Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does “integration of virtues” (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean?
Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc?
I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion).
Thanks.
I think it means that you have the fundamental virtue, honesty, and from that honesty all the other virtues follow. For example, by being honest about who you are, about your conditions and context, about what you want and how you should get it as a man, you will be productive.
I’ll look this up on the CD and give a fuller response later, if someone else hasn’t already responded. But I should say now, pride isn’t a virtue. Pride is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from successfully pursuing and gaining a value - in otherwords, the sense of efficacy that occurs, as an emotional reward mechanism, for life-advancing actions.
This is how I relate them:
Rationality is the primary virtue - living according to man’s nature, a rational being;
Honesty is a corollary of Rationality - you can’t apply reason to things that don’t exist and still call it reason (since reason is the process of grasping reality), you can’t be honest except by applying reason. You can’t be Honest but not Rational, you can’t be Rational and dishonest.
Independence is a necessary condition of Rationality - the human mind is irrevocably independent, there is no “shared thought” or “shared decision”, one must think for oneself if one is to be rational. You can be Independent but not Rational, you can’t be Rational and dependent.
Productivity is Independence applied to physical life - you can’t be Independent in mind if you are dependent in body. If your physical existence depends on another, can’t be your own, since you must always consider the reactions and opinions of the person you depend on to provide your physical needs.
Those are the primary virtues and the way I understand them to “tie in” with each other.
Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does “integration of virtues” (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean?
Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc?
I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion).
Thanks.
I’m in the middle of Andrew Lewis’ course from ARI, The Unity of Virtue. My take on the thesis is that the degree to which someone has a particular virtue will necessarily affect the degree to which they have another one, but not necessarily to the same degree. That the virtues are all aspects of rationality, and that to the extent tha one is irrational in some aspect of their life, will mean that it is impossible to compatmentalize that irrationality. It will necessarily spill over into other aspects of their life.
The example I like to take is that of the effects of dishonesty. It is very difficult to have single lies in isolation. To continue to perpetuate a “single” dishonesty, you must necessarily perpetuate more of them. It has a spill-over effect.
I think it means that you have the fundamental virtue, honesty, …
But I should say now, pride isn’t a virtue. Pride is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from successfully pursuing and gaining a value - in otherwords, the sense of efficacy that occurs, as an emotional reward mechanism, for life-advancing actions.
Just two quick points:
Pride is a virtue. Perhaps you were thinking of self esteem?
If there is a “fundamental virtue", i think that would be rationality and not honesty?
But pride is an emotion - one cannot pursue it, because one does not live to achieve emotions, one lives to achieve values (emotions are the incentives to gain those values, but they are not the end-goal). One can pursue honesty, say, by making decisions and judgments, and strictly refusing to let the ‘I want’ dominate the actual facts of reality; to not dodge out of the way of one’s responsibility to one’s own mind. Which brings me onto…
Rationality cannot be the fundamental virtue, because rationality as it is - a state in which one makes consistently rational decisions - cannot simply be pursued in itself; it requires that one first start making afforementioned rational decisions. However, those rational decisions first require a strict obedience to reality - one cannot make a rational decision, before one has first honestly looked at reality, with a focused, clear mind.
- Rationality cannot be the fundamental virtue, because rationality as it is - a state in which one makes consistently rational decisions - cannot simply be pursued in itself; it requires that one first start making afforementioned rational decisions. However, those rational decisions first require a strict obedience to reality - one cannot make a rational decision, before one has first honestly looked at reality, with a focused, clear mind.
I believe, according to OPAR, that rationality is the PRIME virtue–and the six derivative virtues are (not in this order but I don’t think order is significant), Integrity, Independence, Honesty, Pride, Productiveness, and Justice.
- But pride is an emotion - one cannot pursue it,
Yes you can. The virtue of pride, as defined by Rand, is a moral ambitiousness, it is an aspiration (in the active sense - not just wishful thinking) to live up to one’s moral ideals.
- But pride is an emotion
No, much more than that - pride is the recognition of one’s own goodness. It is right and good to recognize it when one is… well, right and good.
- Rationality cannot be the fundamental virtue, because rationality as it is - a state in which one makes consistently rational decisions - cannot simply be pursued in itself; it requires that one first start making afforementioned rational decisions. However, those rational decisions first require a strict obedience to reality - one cannot make a rational decision, before one has first honestly looked at reality, with a focused, clear mind.
Sure it can. It can and it is. Your error is in your placement of the recognition of reality. The recognition of reality is subsumed under rationality, not honesty. Honesty is meant specifically toward others. Integrity is directed at the self - honesty to one’s self. It is rationality that is the recognition of reality. Remember that Ayn Rand’s definition of reason is not like some. It is not a process of disconnected logic - it is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.
Er, you know that.
Anyhow, if you don’t believe me, go look at OPAR. This is all in there.
Anyhow, if you don’t believe me, go look at OPAR. This is all in there.
Both quotes are from the beginning of chapter 8 in Peikoff’s OPAR:
on integration:
“Since these virtues are expressions of rationality, they are logically interconnected, both in theory and in practice. None can be validated in isolation, apart from the others; nor can a man practice any one of them consistently while defaulting on the others. In defining a series of virtues, Ayn Rand is abstracting, separating out for purposes of specialized study elements of a single whole. What she seeks to clarify by this means, however, is the whole. The Objectivist ethics upholds not disconnected rules, but an integrated way of life, every aspect of which entails all the others.”
on virtues:
"In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand defines six major derivatives of the virtue of rationality. That is the account I am following. Miss Rand did not regard this list as necessarily exhaustive or the order of its items as logically mandatory. Her concern was not to cover every application of virtue, but to identify the essentials of rationality in the most important areas and aspects of human life. This is the minimum moral knowledge needed by a man if he seeks to follow reason consistently, as a matter of principle, in his daily choices and actions.
The six derivative virtues are independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. After we have discussed them, we will consider a widespread vice, which represents the destruction of all of them. The vice is the initiation of physical force against other men."
The recognition of reality is subsumed under rationality, not honesty.
I’d put it this way, rationality is the engine of the mind and tool of survival. It’s the way we come to recognize the value of honesty, or the value of anything. Only through rationality can you make the important assessments: “when I’m dishonest this happens, that’s bad. When I’m honest this happens, that’s good.” You have to make the rational assessment that honesty is right in order to practice it. Implicitly you have to be honest at all times to gain knowledge, but you come to recognize that through rationality.
Honesty is meant specifically toward others.
No, honesty is meant toward the self, primarily. Peikoff puts it this way “‘Honesty’ is the refusal to fake reality, i.e., to pretend that facts are other than they are.” [OPAR, page 267]
Integrity is directed at the self - honesty to one’s self.
Integrity means being true to your principles. Peikoff puts it this way “‘Integrity’ is loyalty in action to one’s convictions and values.” [OPAR, 259]
It is rationality that is the recognition of reality. Remember that Ayn Rand’s definition of reason is not like some. It is not a process of disconnected logic - it is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.
Right. It’s our means to understanding reality. So, it’s our means to knowledge.
No, honesty is meant toward the self, primarily. Peikoff puts it this way “‘Honesty’ is the refusal to fake reality, i.e., to pretend that facts are other than they are.” [OPAR, page 267]
I do believe you’ve got me there; I stand corrected.
This thread has been quite enlightening so far. Thank you, everyone.
However the essential question has not been addressed. I will expand on it.
Since the virtues are integrated, is it a fact that finding one virtue in someone is finding all the other virtues in him? Would it follow that, if we had sufficient evidence for the presence of a certain virtue in an individual then this is also sufficient evidence (by implication) for the presence of all the other virtues?
Thus, if we find a software programmer who is profoundly and consistently productive - a Marc Andreessen perhaps - should we also take it for granted that this man is (therefore) also very honest, rational, independent, just, proud, etc? Should I trust Andreessen with my money simply based on how I have judged him as a productive person?
I stand corrected on what I said above.
As for the integration of virtues, can you tell all other virtues by one alone? Not exactly. Productivity, in particular, can be sought without one seeing it as a virtue, or without any respect of any of the others. One might want to avoid a problem in one’s personal life, in one’s own mental health, in one’s marriage, etc - so that instead of dealing with it, they give themselves a duty to a ‘higher’ cause, such as their work. They disintegrate themselves, and focus purely on doing the best they can at their work, producing fantastic output, the kind of output that requires them to approach these problems rationally and independently. However, they only stick to these virtues in this context, and ignore them outside of work - they are necessary evils to avoid a problem the person does not want to face up to. I think a virtue needs to be practiced consistently through a man’s life to say, “He is virtuous”, as you would not say that a pathological liar, who sometimes has to tell the truth to buy his groceries, is a bastion of honesty.
This thread has been quite enlightening so far. Thank you, everyone.
However the essential question has not been addressed. I will expand on it.
Since the virtues are integrated, is it a fact that finding one virtue in someone is finding all the other virtues in him? Would it follow that, if we had sufficient evidence for the presence of a certain virtue in an individual then this is also sufficient evidence (by implication) for the presence of all the other virtues?
Thus, if we find a software programmer who is profoundly and consistently productive - a Marc Andreessen perhaps - should we also take it for granted that this man is (therefore) also very honest, rational, independent, just, proud, etc? Should I trust Andreessen with my money simply based on how I have judged him as a productive person?
I answered this question already. No. That is not what the integration of virtue means.
I’m in the middle of Andrew Lewis’ course from ARI, The Unity of Virtue. My take on the thesis is that the degree to which someone has a particular virtue will necessarily affect the degree to which they have another one, but not necessarily to the same degree. That the virtues are all aspects of rationality, and that to the extent tha one is irrational in some aspect of their life, will mean that it is impossible to compatmentalize that irrationality. It will necessarily spill over into other aspects of their life.
The example I like to take is that of the effects of dishonesty. It is very difficult to have single lies in isolation. To continue to perpetuate a “single” dishonesty, you must necessarily perpetuate more of them. It has a spill-over effect.
I wanted to hear your fuller comment after you finish that course since you said you are only half way through, before I think about your comment more.
But anyway…
I think we will still need to think about some particular concretes to see if your theory fully ties in with experience [For example, a man cheats on his wife - will this necessarily affect his (intellectual and practical commitment to) productivity or productiveness (as a software programmer, comedian, singer, body guard, or whatever he does?) Why will his dishonesty in marriage necessarily result in an irrational approach to his software programming (to whatever degree)? Do you believe this is really what happens in real life?] - Just thinking aloud.
Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does “integration of virtues” (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean?
Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc?
I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion).
Thanks.
You might want to study -The Nicomachean Ethics- by Aristotle. He has a lot to say about virtues.
See http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html for an English translation.
Bob Kolker
You might want to study -The Nicomachean Ethics- by Aristotle.
Is there something the good Aristotle wrote in there that is specifically applicable to the question at hand? I’d appreciate that. Thanks.
Re: Virtues affecting virtues
I would say it’s not so much a philosophical issue, but a psychological one, that if one keeps up something as dishonest as an affair, the effect on the rest of his life will depend on the severity of the consequences, the nature of why you haven’t divorced, the nature of why you fell in love with this person and many other issues. No matter what the case, the fact is that having an affair means keeping something not just good, but of prime value to you, utterly secret. That cannot be, and is in fact, not good for your psychological well being. Also, it leads to more lying and more deception on your part, and those lies can build up over time, making you feel guilty, and also spoiling the good judgement one might hold of you.
No matter what the case, the fact is that having an affair means keeping something not just good, but of prime value to you, utterly secret.
It’s not always the case that the affair is with someone that you value that highly, I think (and I’m not saying that’s rational).
…and also spoiling the good judgement one might hold of you.
Not if it’s kept “utterly secret”!