The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

[Stephen Speicher 0]

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.

←

I did not mean it to be taken as a literal analogy, and certainly never meant to imply that morality does not apply.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

At any rate, those who seek to have multiple partners regardless of their virtue (i.e., promiscuous people) are not men of pride.

For an unmarried person, is there no state between promiscuity and having a single involvement?

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.

Well, yes, but there is no need to lie.

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

As you always seem to do. I admire your efforts and the precociousness you exhibit.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

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

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 do not think this is fair criticism of Oakes. After all, he qualified his "lying is wrong" statement with "in normal contexts" and with "in normal situations." I take Oakes' words here as being more closely allied to Peikoff's own statement in OPAR, p. 275, "Lying is absolutely wrong—under certain conditions."

[Mercury 0]

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

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 do not think this is fair criticism of Oakes. After all, he qualified his "lying is wrong" statement with "in normal contexts" and with "in normal situations." I take Oakes' words here as being more closely allied to Peikoff's own statement in OPAR, p. 275, "Lying is absolutely wrong—under certain conditions."

←

While my comments about "lying is wrong" wasn't directly at Oakes per se but at the context-dropping attitude in general, I am not so sure that Oakes' idea of context-keeping is quite the same as Dr. Peikoff's in OPAR.

But, I may be wrong. Still, having read Oakes' posts in the past on OO.net about illegal immigrants and Martha Stewart (regarding their morality), I am wary about cutting him - or anyone else - any slack.

I stand by my comments. We simply must disagree here.

[Mercury 0]

My apologies. My post should have read:

While my comments about "lying is wrong" weren't directly at Oakes per se but at the context-dropping attitude in general, I am not so sure that Oakes' idea of context-keeping is quite the same as Dr. Peikoff's in OPAR.

But, I may be wrong.  Still, having read Oakes' posts in the past on OO.net about illegal immigrants and Martha Stewart (regarding their morality), I am wary about cutting him - or anyone else - any slack in this respect.

I stand by my comments.  We simply must disagree here.

←

[DonWatkins 0]

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."

←

Sure. But before I do, I just wanted to make a general observation. This is the first thread I've really participated in on any discussion forum in close six months and I'm very impressed by the quality of arguments and the complete lack of emotionalism or defensiveness common on other forums. My compliments to my fellow participants, and to the Speichers, for establishing this forum.

That said, you write:

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."

Be careful. Love is not a test of virtue...it is a EXPRESSION of your self-value. You do not approach romance from the stand point of "I must find a partner who is admirable so that it reflects good things about me." Rather, you need to mold yourself into the kind of person you want to be and this will cause you to be attracted to "the highest type of woman" you can find.

In normal situations, there is only one who is truly the highest for you, which is why monogamy in that context is a virtue.

Hmmm...I certainly agree that no one can be your highest value in the same way and to the same extent as another person. But I don't like your use of the word "normal." It smuggles in too much while naming too little.

More than that, however, I object to calling monogamy a virtue. We should not pursue monogamy. We should pursue a healthy romantic relationship. Whether or not monogamy makes for a healthy romantic relationship in any particular case depends on the context.

I feel like we're running around in circles and the reason, I think, is that we're coming at this from truly different angles. For me, moral principles are guides to action...I don't have an ounce of Kantianism...I can't think in terms of trying to live up to some standard, but rather, I think it terms of achieving my values using (moral) principles to enable me to do that. In this case, I honestly believe that you are elevating moral principles above the values they are aimed at achieving. Can I ask you, were you raised religiously? It seems as though there is still an element of religiousness in the way you are talking about moral principles.

The only exception is a situation in which you are torn between multiple people, all of whom you regard as the highest.

But how can you prove that's the ONLY exception?

At any rate, those who seek to have multiple partners regardless of their virtue (i.e., promiscuous people) are not men of pride.

This is true, but is beside the point as we're not talking about promiscuity or people who disregard virtue.

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.

True enough, but again, it's beside the point as no one here has advocated lying to one's partner.

By the way, Oakes, I remember your first posts on OO some time back. I'm VERY impressed with how far you've come in so short a time. You remind me very much of me. I started throwing down with the big boys at the age of 15, made lots of mistakes, and said things that now make me cringe...but learned A LOT in the process. Anyway, you should be proud of yourself. I'm sure you already are!

Don Watkins

[Oakes 0]

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 never labeled them all nihilistic. In fact, in Post #121 I wrote, adding bold, "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."

So I made an exception. I don't think any other exceptions are possible, because any other situation would be one in which you willingly romance multiple people, one of whom you regard more highly than the other(s). This is not something a morally ambitious person would do; i.e., a person to whom "nothing less than perfection will do." In his speech to Rearden, Francisco didn't say, The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest and second-highest type of woman he can find, ...

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.

Denouncing people as immoral without justification is certainly wrong, and Stephen was right to call me on it. Subsequently I've tried to justify my position with Objectivist virtues.

However, you seem to say that young people shouldn't morally judge people at all. My answer is that I am not a follower of David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, and anyone else who suggests that being a valuer isn't the essence of life itself.

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 stated many times that I recognize it is dependent on context, so you and FC seem to be attacking a straw man. In informal situations, people regularly state things in generalized ways. When my mother told me killing was wrong, I didn't challenge her to explain why she was against killing terrorists. The context was implied.

For an unmarried person, is there no state between promiscuity and having a single involvement?

I think you're asking why I didn't include those who seek a partner regardless of their virtue. They are also immoral, but I didn't include them because the subject I was trying to cover was specifically having multiple partners.

Well, yes, but there is no need to lie.

True enough, but again, it's beside the point as no one here has advocated lying to one's partner.

I think you guys missed the point. I added "honesty" just for the sake of completeness--I realize that nobody has advocated lying.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I think you're asking why I didn't include those who seek a partner regardless of their virtue.

Not really. I've gotten the sense that you have allowed for three categories: promiscuity and monogamy on the opposite ends, with the category in between being the possibility of having multiple people as your highest value. But you do not seem to allow for having one or more relationships with those who may not be your highest value, and not labeling them promiscuous. Do you consider it immoral to have a romantic relationship with one or more people who do not represent your highest value?

[Oakes 0]

Do you consider it immoral to have a romantic relationship with one or more people who do not represent your highest value?

My stance is the same as the one given by Francisco: The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, ...

[Oakes 0]

Be careful. Love is not a test of virtue...it is a EXPRESSION of your self-value.

I know that; as Francisco said, "[A virtuous man] does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it." But self-value, i.e. self-esteem, is the result of pride. So a man of high pride has high self-esteem, and seeks to express it in the woman he chooses. So if he chooses the lowest creature he can find, it indicates his valuation of himself.

I can't think in terms of trying to live up to some standard, but rather, I think it terms of achieving my values using (moral) principles to enable me to do that. In this case, I honestly believe that you are elevating moral principles above the values they are aimed at achieving. Can I ask you, were you raised religiously?

Yes, I was raised religiously, but I don't understand the dichotomy you are making. Moral values are not rules of thumbs that you casually follow when it suits you. Call them "standards" if you want, but if moral principles are grounded in reason, there is no conflict between the moral and the practical. Following such a moral code to the "t" is a good thing!

But how can you prove that's the ONLY exception?

See the very first quote and reply in post #132, when I talk about the exception I made.

This is true, but is beside the point as we're not talking about promiscuity or people who disregard virtue.

Again, I just added that for the sake of completeness.

By the way, Oakes, I remember your first posts on OO some time back. I'm VERY impressed with how far you've come in so short a time. You remind me very much of me. I started throwing down with the big boys at the age of 15, made lots of mistakes, and said things that now make me cringe...but learned A LOT in the process. Anyway, you should be proud of yourself. I'm sure you already are!

Let's put it this way: I have actively forbid myself from returning to the old topics I made. I'm embarassed to read my own words. But that was only a year ago. Here's a thread in an Isaac Asimov forum I barged into almost three years ago:

http://www.asimovians.com/forum/index.php?...topic=724&st=30

Almost halfway down the page, you'll spot a name "xeu" in red letters. The red letters means I was banned (don't ask). After a short while I got into an 8-page long argument with the admin, in which I was arguing for collectivism and she (an Objectivist, I believe) was arguing for individualism. That page remains on the internet as a reminder of my past...

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Do you consider it immoral to have a romantic relationship with one or more people who do not represent your highest value?

My stance is the same as the one given by Francisco: The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, ...

←

That's nice, but it does not answer my question.

[Oakes 0]

That's nice, but it does not answer my question.

Sorry. I meant that I don't think you need to have a romantic relationship with your highest value; I think you should have a romantic relationship with the highest value you can find. If you are capable of being with the person you value most, and you choose instead to be with someone you value less (or not at all), that I think violates the concept of pride.

[Mercury 0]

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 never labeled them all nihilistic. In fact, in Post #121 I wrote, adding bold, "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."

←

Oh, forgive me if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth here: I am aware that you didn't use the word nihilistic.

Yet, this exception you make still seems arbitrary to me. How are you able to arrive at an exception when you haven't proven a grasp of the general principle?

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.

Denouncing people as immoral without justification is certainly wrong, and Stephen was right to call me on it. Subsequently I've tried to justify my position with Objectivist virtues.

←

I'm glad to hear it. However, I hope you take this one step further and concentrate on the Objectivist method, rather than just the morality. Learn to validate your conclusions from hard examples. Only then will what you know sit easy in your mind.

However, you seem to say that young people shouldn't morally judge people at all.

←

No, I don't mean that young people should not judge. On the contrary, I believe they ought to judge.

Being a foreigner who has seen dictatorship and raw evil first-hand, I am hard-pressed to believe that any young American, especially one from a fairly good home, can speak of evil (or even immorality) with fluency.

Just look at the innumerable activities open to an American: video games, movies, board games, the internet, programming, surfing, skydiving, skiing, rollerblading, shopping, reading, writing, playing musical instruments, dancing, making friends, dating, etc, etc.

In all that, where is the time to be looking for immorality? Where is the incentive?

Add to this a culture that generally believes that bad guys should get their comeuppance, a culture whose citizens would willingly risk their lives to stop gunmen and terrorists from assasinating their president; what more is there to ask?

Where is the pain that would push one to pessimism?

Judging is an act of justice, but its roots do not lie in moral abstractions -- judging stems from the metaphysical act of an individual turning his consciousness upon his environment. That is to say, observing his immediate environment and all the facts it has to offer. And what his evaluation would be in a society like this is: it is good.

Now, there are many, many facts one would have to know before one can even make a judgment about what school to attend, what house to buy, not to talk of one's spouse, or on the romantic possibilities there are through one's life.

I suggest you attend to judging the facts available to you. It would be wise to maintain a tentative "stance" on many of the issues that you have not - or are not able to at this time - come across. Doing so will save you lots of time and trouble.

[Guest Dan Edge]

But you do not seem to allow for having one or more relationships with those who may not be your highest value, and not labeling them promiscuous. Do you consider it immoral to have a romantic relationship with one or more people who do not represent your highest value?

←

Stephen,

Are you talking about a "dating" situation here? Like dating several different people who are not your ideal, at the same time? Or something else?

--Dan Edge

[Guest Dan Edge]

Watkins said:

"By the way, Oakes, I remember your first posts on OO some time back. I'm VERY impressed with how far you've come in so short a time. You remind me very much of me. I started throwing down with the big boys at the age of 15, made lots of mistakes, and said things that now make me cringe...but learned A LOT in the process."

That reminds me very much of me, too. I was 16 when I got into Objectivism. I'm 26 now, and I still make lots of mistakes! And I still learn A LOT in the process!

--Dan Edge

[DonWatkins 0]

I know that; as Francisco said, "[A virtuous man] does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it." But self-value, i.e. self-esteem, is the result of pride. So a man of high pride has high self-esteem, and seeks to express it in the woman he chooses. So if he chooses the lowest creature he can find, it indicates his valuation of himself.

←

Right, but I don't see how that's responsive to what I wrote. My point was merely that it is wrong to approach romance with thoughts of, "What does it say about me that I desire her?" If such a question enters your mind, your moral failings aren't romantic...they are more fundamental. To put it another way, my problem with your approach isn't so much philosophical as psychological. It is psychologically unhealthy to search for "the highest woman you can find." Rather, you search for a woman you can fall in love with, which -- if you are rational -- will be the highest woman you can find (that is an oversimplification, but will do for our purposes).

Do you see the difference? I frame my search for romance as a search for values...not proof of virtue, even though, in a sense, it is that (since your choice of romantic partners reflects your moral status).

Yes, I was raised religiously, but I don't understand the dichotomy you are making. Moral values are not rules of thumbs that you casually follow when it suits you. Call them "standards" if you want, but if moral principles are grounded in reason, there is no conflict between the moral and the practical. Following such a moral code to the "t" is a good thing!

Oh, of course. You misunderstand me. My point, however, is that your approach seems to me to elevate virtue above value (monogomy above romance). I fully endorse a commitment to moral principles, such as honesty and integrity, but that leaves open HOW they are expressed in any given relationship. I don't think monogomy follows directly from those. Monogomy, in other words, is not a moral principle. It is a situation that is typically best suited for developing a healthy romance.

To put it another way, if you focus on developing a healthy romance, monogomy will usually be the result. If you focus on finding a monogomous relationship (the approach implicit in viewing monogomy as a virtue), a healthy romance will NOT necessarily be the result. Since a healthy romance is the goal, and not monogomy, MY approach is much better.

Let's put it this way: I have actively forbid myself from returning to the old topics I made. I'm embarassed to read my own words. But that was only a year ago.

Right, which is why I was complimenting you. I posted for about fiveyears before I stopped posting stuff that utterly embarasses me!!!

Don Watkins

Don Watkins

[DonWatkins 0]

But you do not seem to allow for having one or more relationships with those who may not be your highest value, and not labeling them promiscuous. Do you consider it immoral to have a romantic relationship with one or more people who do not represent your highest value?

←

I realize this is posted in the form of a question, but it is a great point nonetheless. Much harm is done by jumping from Rand's identification of the nature of an ideal romance to what EVERY romantic encounter must consist of.

I have been in several relationships which I KNEW weren't representative of my highest values, but they were proper given the circumstances. Had I NOT enjoyed those relationships to the fullest, I would not be the position to be able to make my current romance, which DOES represent my highest value, as fulfilling as it is. But more than that, I would have missed out on an unestimatable amount of pleasure.

I worry that many Objectivists HAVE missed out on that due to an pseudo-Kantian view that they should search for an ideal rather than romantic happiness (keeping in mind that I don't draw a strict dichotomy between the two). Have you, or as anyone else, seen this happen? In my experience it's very common.

Don Watkins

[Free Capitalist 0]

Yes, I was raised religiously, but I don't understand the dichotomy you are making. Moral values are not rules of thumbs that you casually follow when it suits you. Call them "standards" if you want, but if moral principles are grounded in reason, there is no conflict between the moral and the practical. Following such a moral code to the "t" is a good thing!

What matters here is priority: is following a moral code to the "t" the highest priority, or is living a happy life such a priority and following a moral code is a secondary goal, and only a means? The Stoics adhere to the former hierarchy, while the Aristotelians (including Objectivists) adhere to the latter.

Don can certainly correct me if I'm wrong in understanding him, but he appears to treat morality as only a means to happiness and a secondary goal (an important one, but a secondary one nonetheless), while you, perhaps of the religious influence in your childhood, seem to be approaching the questions of morality as the end in and of itself, which is the approach Christians adopted from the Stoics. And, as I commented earlier, you also appear a bit intrinsicist in your ethics, which is again a religious influence. All of this is certainly an issue to consider, because childhood influences are not something to shrug off as inconsequential. So when Don suggests a corrective approach to ethics, it's something for you to at least consider.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I meant that I don't think you need to have a romantic relationship with your highest value; I think you should have a romantic relationship with the highest value you can find. If you are capable of being with the person you value most, and you choose instead to be with someone you value less (or not at all), that I think violates the concept of pride.

←

So, to more directly address my question, are you saying that unless you choose to be solely with whomever you value the most at the time, it would be immoral to have a relationship with two different partners of some differing level of value?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen,

Are you talking about a "dating" situation here?  Like dating several different people who are not your ideal, at the same time?

←

I specified an unmarried person.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Have you, or as anyone else, seen this happen?  In my experience it's very common.

←

I do not know how common it is, but I think a self-inflicted moralistic celibacy is just as pathetic as is promiscuity. Maybe even more so.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

What matters here is priority: is following a moral code to the "t" the highest priority, or is living a happy life such a priority and following a moral code is a secondary goal, and only a means? [...]

[...] you, perhaps [because] of the religious influence in your childhood, seem to be approaching the questions of morality as the end in and of itself, which is the approach Christians adopted from the Stoics.

←

I disagree with your characterization of Christians. Every Christian I have met and discussed ethics with would disagree with your characterization of their approach to morality. All Christians I know see morality -- being moral -- as a means to an end. The end is "being pleasing in the eyes of God" as the Bible says somewhere. Serenity in this life and personal salvation in the next life (the "eternal" one) are the goals, and morality is the means.

As for the Stoics, can you cite an example of a Stoic philosopher and his text showing that he advocated morality as a goal in itself and not a means to some higher goal such as imperturbability or, if I recall correctly the Greek term, apathia?

Based on my limited reading of Kant, I would say Kant's special evil is that he did go beyond the Christians by truly advocating doing one's duty for its own sake -- without hope of salvation as a direct result.

[Oakes 0]

I'm glad to hear it. However, I hope you take this one step further and concentrate on the Objectivist method, rather than just the morality. Learn to validate your conclusions from hard examples. Only then will what you know sit easy in your mind.

<snip>

I suggest you attend to judging the facts available to you. It would be wise to maintain a tentative "stance" on many of the issues that you have not - or are not able to at this time - come across. Doing so will save you lots of time and trouble.

I appreciate all the advice you guys are trying to give me. I don't mean to jump into the deep end before learning how to swim, but I'm far too impatient to learn the normal way.

Do you see the difference? I frame my search for romance as a search for values...not proof of virtue, even though, in a sense, it is that (since your choice of romantic partners reflects your moral status).

<snip>

Oh, of course. You misunderstand me. My point, however, is that your approach seems to me to elevate virtue above value (monogomy above romance). I fully endorse a commitment to moral principles, such as honesty and integrity, but that leaves open HOW they are expressed in any given relationship.

If you agree we should follow those moral principles, then my position should follow. All it is is following moral principles, not as an end, but as a means to happiness. Monogamy is simply committing to the idea of pride - that you will pursue the highest person you can find, if possible - again, not as an end (not to "prove" something), but as a means to happiness.

So, to more directly address my question, are you saying that unless you choose to be solely with whomever you value the most at the time, it would be immoral to have a relationship with two different partners of some differing level of value?

I specified an unmarried person.

I didn't know we were talking about casual dating. I figured, given the discussion, we were talking about marriage. I can't imagine a reason for choosing someone you value less to be with you for your whole life.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I didn't know we were talking about casual dating. I figured, given the discussion, we were talking about marriage.

I did not say "casual" dating, but in this post ← I set the stage for our part of the discussion by asking "For an unmarried person, is there no state between promiscuity and having a single involvement?"

[Oakes 0]

I did not say "casual" dating, but in this post ← I set the stage for our part of the discussion by asking "For an unmarried person, is there no state between promiscuity and having a single involvement?"

This is how my mind sorts it out right now: A man with pride will always seek a virtuous partner, whether the relationship is serious or a week long. Marriage is reserved for the former: the person you consider the ultimate value, and for that reason there is only room for one (if there are multiple whom you value highest, that's an exception, but not sustainable for long). As for the latter (dating virtuous people but not of ultimate value), the morality of multiple partners is dependent on whether you are honest (if your partners agree to it).