What is the principle behind the notion that “tact” is a virtue?
In my experience, you are much more learned in Objectivist terminology than I, and based on this initial question I fear I may have misspoken; if I ever referred to “tact” specifically as being a “virtue” (I don’t know whether I have or not), then I might not have meant virtue in the sense that Rand did when she described “productiveness” or “honesty.” Allow me to describe what I believe as best I can, and if you think I’m still essentially asserting that “tact is a virtue,” we can proceed from there:
I do not believe that tact is necessarily good in every situation. However there are situations where tact may be valuable. If one engages in some conversation for the purpose of persuasion, for instance, then I believe tact serves that end. I am speaking generally, even so. Is it possible that some individual might respond even better to being insulted? I suppose it is, and if one has evidence that one is in such a situation, then one should alter one’s approach accordingly – the better to serve his ends.
For example, suppose I had led off this response to you with something like, “Jesus Christ, is this really so hard for you to understand?! You need to have me explain this to you?” Now, what would I be conveying with that kind of rhetoric/speech? Some amount of my own frustration, no doubt, and perhaps my evaluation of your intelligence… but to what end? (And to be very clear, this is just an example for the sake of discussion; I don’t feel any particular frustration and I certainly consider you to be intelligent.) If my purpose here is to convince you of some truth I have (or in this case, clarify my thinking on this subject), would it assist me? Would I be clearing the way for you to understand me, insofar as I am able, or making it more difficult? Would you be more interested in continuing our dialogue, or less? Maybe it would make no difference to you – that’s possible – but I think that there are many people for whom that kind of approach would be destructive (vis a vis persuasion, or other positive ends realizable through conversation, which we could also examine). I think that this is typically true, and I think that there are understandable reasons why this is true. Thus if I had the choice as to whether to include or exclude such rhetoric (and I believe I do have such a choice), I would opt against it, even in those cases where I am genuinely frustrated or have developed some negative view of your intellectual ability.
Is there a point where, having abandoned all hope of persuading you, or explaining myself, or etc., where I can safely damn you to hell as some unthinking blob? Perhaps. But we must acknowledge that for what it is, and so long as we wish to persuade, I argue we should avoid it.
Why should a rationally self interested person be concerned with avoiding consequences that arise from the irrationality of others rather than living according to their own values-standards and desires?
I think that such a person should live according to his own values. However, in the pursuit of a value, one may have to take into account the fact that irrational people do exist, and adjust one’s tactics accordingly – the better to achieve his values.
I do not lock my door at night for its own sake; it is strictly to “avoid consequences that arise from the irrationality of others,” but more importantly it is in service of all of those values which depend on me living through the night in safety. I believe it is in my interest to do so. Do you concur?
If one can persuade another by suffering ridicule and unwarranted accusation about their motives, but based on honest error, should they? Why? What is the principle behind such a tact?
My own threshold for “suffering ridicule and unwarranted accusation” is very low. Perhaps too low. But if I judged that the fault might be a matter of honest error, and if the object of discussion were important enough (or if my partner in discussion were more generally a value to me), I might be willing to suffer through temporarily for the sake of rectifying the issue, and putting the conversation on a better and more productive track.
In such a case, instead of “fighting fire with fire,” returning ridicule for ridicule, it would probably be best to address myself towards what I believe to be the source of confusion/error.
What responsibilities does a rational egoist place on those whom agree to discourse such that when these are not met one ought to desist?
In general terms, I think that this is what I seek to explore (among other associated issues). I think that discourse is, itself, a subject worth study, and I believe that some means and methods of discourse are bound to be better than others.
When should one desist from discourse? I don’t know that I have the answer yet, but I believe that some of the concepts discussed earlier (respect; sincerity; intellectual honesty) are keys to this question. I think that some modes of discussion serve to convey respect, sincerity, and intellectual honesty, and some serve to convey their opposite. I would like to have conversations characterized by those three things, and I do not want to have conversations which lack them.
When would ridicule be a rational means of achieving ones values?
The specifics are yet to be determined, but I think that the answer must be “when it is judged the best means of achieving one’s values.”
I think that there are values to be gained through certain forms of ridicule, as satire – for instance, entertainment. Yet I am not convinced that ridicule is a viable means for persuasion. I think that it typically works contrary to persuasion, which might be an important aspect to consider in several real world applications, where to ridicule might involve a sacrifice (when what is “gained” through entertainment is overshadowed by what is lost).
Given that self esteem is central to the achievement of the objectivist virtues, and those without it usually attack those with it, how does a self respecting, virtuous egoist deal with such a person without sacrificing himself to injustice?
In this case, by starting a thread in the interest of illuminating these kinds of issues, getting people to be more thoughtful about how they deal with one another, and perhaps changing the culture so that conversations deal more with the ideas we discuss, rather than our evaluations of one another, even – or especially – in disagreement.
Otherwise, I don’t know.