The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] Objectivism seems to have very definite answers everywhere else, but it seems to get murky on the social issues.

←

A side note: Two issues arise with considering pornography. One is the issue of what does pornography mean? This is an issue of evaluation of the pornography itself. A second issue is the political issue: Should pornography be banned or controlled? This second issue is social, but the first is not.

[Oakes 0]

It's not a question of "what's wrong with saying that" as much as it is a question of why you say that. If you think it is immoral, then you must justify that.

I don't know if I am able to explain using Objectivist ethical principles why it is immoral (in normal contexts), but I get the picture that others in this thread agree that it is, and regard Ayn Rand's case as an "extraordinary situation." If we can agree that it is immoral in normal situations, it is important to say so for the same reason we should proclaim that lying is wrong.

But that's the case where I am desperately in love with someone. What if the relationship is not and won't be of that kind? Suppose there is mutual attraction, admiration, and affection, but not extreme love, between two good people who see no immediate prospects of a romantic relationship in the full sense. I think it would be intrinsicist to say they would be immoral to fool around with each other. In such a case, maybe there is a way to have a non-exclusive sexual relationship. But even then, it would be hard to do, and would most likely end up with at least one person's feelings being hurt.

If you're suggesting that it's okay to be with multiple partners as long as you aren't deperately in love with any one of them, this is no longer an "extraordinary situation." In fact, I would think that a very large number of couples are not desperately in love with each other, but that hardly justifies them sleeping with other people.

A side note: Two issues arise with considering pornography. One is the issue of what does pornography mean? This is an issue of evaluation of the pornography itself. A second issue is the political issue: Should pornography be banned or controlled? This second issue is social, but the first is not.

My language use was inexact. By "social" I was refering to issues involving love, sex, and romance. It may be my conservative upbringing, but whenever I hear of Objectivists sanctioning pornography or multiple sex partners (the latter issue has been mostly cleared up), I start thinking about hedonism and libertinism, which seems more fit for nihilists than advocates of reason.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I don't know if I am able to explain using Objectivist ethical principles why it is immoral (in normal contexts), ...

Issues of morality, and charges of immorality, are a serious business. I do not think it proper to proclaim an act immoral if you cannot justify that judgment using whatever ethical principles you hold.

... but I get the picture that others in this thread agree that it is, and regard Ayn Rand's case as an "extraordinary situation." If we can agree that it is immoral in normal situations, it is important to say so for the same reason we should proclaim that lying is wrong.

First, I am not even sure what "it" you are here referring to as being immoral. In a recent post you said that "romance with more than one person is immoral." The major discussion in this thread, however, was not just about romance, but romance in the context of marriage. Second, how can we "agree" that something is immoral without justifying the immorality? The reason for lying being immoral has been explicated many times in several threads in THE FORUM, but that has not been done with the current claim.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Oakes,

I don't know if I am able to explain using Objectivist ethical principles why it is immoral (in normal contexts), but I get the picture that others in this thread agree that it is, and regard Ayn Rand's case as an "extraordinary situation." If we can agree that it is immoral in normal situations, it is important to say so for the same reason we should proclaim that lying is wrong.

You seem to be comitting an intrinsicist fallacy here, as if it was somehow ordained by nature that lying would be wrong. Lying is not wrong, as such. It is wrong in some contexts, but not wrong in others, as simple as that. Likewise, you cannot say that monogamy is right, being somehow ordained by nature, and requiring extraordinary circumstances to violate this proper way of things. It is not right, as such. It is right in some contexts but not in others. Again, it's as simple as that.

Furthermore, I disagree that we should say that Ayn Rand's cause is akin to a lifeboat example, where normal rules of morality are irrelevant. It is only a lifeboat example by a stretch, because morality still just as fully applies in her case as in all others (there are no conditions to make it an ethics of emergencies); the one thing that makes this similar to a lifeboat example is rarity of this incident occurring with most people, and consequently our lack of understanding about what choices people make, or why they make them. And just because someone makes a choice you don't understand, does not make it immoral, certainly not if it's by Ayn Rand who has shown herself to be consistently virtuous in every other area of her life, especially perceptive on what makes a moral person, as seen from her books.

So how do you grasp with understanding this choice made by someone else that you do not understand, and which seems wrong, on the surface, yet you know that the person who did it generally practices a degree of morality that the rest of us can only aspire to? You say, "Hmm, that's interesting, guess I'll have to learn more about people before I understand this." That's what I said, some years ago, and I have come to understand the situation and see nothing wrong with it. Is it an unusual situation? Yes. But that's what comes with learning more about people: you learn about many unusual circumstances that happen with people that don't fit the normal mold of things, and that's ok.

The whole point is that Ayn Rand struggled too much, and deserved love and companionship to the utmost degree. That, I think, is what we ultimately have to respect here.

[DonWatkins 0]

So how do you grasp with understanding this choice made by someone else that you do not understand, and which seems wrong, on the surface, yet you know that the person who did it generally practices a degree of morality that the rest of us can only aspire to?

←

Can only aspire to? I hope you don't mean that.

Don Watkins

[Oakes 0]

Issues of morality, and charges of immorality, are a serious business. I do not think it proper to proclaim an act immoral if you cannot justify that judgment using whatever ethical principles you hold.

That's why I came into this thread expressing utter confusion. The reply I received was that we're only talking about a rare context, the implication being that in normal contexts it would be immoral. If this is not the case, my original shock was justified.

The reason for lying being immoral has been explicated many times in several threads in THE FORUM, but that has not been done with the current claim.

As I've indicated, I didn't come here to make such an argument; I came here to figure out whether or not there is one.

You seem to be comitting an intrinsicist fallacy here, as if it was somehow ordained by nature that lying would be wrong. Lying is not wrong, as such. It is wrong in some contexts, but not wrong in others, as simple as that. Likewise, <snip>

My previous posts should indicate that I fully understand that morality is contextual. Nevertheless, it is fine to say that lying is wrong because it applies to normal contexts; it isn't taking into account the exceptions.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Can only aspire to? I hope you don't mean that.

I do. We can all be honest and decent in our personal lives, yes, but Ayn Rand overcame situations that would crush most other people. Surviving Communist Russia with her spirit intact, is one example. As another example, imagine yourself being the only Objectivist, anywhere in the world -- no one to talk to, no forums to visit, no blogs to write for other Oists to read, no friends to discuss a favorite movie with from an Objectivist viewpoint, nothing. Now imagine living like this for decades, and yet again surviving it with an optimistic spirit intact. That's quite an achievement.

I think Ayn Rand's primary accomplishment was the fact that was able to hold on to that very tender vision of exaltation and hero-worship, despite all odds. Her morality (i.e. sanity as a rational being) was tested to its utmost, and came through. And that, as I said, is something that even the best of us today can only hope for matching

It's the same thing as saying, everyone can be courageous, yes, but how many will be courageous under torture? I'm sure everyone, including me, would like to think they will be, but in truth, the reality is quite different. For example, I don't really know if I'll be courageous under torture; I can only hope I am, but that's about as far as it goes. Ayn Rand was; that's the whole point.

Anyway, at an earlier time Stephen expressed a wish that we don't engage in "mind reading" exercizes toward Ayn Rand, and I confess that I'm a bit uncomfortable writing all that I did above. So I hope I have sufficiently explained my reasoning, and at this point would like to not pursue this line of discussion any longer.

[DonWatkins 0]

My previous posts should indicate that I fully understand that morality is contextual. Nevertheless, it is fine to say that lying is wrong because it applies to normal contexts; it isn't taking into account the exceptions.

←

Okay, but I think you're equivocating on what "normal" means. In the context of forming moral principles, "normal" refers to cases where long-range action by a rational being in pursuit of his values is possible. In the context of relationships, "normal" means, as best I can tell, the statistically usual situation...not any specific context.

My view is that it is a mistake to try to prescribe the contexts in which non-exclusivity is immoral. Better to evaluate any particular relationship according to more fundamental moral principles, rather than try to define a context in which "monogomy" is treated as a moral principle.

Consider the pratical implications of your approach. It implies that one should seek out a monogomous relationship when in fact that is NOT what one seeks out: rather, one seeks out the best partner one can find and develops the best relationship one can develop. Let's not lose sight of the fact that our purpose is not to embody some ideal, but to achieve our values and enjoy our life.

Don Watkins

[Free Capitalist 0]

it is fine to say that lying is wrong because it applies to normal contexts; it isn't taking into account the exceptions.

Nope, a shady character at the door, asking if your daughter is home, is not an abnormal context, where morality is concerned. It's just as much of a normal context as an opportunity to cheat on a test, which you don't take. Both are situations concerning honesty, both are equally normal insofar as morality in question, but in one case you are properly dishonest, and in the other case you are not.

[DonWatkins 0]

I think Ayn Rand's primary accomplishment was the fact that was able to hold on to that very tender vision of exaltation and hero-worship, despite all odds. Her morality (i.e. sanity as a rational being) was tested to its utmost, and came through. And that, as I said, is something that even the best of us today can only hope for matching

←

I certainly don't disagree with your sentiments regarding Rand's courage and uniqueness, but the implication of your quote ("generally practices a degree of morality that the rest of us can only aspire to") is that we are somehow necessarily LESS MORAL than Rand. The degree of your morality is NOT determined by how many "tests" you face, but by how you handle the choices you ARE faced with.

Don Watkins

[Free Capitalist 0]

I'm not talking about the degree of morality, but the quality of one's moral habits. That quality is not tested in most of us as much as it was in Ayn Rand.

[DonWatkins 0]

I'm not talking about the degree of morality, but the quality of one's moral habits. That quality is not tested in most of us as much as it was in Ayn Rand.

←

Okay...but you wrote "degree of morality." I just wanted you to clarify. Thanks.

Don Watkins

[Oakes 0]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that our purpose is not to embody some ideal, but to achieve our values and enjoy our life.

Monogamy is not an ideal detached from your life. I don't think happiness comes from cheapening yourself. I don't think happiness comes from hiring a prostitute or looking at pornography. My opposition to multiple romantic partners stems from the same premise. Ayn Rand's case was a rare exception in that she was torn between two people she loved for different reasons, and handled the it with an honest, consensual affair for a limited amount of time. Fine. Putting aside rare cases of being torn between two people you idealize greatly, why can't it be said that having multiple partners is detrimental?

Nope, a shady character at the door, asking if your daughter is home, is not an abnormal context, where morality is concerned.

You regard it as normal for perverts to walk up and ask if your daughter is at home. My next question is: Do you live in America?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Don,

Okay...but you wrote "degree of morality." I just wanted you to clarify. Thanks.

Okay you're right, what I said there was confusing. In the first instance (here), I meant "degree of morality" in the sense of, the quality of one's moral habits; that's why I said one "practices a degree of morality", rather than "has a degree of morality". In the second instance, by that phrase I meant precisely what you said, handling the choices you are faced with. So no disagreement there I guess, just unclear wording on my part.

Oakes,

You regard it as normal for perverts to walk up and ask if your daughter is at home. My next question is: Do you live in America?

Let's think in principles here, shall we? In principle, where morality is concerned there is no difference between the two situations. All issues where morality is concerned are, in principle, on the same level, regardless of how often or how rarely they occur. The only ethical questions that are not on the same level as the rest are issues concerning the ethics of emergencies, which are qualitatively different from all the rest, by their special characteristics. I further refer you to the essay under that very name, which Ayn Rand wrote in Virtue of Selfishness.

There is nothing in the case of Ayn Rand's affair that comes even close to the affair being within the realm of ethics of emergencies, so it is in principle not fundamentally different from any other moral issue; and, incidentally, the same issue applies to the example of the criminal at your door, regardless of how often or how rarely that happens (if ever).

However, just because AR doesn't have some sort of special loophole in ethics, that doesn't mean she was wrong in what she did, quite the contrary. But the reasons for why it was okay do not reside in any special ethical loopholes, but in the facts of the case (full disclosure to all parties involved), and one's life experience, based on which one tends to treat unusual situations less critically, the more one encounters them. At least that's what happened in my case.

P.S. Okay, yes, I live in New York, but the crime isn't that bad here...

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Nope, a shady character at the door, asking if your daughter is home, is not an abnormal context, where morality is concerned. It's just as much of a normal context as an opportunity to cheat on a test, which you don't take.

You consider a threat to be "normal"? I would consider it an emergency, that is, a danger that is emerging right now, a danger that requires action: lying (making a false statement) or physical self-defense, for example.

Both are situations concerning honesty, both are equally normal insofar as morality in question, but in one case you are properly dishonest, and in the other case you are not.

←

All situations are "concerning honesty." There is no such thing as being "properly dishonest." We must always be honest. Why? "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud ...." (Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 204, excerpt from Galt's Speech)

In my own words, honesty is facing the facts of reality. There is nothing dishonest about lying to a rapist in a threatening situation. To the contrary, it requires honesty, that is, facing the fact of the threat.

Lying (making a false statement) may be honest or dishonest depending on whether you are trying to protect a value rightfully held or trying to gain or keep a value not earned.

[TomR61 0]

Oakes,

I can see that you are still confused, and that we're not helping very much. Hitler and a "shady character" are clearly emergency contexts, but choosing a second partner is not. Is that what you are saying?

I think you're right, and the justification for taking a second partner is not clear. Perhaps that's because no "rule" can be given for such a choice, but only a principle (I say "only" to differentiate it from "merely" while retaining the emotion that may accompany the lake of a definite rule to follow)

The principle is clearly not "whatever feels good". Not is it "don't ever have a second partner."

Let me take a stab at defining the principle: Taking a second partner is a rational choice, in the proper context of equal value, if all the parties involved are fully informed adults capable of reason and there is honestly no feeling of jealousy.

This, I submit, would be very rare. Even Ayn Rand, if I understand her Journal Notes in Valliant's book, came to believe that her affair was a mistake.

Does that help?

Tom Rowland

[DonWatkins 0]

Fine. Putting aside rare cases of being torn between two people you idealize greatly, why can't it be said that having multiple partners is detrimental?

←

Because there might be other cases where it wouldn't be. To make a generalization like that you would have to do more than put aside exceptions. You would have to specify the context in which the generalization necessarily holds. I don't think that's possible in this case, nor do I think such an undertaking would be worth the effort.

Don Watkins

[DonWatkins 0]

You consider a threat to be "normal"? I would consider it an emergency, that is, a danger that is emerging right now, a danger that requires action: lying (making a false statement) or physical self-defense, for example.

←

I agree with Burgess here. Moral principles are formed within a context where long-range action by a rational being in pursuit of his values is possible. The aforementioned case is, in my view, outside of that sphere: it requires immediate action to defend a value from a threat, i.e., to return to a normal state of affairs. It is an EMERGENCY situation and thus the application of moral principles, such as honesty, is going to be different than it otherwise would be (e.g., it permits lying).

Don Watkins

[Free Capitalist 0]

Burgess,

In my own words, honesty is facing the facts of reality. There is nothing dishonest about lying to a rapist in a threatening situation. To the contrary, it requires honesty, that is, facing the fact of the threat.

Lying (making a false statement) may be honest or dishonest depending on whether you are trying to protect a value rightfully held or trying to gain or keep a value not earned.

That's a semantical issue then, because to me "being truthful" = being honest, and "lying" = being dishonest. Either way, we're saying the same thing, but getting a bit off topic, so it would be better for us to pursue this discussion in its own thread.

Don,

If you disagree, then this subject also might be a candidate for a fruitful thread of its own. For now I'll say that, regardless of whether it is an emergency or not, my example focused on the principle that morality is contextual, whereas Oakes seems to be treating it intrinsically, hence my example. As to the concretes, I still believe the example I made fell under the aegis of 'regular' morality, and I'll explain further if someone makes a thread for it.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

Monogamy is not an ideal detached from your life. I don't think happiness comes from cheapening yourself. I don't think happiness comes from hiring a prostitute or looking at pornography. My opposition to multiple romantic partners stems from the same premise. Ayn Rand's case was a rare exception in that she was torn between two people she loved for different reasons, and handled the it with an honest, consensual affair for a limited amount of time. Fine. Putting aside rare cases of being torn between two people you idealize greatly, why can't it be said that having multiple partners is detrimental?

←

You got it 100% right. It can be said that, with extremely rare exceptions, having multiple partners is detrimental to a romantic relationship. Even in Rand's case, it is still unclear if she continued to be intimate with her husband during the time she was having the affair with Branden.

[Oakes 0]

Stephen asked me to justify my judgement that having multiple partners is, in normal contexts, immoral. After some thought, along with contemplation of TomR61's suggestion, I've pulled two virtues that I think are relevent:

Pride: OPAR defines pride as "the commitment to achieve moral perfection." I believe Francisco applies this to romance in Atlas Shrugged: "The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer--because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut." In normal situations, there is only one who is truly the highest for you, which is why monogamy in that context is a virtue. The only exception is a situation in which you are torn between multiple people, all of whom you regard as the highest. At any rate, those who seek to have multiple partners regardless of their virtue (i.e., promiscuous people) are not men of pride.

Honesty: OPAR defines honesty as "the refusal to fake reality, i.e., to pretend that facts are other than they are." Applying this to romance means not lying to your partner or spouse about and affair you're having with someone else. To do so would be dishonest, regardless of whether you are living up to the virtue of pride.

Any criticism of the above is welcome. I did the best I could given my current knowledge.

PS: Free Capitalist, I want to clear something up. I don't believe, and never did believe, that Ayn Rand's affair falls under the ethics of emergencies. I simply regarded her situation as abnormal, and for that reason we can safely set it aside and broadly say that having multiple partners is immoral.

[Oakes 0]

Because there might be other cases where it wouldn't be.  To make a generalization like that you would have to do more than put aside exceptions.  You would have to specify the context in which the generalization necessarily holds.

Maybe you can comment on my previous post. The context in which the generalization holds is when "there is only one who is truly the highest for you."

[Paul's Here 0]

............

Then I come into this thread hearing people talk about renegotiating marriage contracts so that partners may have sex with other people. If finding something wrong with that constitutes a religious view of marriage, I'll have hit a roadblock I never thought I would hit.

←

Let's look at it with a different example. Suppose before you get married, you agree with your spouse that you want only 2 kids. After 10 years and the kids have grown, you change your mind because you really enjoy having little kids around the house. You talk to your spouse about changing the original contract you made with her. Obviously, you have to come to an agreement on this issue, otherwise the marriage may be in trouble. You may be adamant about wanting another kid and she may say "no way, Jose." There are countless instances during a marriage when one party wants to do something that the other may not want to do. Individual values change over time. Interests change also. Marriage requires work and effort and sometimes struggle to achieve common values. Most issues are not life threatening, but sometimes, when a common ground can't be reached, the parties may have to go their separate ways. If both parties are acting rationally, then there is no immorality on either side and separating may be the rational thing to do.

I think you need to think about what constitutes a rational marriage and keep in mind that the values of the couple are not something that is superseded by the relationship. A rational marriage is something that both parties want to maintain not something they have to maintain.

The issue of renegotiating to have sex with other partners is not something that most people would do. And I think there are very rare cases where it would be rational. However, you cannot state that it is always wrong in any instance.

[Oakes 0]

If both parties are acting rationally, then there is no immorality on either side and separating may be the rational thing to do.

We weren't talking about separating; we were talking about a a married coupling agreeing allow extra-marital affairs and stay married.

[Mercury 0]

If both parties are acting rationally, then there is no immorality on either side and separating may be the rational thing to do.

We weren't talking about separating; we were talking about a a married coupling agreeing allow extra-marital affairs and stay married.

←

Couples having extra-marital affairs with mutual consent is not as uncommon as you think. While I have never done it, it would be presumptuous to immediately label them nihilistic.

I believe that you are too young and inexperienced to be able to give the issue the consideration it deserves. In fact, as a general principle, I'm very wary of young people (even up to age 30) going around denouncing other people or their actions as "immoral," especially when you don't have much knowledge about them or about the world. I did it, so I know. (I am 31.)

You are young: see the world; experience it; make some mistakes; and then, form your own conclusions.

The issue of your youth is perhaps directly related to another basic error I see running through your posts: an improper method. I notice that, on this subject at least, you concretize little, if at all, and are thus in danger of - if not in thrall to - rationalism.

Before you deduce what should be from an Objectivist principle, first find out what is. Then, also consider - at least for awhile - why people act the way they do. Open your mind to many facts and contextual possibilities; then, use the facts you've gathered to strengthen your thinking method and your conclusions.

I, for one, find the statement "lying is wrong" to be invalid, plain and simple, and borne of an immoral philosophy (e.g., Kant's). I harbor more respect for the person who refrains from making such anti-contextual assertion than I do for someone who says that "we must tell the truth always." The first attitude suggests a person who has lived in this world and tried to succeed in it on his own terms; the second, a naive and "public" personality who holds few things dear and private. The first could be the leader of a rebel army fighting for individual rights; the latter, an overly-popular priest with an eye on "family values" and a "future" in politics.

So, my question and advice to those who are trying to "square" Miss Rand's love affair is: How does it affect your own rational pursuit of happiness? And by what and whose epistemological method do you embrace this pursuit?