements. A moral person judges both positions rationally and draws the appropriate conclusion. If one side doesn’t like the other’s conclusions, that is not enough to make one side immoral.

48

You can read all of that and listen to all of that in just a few years, but understanding it and seeing how Kelley contradicts Objectivism takes a lot longer, at least for some people. I was intimately involved in the original Kelley / Peikoff spilt, and it struck all of us in Dallas are out of the blue. I certainly did not understand the issues at first, and to top it off, we had had a major Objectivist conference in Dallas the weekend that Peter Schwartz came out with his original paper against Kelley. We all thoroughly enjoyed the conference, and there wasn’t a clue at the conference by anyone that a spilt was coming up. So, I sympathize with your confusions. It took me a few years to understand the issue, and that was after a serious study of Objectivism for about eight years. However, I understand quite thoroughly that Kelley’s moral stance regarding ideas is totally contrary to Objectivism.

You know better than to say that I just found Ayn Rand yesterday, a few months ago, or even a few years ago. This is below you Tom.

If you take ideas seriously, then you have to realize that ideas are open to moral evaluation as is all of the man-made; and that a person must be held responsible for the ideas that he accepts and proselytizes.

Kelley does say that ideas can have moral significance. He says that the essential property of an idea is epistemological. Those who distort Kelley’s view to be that one should be tolerant of evil and that no moral judgment of ideas is possible are mistaken and perhaps even dishonest.

You may very well be intimidated, but that doesn’t make my argument an argument from intimidation. But, I will say it again, if you disagree with Fact and Value, then you do not take ideas seriously enough to be considered an Objectivist.

No, I am not intimidated by you or even a group of 1,000 people like you. I have stood my ground in the face of wider opposition, as any man of integrity and independence should be willing to do.

Dr. Peikoff relates how it was that Ayn Rand had tried to find a producer for the Atlas Shrugged movie before she died. The problem was that no one would let her have final editing privileges. She had managed to get that with The Fountainhead movie, by a lot of persuasion and digging in her heals, but she couldn’t find anyone to work with for Atlas Shrugged. Near her time of death, she basically told Dr. Peikoff to find a producer who really wants to produce it and let him produce it. So, yes, Dr. Peikoff was following Ayn Rand’s advise.

Personally, I think the movie will be really screwed up; much worse than the James Bond movies were screwed up. But, the movie will lead to a resurgence of interest in the novel, and Ayn Rand knew that it would, and decided to let someone make the movie as an advertisement for the novel.

Your answer on this point is weak at best. You have not addressed that Peikoff did not have to sell all rights to the script and you omit the fact Peikoff could have produced the script himself. I highly doubt that Ayn Rand would have been willing to just have Peikoff find a producer and let him produce it.

49

You know better than to say that I just found Ayn Rand yesterday, a few months ago, or even a few years ago. This is below you Tom.

Donovan, it wasn’t meant as an insult. I know your family and I realize that you were raised by parents who admire Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I wasn’t trying to say that you had never heard of Objectivism up to a few years ago. But there is a difference between implicit and accepted knowledge from one’s parents and a solid intellectual understanding of their philosophy. I was raised Catholic, and considered myself to be a Catholic, but I didn’t fully understand what that actually meant until I was at least a teenager – and the understanding really didn’t kick in until I went to a Catholic university, where I could see the entire historic scope of Catholicism qua philosophy. I started to seriously question Catholicism qua philosophy once I read The Fountainhead in high school when I was about seventeen. And it took me a good ten years to re-integrate myself towards Objectivism.

This goes to a previous comment by another poster as to why it takes so long to become an Objectivist. If you were raised by parents who admire Objectivism, you can get a basic grasp of that philosophy by the time you are twelve, but that is too young to fully grasp the philosophy, it’s basically implicit. If one was not raised by parents who admire Objectivism, then not only does one have to grasp the new philosophy, but one has to re-integrate one’s life to Objectivism, and that cannot occur overnight. And even if one was raised by Objectivists, our culture is certainly not Objectivist or rational, and it is not until one is a young adult that one can clearly understand that and take a much more independent view of what is going on in the culture and fight it consciously.

Kelley does say that ideas can have moral significance. He says that the essential property of an idea is epistemological.

That is the point of contention. Epistemology is not disconnected from morality. Thinking is a type of action, and if one accepts irrational ideas then one is not rational, which means that one is not moral under Objectivism. The type of ideas that one accepts and promotes says a lot about how one’s mind works – i.e. whether one is rational or irrational. And if one accepts irrational ideas and promotes them, then one is not rational, which means that one is not moral.

Now, I will grant you that some people don’t know the full implications of what they are promoting, and in those cases they are like Typhoid Mary, and morally they have to be treated the same way. They should not be tolerated; they should be told outright that what they are promoting is wrong, and if they continue to promote it then they will not be dealt with as rational adults. A rational, moral adult does not go around promoting ideas that he does not understand. A rational adult understands the importance of ideas and that ideas have consequences, and it is his moral responsibility to be aware of what he has accepted and is promoting.

No, I am not intimidated by you or even a group of 1,000 people like you. I have stood my ground in the face of wider opposition, as any man of integrity and independence should be willing to do.

But you claimed that I was giving an argument from intimidation. Saying that someone is not an Objectivist because he is promoting ideas contrary to Objectivism is not an argument from intimidation. Presidential candidate Obama is most certainly not an Objectivist, that is very clear from what he has said and what he is promoting, but saying that he is not an Objectivist, in and of itself, is not a moral condemnation. I do morally condemn him, but not because he is not an Objectivist, but rather because I know the consequences of what he is promoting and realize that he is not being rational and that he wants to initiate force via the government to nationalize the health industry and to force us to pay for further Faith Based Initiatives, which will lead to the destruction of this great country.

Your answer on this point is weak at best. You have not addressed that Peikoff did not have to sell all rights to the script and you omit the fact Peikoff could have produced the script himself. I highly doubt that Ayn Rand would have been willing to just have Peikoff find a producer and let him produce it.

I gave you the facts of the case. Besides, as far as I know, Dr. Peikoff has little or no artistic ability, so he could not write the script himself.

50

Unless Objectivism holds that it has a Pope whose pronouncements, ex cathedra, are to be considered infallible and perfect, the only thing a rational person is obliged to consider is whether the arguments he lays out are logical. The same is true for evaluating David Kelley’s statements. A moral person judges both positions rationally and draws the appropriate conclusion. If one side doesn’t like the other’s conclusions, that is not enough to make one side immoral.

I agree that there is no Pope in Objectivism. Not only in regards to the infallibility of his statements, but also Objectivism recognizes the the ultimate moral authority is one’s own mind. In other words, Dr. Peikoff is not my moral authority, I am.

And you are right that in any debate, one side being right doesn’t make the other side immoral. I do not consider people who disagree with me to be immoral. And I don’t think that Dr. Peikoff considers those who disagree with him to be immoral. There is such a thing as rational disagreements, but if someone shows himself to be irrational, then he has to be morally evaluated as being immoral.

And, yes, one has to take a lot into account in deciding whether someone is immoral or not; however, the ideas that one accepts and promotes does give one an insight into how their mind works, and one can decide based on another’s ideas if that person is being rational or not. But, in Objectivism one doesn’t just say, “Well, epistemologically that guy is being irrational, but I don’t think he is being immoral.” Being rational is to be moral, and being irrational is to be immoral.

A given person may very well be mistaken about the ideas that he accepts and promotes; that is he may honestly not realize that he is holding an irrational position. But one ought not to tolerate his ideas even in that case. One ought not to just brush it off as having no significance. In the appropriate context, such as a discussion forum, he needs to be told that his ideas are wrong, and why they are wrong; and if he insists on holding that wrong idea against the facts and against all reason, then one has to judge him as being irrational, and therefore immoral.

As far as me taking a religious stance towards Objectivism; no, I don’t do that. I have thought it through. I have not accepted any of it on faith, and I don’t expect anyone else to accept it on faith. I try to explain my positions very carefully, and go through a great deal of effort to convince through rational persuasion. But, if in my judgement that person is not open to reason, then I judge him to be immoral; not merely epistemologically incorrect.

51

Hello Donovan,

As I explained in my first post on this thread, this definition “… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence” is wrong.

Example where tolerance does apply:

… you have judged that she is not likely to fit the profile of one who “should have known what the function of government ought to be.” In this situation, it is acceptable to have a civil attitude and it is not necessary to boycott the waitress or the restaurant.

If this is your judgment, you have not practiced “tolerance” under any of the ordinarily-accepted senses and definitions.

– Toad

52

Hello Donovan,

As I explained in my first post on this thread, this definition “… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence” is wrong.

If this is your judgment, you have not practiced “tolerance” under any of the ordinarily-accepted senses and definitions.

– Toad

Toad,

I do not see how putting up with someone that says things you know are incorrect, is not tolerance. I think I am being tolerant in having this discussion. If I were being intolerant I would have condemned everyone I disagree with, removed my sanction and I would not even bother to deal with people at all. The reason why I am being tolerant in this conversation is because I have not seen evidence that anyone here has malevolent intentions and I do not assume that because others have a different view that I always know their intentions. Degree and measurement matters in morality. I think you are very confused between the concept of moral relativism and tolerance. I think you are also being unfair to Kelley because you are taking his quote to mean suspending all judgment as apposed to not judging someone’s character automatically based on their ideas or actions (because we lack evidence).

For anyone that is interested in knowing a little about how these two concepts differ, consider these links:

Moral relativism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Toleration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

Intentions and degree matter in morality:

Basic elements:

In common law jurisdictions, murder has two elements or parts:

the act (actus reus) of killing a person

the state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton.

While murder is often expressed as the unlawful killing of another human being with “malice aforethought”, this element of malice may not be required in every jurisdiction (for example, see the French definition of murder below).

The element of malice aforethought can be satisfied by an intentional killing, which is considered express malice.

Malice can also be implied: deaths that occur by any recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be implied malice murders.

Exclusions:

Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.

Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses.

Suicide is not considered murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.

Capital punishment ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal trial with due process for a serious crime.

Killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes. (see the Laws of war article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Common_law

53

Would you be willing to say that EC is immoral for his convictions relative to his views on the issue of Homosexuality?

I believe it is a case of willful irrationality. So yes, I think he is being immoral.

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

It’s been quite a while since I’ve read The Contested Legacy, and I don’t remember the context of these quotes. However, I’ll try to reply to them.

Quote #1: There isn’t much to discuss here. Peikoff and Kelley do have radically different viewpoints on the moral implications of ideas and even actions.

Quote #2: I don’t want to quote Peikoff, I prefer to formulate my own answers, but this is basically Peikoff’s stance. According to Objectivism, when one is evaluating an idea morally, one should not subjectively attach a positive or negative evaluation to it. If an idea is consonant with reality, then its consonance implies that a logical process formed the idea, hence the idea is good and any actions derived from that idea will also be good. The other side of the coin is, if an idea is inconsistent with reality, then its inconsistence implies that an illogical process formed the idea, hence the idea is bad, etc.

I also maintain that a logical process of thought cannot result in an idea that is inconsistent with reality and that an action derived from such an idea cannot be immoral (and vice-versa).

The truth or falsity of an idea therefore, implies its moral significance—the relationship between fact and value. Objective value results from objective truth. I agree with Peikoff when he asserts that Kelley’s moral theory denies the relationship between fact and value. Such a denial is unacceptable and is not compatible with Objectivism.

A false idea is derived from an illogical process of thought or an irrational motive, both are immoral and can/should be forgiven only if that person recognizes their mistakes and their irrationality and changes their mindset.

Quote #3: Insufficient evidence of what? The motive of holding a false idea?

54

Brandon,

Why bother with differentiating between epistemology and ethics at all then? Does every fact hold a moral significance? And, since you have declared that EC is immoral, have you decided what to do about it? Is there a spectrum when it comes to morality or is he just as bad as a killer? I am also wondering, since you think that all irrational ideas automatically manifest into evil actions, why advocate a free society? Why not punish people for their ideas? As soon as you hear EC say “Gays are immoral,” you believe you can infer that he must be an evader, he must have the intention to do harm, he is evil. Why not persecute him? Even in Dante’s Inferno there was acknowledgment of degree and measurement. Sounds like Peikoff’s version of hell would be even worse than the Inferno! And, I thought the Christian hell was packed full of souls!

Compare these statements:

Quote 1:

In no sense does Ayn Rand regard any particular value as a metaphysical given, as pre-existing in man or in the universe. She begins by observing the facts that create the need for values.

Page 29

Quote 2:

Just as she begins her treatment of ethics with the question: What _ facts of reality _ give rise to and necessitate values? - so, in her treatment of the specific issue of selfishness, she asks: What in fact constitutes man’s self-interest? - not: Is it moral for a man to act on his desires?

Page 34

  • Who is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden, 1962

The first issue concerns the basic relationship between fact and

value and its implications for moral judgment. Ayn Rand held that values

are rooted in the fact that living things must act to maintain their own

survival. Since I agree with her position, I do not accept any dichotomy

between fact and value, or between cognition and evaluation. On the contrary,

I hold that values are a species of facts, evaluation a species of

cognition. But this does not mean that we are obliged to pass moral judgment

on every person or action we encounter, as Peikoff claims.

  • David Kelley, Page 15 - The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand

Peikoff claims that “every fact bears on the choice to live.” The

claim is obviously false as stated. The number of hairs in Plato’s beard, or

blades of grass in Peikoff’s lawn, has no bearing on my choice to live.

Perhaps in light of such examples, he qualifies the claim by restricting it to

the facts we know about. His central point is that “cognition implies evaluation,”

i.e., that “every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or

indirectly, an implication for man’s self-preservation.” His argument is

that cognition is not an end in itself. Even in the highest reaches of philosophy

or mathematics, the function of thought is to serve man’s life, not

to engage in a disembodied contemplation of the world. The goal of

thought, therefore, must be the discovery of those facts that do have “an

implication for man’s self-preservation.”2

  • David Kelley, Page 20 - The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand

To read a full version of Kelley’s paper use this link:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/David%20K…0Toleration.pdf

55

Ayn Rand said that she found homosexuality to be disgusting, but she didn’t say it was immoral.

Here you go:

In 1971, the exchange was as follows:

Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That’s his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it’s proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral , and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.6

56

I am going to ask both of you, respectfully, one more time, NOT to use me in your discussion anymore. To see you two using my name as if I am not here and have not provided any reasoning for my views on an issue that has nothing to do with what you are talking about is pissing me of, to say the least.

I have been developing my thoughts on homosexuality the last few days and will make a post in the appropriate thread then. Then and only then, if you have a problem with my ideas or logical arguments, then you’re free to challenge them and we will have a discussion, and reality will decide who is right. But until then, in this thread, regarding this issue try to keep my name out of your mouths, or in this case, I guess off your fingertips and my monitor.

Don’t say things on this forum about me that I don’t either of you would have the courage to say to my face. Thank you.

57

I would like to remind all participants that the topic of this thread, as established in the initial post, is Kelley’s repudiation of Objectivism as observed in his theory of moral toleration: it is not the history of the views of EC or any other forum participant on homosexuality.

58

I do not see how putting up with someone that says things you know are incorrect, is not tolerance. …

Your raising a different definition of “tolerance” is irrelevant to the fact that this definition that you cited from Kelley “… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence” is wrong. You first cited this quote on this thread. There is nothing “unfair” about me pointing out that it is wrong.

Regarding your example, if your judgment is that a person is not guilty of a moral breach (“not one who should have known what the function of government ought to be”), what have you “tolerated”? Ignorance of a waitress in an area that does not pertain to her services to you. But you have not “suspended judgment.”

– Toad

59

Your raising a different definition of “tolerance” is irrelevant to the fact that this definition that you cited from Kelley “… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence” is wrong. You first cited this quote on this thread. There is nothing “unfair” about me pointing out that it is wrong.

I think you are mistaken in your analyses, because you are refusing to accept the context in which that was written.

Regarding your example, if your judgment is that a person is not guilty of a moral breach (“not one who should have known what the function of government ought to be”), what have you “tolerated”? Ignorance of a waitress in an area that does not pertain to her services to you. But you have not “suspended judgment.”

You have suspended a moral judgment (pronouncement) of the waitress’ total character, because you don’t have enough facts to make a judgment (conclusion) one way or another based on only knowing that she is a Democrat. Our Grandmother was a Democrat, but I don’t think she was immoral because of it. And I certainly practiced tolerance, it would have been wonderful if Grandma had been an Objectivist.

Toad please answer these 2 questions:

“… tolerance … means suspending judgment when we lack sufficient evidence”

1. What type of judgment is Kelley talking about?

A. Moral Judgment

B. Epistemological Judgment (True/False)

C. Judgment of one’s Character in toto

D. Political judgement (criminal judgment)

E. All of the above

2. What “sufficient evidence” do you think Kelley is talking about?

A. The actions one has taken (past actions)

B. The person’s intentions (malice or benevolent) & context of knowledge

C. Potential actions (possible future actions)

D. All of the above

This discussion is reminding me more and more of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGLNbiw1gk…ature=rec-fresh

60

I would like to remind all participants that the topic of this thread, as established in the initial post, is Kelley’s repudiation of Objectivism as observed in his theory of moral toleration: it is not the history of the views of EC or any other forum participant on homosexuality.

The reason why it’s being brought up is because I am questioning how some Objectivists are justifying their practices of tolerance, which is the subject of discussion here. But, I agree, there is no need to continue pointing to this person as an example.

My apologies,

Donovan