Judging other people

[Betsy Speicher 0]

As you indicate, before trying to predict someone's future behavior, you first seek to identify his past behavior.  So, when you make that identification - when you identify someone as lazy, or purposeless, or dishonest, etc - do you take into account that this past behavior may be the result of ignorance of facts, or ignorance of logic, or evasion, or a psychological disorder, or a combination of any or all before coming to your conclusion about his behavior? 

←

It depends ... on how much I care to investigate further and that depends on whether I see anything of potential value in a person. Sometimes, when someone acts like a jerk, I think "What a loser!," and then move on to more important things and people. Other times, something I like about a person will lead me to investigate further to find the cause of the things I don't like.

Although I find people fascinating, life is too short to investigate everything everybody might do. As a result, most people and their actions and their motives don't warrant that much of my attention.

[Brian Smith 0]

 

It depends ... on how much I care to investigate further and that depends on whether I see anything of potential value in a person.  Sometimes, when someone acts like a jerk, I think "What a loser!," and then move on to more important things and people.  Other times, something I like about a person will lead me to investigate further to find the cause of the things I don't like. 

 

Although I find people fascinating, life is too short to investigate everything everybody might do.  As a result, most people and their actions and their motives don't warrant that much of my attention. 

←

 

Okay. Your answers in these last couple posts bring up an interesting question:

Some might say that you are being unjust to engage in such identification and actions so quickly. They might say one cannot logically make the claims that you make about these individuals. That you can't identify someone as unproductive if he doesn't do much of anything - you cant identify someone as evasive if he explicitly avoids your questions - you cant identify someone as dishonest if he lies to you - you cant identify someone as lacking integrity if he is a "Yes" Man - you can't do any of these things justly IF you don't first look at that person's potential lack of facts, his potential faulty logic, and his potential psychological problems (still wish someone would tell me the means one uses to rule out evasion and identify pych problems as the source of another's behavior) and rule them all out before coming to your conclusion. In other words, you are being both illogical and unjust if you don't consider another person's entire context. Ayn Rand certainly seems to confirm this perspective when she admonishes us not to morally judge another person on the basis of their errors of knowledge, since those things are not moral flaws (due to the fact man is neither omniscient nor infallible).

So, if someone evidences laziness, or evasiveness, or dishonesty, or moral cowardice, is it not illogical and unjust to identify them as such, let alone treat them as such, if you have failed to first identify their errors of knowledge and (for sake of argument purposes only here) their psychology?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

So, if someone evidences laziness, or evasiveness, or dishonesty, or moral cowardice, is it not illogical and unjust to identify them as such, let alone treat them as such, if you have failed to first identify their errors of knowledge and (for sake of argument purposes only here) their psychology?

←

Isn't this "someone" presenting a false dichotomy: Agnosticism vs. final judgment based on exhaustive research?

Doesn't the evaluator's context matter too? If I am in a jury voting on whether or not to execute someone for serial murder, that is one situation (and context). If I am trying to decide which of three people standing on a street-corner I should ask for directions, and two have a slovenly manner about them, so I ask the third, that is another situation (and context).

I would suspect that "someone" is expecting perfectionism.

[adriaticfish 0]

 

What moral responsibility, if any, does a man have for either his knowledge or lack thereof?

←

The answer to this, is, if he or she is an adult living in a place where facts are available, is total responsibility. The act of learning is, in the absence of brain-damage, volitional.

People's minds are not chalkboards onto which reality writes itself. People choose to see, look, focus, use reason. For this reason, any accomplished and sane adult in America can be judged by her, or his, political actions, because their general context is well-known by everybody. When a mature and sane person is wrong, they are wrong due to either conscious decision or evading the learning process. Either way, they can be judged accordingly. Evasion is a form of evil, and may even be the root of it.

For this reason, we don't have to endlessly inquire into the level of knowledge of a Marxist professor, a Communist Hollywood film director, or a long-time contributor to the DNC. In this age, we all have access to most of the facts. Either, one: (a)knows them and does wrong, or ( refuses to know them and does wrong, or ©knows them and does right, or (d) refuses to know them and does nothing, or (e) knows them and does nothing. Category (f) is imaginary: refusing to know them and doing "right" would be impossible, because, to my way of thinking, the "right" or the "good" is the reasoned and understood. One can't just "happen upon" the good.

Accordingly:

Person (a) is immoral.

Person ( is immoral.

Person © is moral.

Person (d) is immoral.

Person (e) is a tricky case, because, doing nothing may actually be the safest avenue for him. Nobody is required to be a martyr. More circumstances should be looked at.

[RayK 0]

Brian,

One must make judgements pertaining to their live, not someone elses. I do not have the time nor do I care to find out everybody's problems.

In my life and my business is where I can show the best example. I meet a lot of people through my work, where I have to judge them quickly and decide weather they are worth my time. I have found that people act stereo-typical to their nature. So they give off certain signs that I have learned to pick up right away. So after years of doing this I have become very good at determining who will make it and who will not. Also, the person who has a knowledge problem and is willing to change and the person who wants me to create a "different reality" for them to keep lying/evade.

This is not rash judgement, this is taking my knowledge of how and why people are the way they are and then deciding what to do. If I make an improper judgement they have some time to change my mind, but after years of doing this I am usually right on. Unless someone is a very good actor at manipulating people, then they still might trick me.

[adriaticfish 0]

Accordingly:

Person (a) is immoral.

Person ( is immoral.

Person © is moral.

Person (d) is immoral.

Person (e) is a tricky case, because, doing nothing may actually be the safest avenue for him.  Nobody is required to be a martyr.  More circumstances should be looked at.

←

Let me add that people can change, and they could have been guilty of a "one-time" thing. One would need evidence of his or her change, however. One who has a 15 year pattern should be looked at more sternly, even in spite of all that they have accomplished.

[PhilO 0]

Some might say that you are being unjust to engage in such identification and actions so quickly.  They might say one cannot logically make the claims that you make about these individuals.  [...]

 

So, if someone evidences laziness, or evasiveness, or dishonesty, or moral cowardice, is it not illogical and unjust to identify them as such, let alone treat them as such, if you have failed to first identify their errors of knowledge and (for sake of argument purposes only here) their psychology?

←

Betsy has already answered that, and I hope that she won't mind me putting it in even shorter and blunter terms: Life is short, my life is mine to live, and it isn't *my* responsibility to spend valuable time figuring out somebody else's problems that make them that way if they're an aggravation and no real value to me. That doesn't mean I would be justified in psychologising about their minds or improperly morally condemning them - it *does* mean that it's perfectly moral to be selfish and not waste time on something I don't value.

What do you find unclear about that?

[GMartin 0]

>the best predictor of his future actions is his past actions regardless of what caused them.

I agree.

If I know a person has chosen to be dishonest or deceptive in a major way, regardless of the productive things he may of done in the past, I refuse to deal with him in the future (assuming we are not discussing children).

Even individuals with psychological problems can use volition and choose to act and live virtuously.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What moral responsibility, if any, does a man have for either his knowledge or lack thereof?

←

The answer to this, is, if he or she is an adult living in a place where facts are available, is total responsibility. The act of learning is, in the absence of brain-damage, volitional.

(The question asked about "moral responsibility," so in what follows I am assuming your "total responsibility" was meant as 'total moral responsibility.')

First, how can you, as a general statement, hold a man morally responsible for the veracity of what he knows? Do you not allow for people being honestly mistaken about their knowledge?

Second, how can you, as a general statement, hold a man morally responsible for his lack of knowledge? At any given time there are innumerably more "facts [that] are available" than an honest man can acquire during his lifetime.

Because of these points (and others not mentioned), I take your statements to be too broad and sweeping moral generalizations, ones which do not take any context to mind. Moral judgements, just like knowledge, are contextual, not out-of-context absolutes.

[Free Capitalist 0]

adriaticfish,

FIrst off, what basis do you have for saying that Ethics is the least complicated of fields (of philosophy I assume, though you don't specify)? Second of all, even if it is relatively simpler than, say, epistemology, it does not follow that it is simple. You seem to be equivocating the two notions.

I consider myself by no means ignorant of philosophy, but the more I learn about the world and people, the harder I find it to definitivetly evaluate people on a moral basis, and the longer I take to reach a conclusion of that kind. I can still do it, and do sometimes, but never like before, when I just started out in Objectivism, and considered myself qualified to easily evaluate every person on the street. That latter sort of belief comes from lack of experience, not from an abundance of it.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I should clarify what I said: I am now the more qualified to judge other people than I've ever been before in my life, but much less inclined to (though I certainly can if I want to, or have to). So, borrowing form the other thread, I would evaluate Bill Gates' support for China as discouraging, and his person as a whole as disappointing, and it's very hard for me to condemn him on a moral basis here unless you provide a lot more support for the reasons for Gates' action (i.e. I can easily imagine him being just really really shortsighted). The reason, the cause, is everything here (as anywhere else). I think you (adriaticfish) are too reliant on the ends rather than the means, and also too dependent on sweeping moral generalizations when making any kind of moral evaluation.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I can hold men responsible for these things because the field of ethics is perhaps the least complex of all fields. [...]

A man does not need to acquire an "innumerable" amount of facts to form a solid ethics, and thus politics.  The relative simplicity of these fields is probably the very reason that voting was invented.  [...]

←

What do you mean by "complexity" ("complex") and "simplicity"? Usually those terms name the idea of facing a number of factors to be considered before reaching a conclusion. Complex problems are ones that involve many factors, and at various levels of a hierarchy of knowledge; simple problems involve one or two factors, usually at the same level in a hierarchy of knowledge. Do you use "complex" and "simple" in that way?

I think -- based on observation and on reading the history of philosophy -- only rare individuals develop philosophies, in the formal, explicit sense of a system of fundamental ideas. The difficulty in doing so consists, not so much in "complexities" as in (1) devoting sufficient time (indeed, usually a lifetime), (2) having a passionate interest in this "specialty," and (3) having the extremely high level of intelligence required to form inductions (integrations, objective or not) of fundamental principles from a vast array of sense-perceptions.

How many individuals do you know who meet those requirements?

I have never, on an individual level, met a single individual who is thus qualified to create a philosophy. I have met a very few individuals who benefit from division of labor and start with a philosophy offered by someone else and then examine it for its logical nature. I have met a lot more individuals who borrow a philosophy and then check a few aspects of it and accept the rest. I have met even more individuals who spend their lives collecting fragments of various philosophies and make little if any effort to validate even the fragments, much less the whole heap.

I hope you will comment further on why you think creating an ethics and politics (and, by implication, the ontology and epistemology on which they must stand) is the simplest of all fields of study.

[Janet_Busch 0]

Okay.  Your answers in these last couple posts bring up an interesting question: 

 

Some might say that you are being unjust to engage in such identification and actions so quickly.  They might say one cannot logically make the claims that you make about these individuals.  That you can't identify someone as unproductive if he doesn't do much of anything - you cant identify someone as evasive if he explicitly avoids your questions - you cant identify someone as dishonest if he lies to you - you cant identify someone as lacking integrity if he is a "Yes" Man - you can't do any of these things justly IF you don't first look at that person's potential lack of facts, his potential faulty logic, and his potential psychological problems (still wish someone would tell me the means one uses to rule out evasion and identify pych problems as the source of another's behavior) and rule them all out before coming to your conclusion.  In other words, you are being both illogical and unjust if you don't consider another person's entire context.  Ayn Rand certainly seems to confirm this perspective when she admonishes us not to morally judge another person on the basis of their errors of knowledge, since those things are not moral flaws (due to the fact man is neither omniscient nor infallible). 

 

So, if someone evidences laziness, or evasiveness, or dishonesty, or moral cowardice, is it not illogical and unjust to identify them as such, let alone treat them as such, if you have failed to first identify their errors of knowledge and (for sake of argument purposes only here) their psychology?

←

I understand what you are getting at here, but what you propose, as I understand it, is that it is unjust to make any kind of judgment about anyone unless you understand everything about that person's philosophy. This is just as bad as attempting to psychologize. Most people hold very mixed philosophical ideas and the attempt to understand it all would require as specialized a knowledge of philosophy as understanding a particular psychology, and take just as much time.

In a parenthetical remark, you said, "still wish someone would tell me the means one uses to rule out evasion and identify pych problems as the source of another's behavior." I use reason. If a person is consistent in her behavior and statments, and show no signs of evasion in any other area, but acts or reacts irrationally in one particular area and only in that area, I consider that to be anomoly and not indicative of their conscious thinking. I understand it to be outside of what I have witnessed to be this person's philosophic outlook, and can only put the cause to something involving her personal psychology. This doesn't mean that I've attempted any kind of psychoanalysis, but that I have noted a fact about her, to be included within the context of every other fact.

Acknowledging whether or not someone may have a particular psychological problem isn't the same thing as psychologizing. If I say that I think that Jeffrey Dahmer had serious psychological problems, it doesn't mean that I'm excusing his murders and cannibalism, nor does it mean that I'm trying to find some underlying cause for such barbarity in a modern civilized society. It is a simple statement of fact. My judgment of Dahmer is that he was evil because he murdered innocent boys and cannabalized their remains. In such a case, I don't need to know about his philosophy, much less his psychology.

I think you have thrown too broad a net for what you consider to be psychologizing. It is almost impossible to not recognize something about a person's makeup, especially as one grows in knowledge and experience. That recogniton doesn't automatically mean that you are engaging in psychoanalysis, or even that you are necessarily drawing conclusions one way or the other about what you observe.

When one seeks to understand an individual's philosophy by noting his statements and actions, one isn't setting out to determine whether his philosophy is one part Locke, one part Plato, and one part Aristotle. You are making a judgment on the facts open to your observation, i.e., what a person says and how they act. What they say and how they act tells you more than just their philosophical outlook. Indeed, it is my experience that one's philosophy, or lack thereof, has a great deal to do with whatever psychological phenomenon one might observe. One doesn't attempt to conjure how that outlook may or may not have affected them psychologically, but only acknowledge the fact that it does. Evasion is itself a psychological manisfestation of a consciousness blanking out the facts of reality.

Over in OFF, I reported a local news story about a woman who wanted go to party in a local bar. She didn't have a baby-sitter, so she put her son in the trunk of her car while she went in and drank the night away. The reporter slid over the facts and ended the "report" by saying that perhaps this woman had been abused as a child. In other words, we were admonished by this news anchor not to judge this woman's actions because we didn't know everything that went into what made her put her son in the trunk of her car while she went drinking. Now THAT is an example psychologizing, as I understand it.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

A man does not need to acquire an "innumerable" amount of facts to form a solid ethics, and thus politics.  The relative simplicity of these fields is probably the very reason that voting was invented.

←

I have two questions here. First, relative to what? Second, would you say that developing an ethics and a politics (and of course the ontology and epistemology on which they solidly stand) is simple relative to mastering the quote and preview functions in this forum?

[adriaticfish 0]

adriaticfish,

FIrst off, what basis do you have for saying that Ethics is the least complicated of fields (of philosophy I assume, though you don't specify)? Second of all, even if it is relatively simpler than, say, epistemology, it does not follow that it is simple. You seem to be equivocating the two notions.

I consider myself by no means ignorant of philosophy, but the more I learn about the world and people, the harder I find it to definitivetly evaluate people on a moral basis, and the longer I take to reach a conclusion of that kind. I can still do it, and do sometimes, but never like before, when I just started out in Objectivism, and considered myself qualified to easily evaluate every person on the street. That latter sort of belief comes from lack of experience, not from an abundance of it.

←

First question: What basis...

Answer: Partly introspection. It is the least complex to me. I think that a mature, sane adult could get the basics in a relatively short time. Let's put it this way: when I see an adult that has trouble understanding that one should not initiate the use of force against others, sirens go off in my head. It's not too hard to grasp that, if you would't want it done to you, then don't do it to others. Let me emphasise that I am not summarizing the whole field of ethics here, and that I said that it was relatively simple.

Second part: If, as you say, the more you learn. . ., the harder you find it. . ., then all I can say is, "Stop learning." It's like the theory and practice dichotomy that some people have. The purpose of learning is so that you can be more efficacious in the real world, not less. Learning should make you better, not worse.

And, finally, I never said that it is easy for me to evaluate everybody. I am not saying that you are characterizing me this way, but you may be, and I want to set it straight. Here it is: If a person is a sane adult who has lived in America for a long time, preferably through their formative years and they now show an inclination to hold unethical views and take unethical actions, they are culpable - no matter what knowledge they do hold. I believe this to be true because this country and culture still enables one a fair chance at gaining the proper knowledge, and if, at the ripe age of 50 or so, they have not attained it, they have evaded at the very least to some degree.

I consider year-in, year-out evasion to be immoral. In fact I have always cut people far too much slack in that regard. There comes a point where one needs to stop looking for reasons why people are wrong, and just simply say that they are wrong. As has been pointed out on this thread by a few: My life has to be spent my way, not looking for excuses for people every time I think a judgment is in order,

[adriaticfish 0]

What do you mean by "complexity" ("complex") and "simplicity"? Usually those terms name the idea of facing a number of factors to be considered before reaching a conclusion. Complex problems are ones that involve many factors, and at various levels of a hierarchy of knowledge; simple problems involve one or two factors, usually at the same level in a hierarchy of knowledge. Do you use "complex" and "simple" in that way?

.

I hope you will comment further on why you think creating an ethics and politics (and, by implication, the ontology and epistemology on which they must stand) is the simplest of all fields of study.

←

Who, on earth, ever said that creating an ethics and politics . . . is the simplest of all fields of study??? I surely didn't.

I simply mean that everyday questions of ethics and morality, are simpler than questions that I see in the fields of, metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics.

It is easier for me to see whether something is morally right than legally right.

(The laws of this country could not be read and understood by anyone in a lifetime)

It is easier for me to condemn Charles Manson than criticize Theodore Dreiser.

It is easier for me to see Timothy McVeigh for what he is, than see Andy Warhol for what he is.

Hillary Clinton is easier to evaluate than, say, Jim Morrison.

That's all.

In fact, maybe a poll is in order. It would not suprise me if it is the majority of people's ethics which has changed the least (as far as the people on this board's pre and post introduction to Objectivism views) The results would probably show that more people here already had views in line with Objectivism with regard to ethics, than any other field. I could be wrong, but, if I'm right, it would indicate that understanding not creating ethics is simpler than understanding the other fields.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Let's put it this way: when I see an adult that has trouble understanding that one should not initiate the use of force against others, sirens go off in my head.  It's not too hard to grasp that, if you would't want it done to you, then don't do it to others. 

←

[bold added for emphasis.]

Perhaps having a specific example of developing (through understanding) an ethics will help. I think you have provided one above -- that is, you have provided one principle (in negative form) of one morality (which is a part of ethics).

Yes, if I see someone I love shot by a mugger and then experience brutalization myself, I have grounds for drawing an induction (assuming a great context of previous knowledge) that initiation of force (assuming I understand what that means) is hurtful. But how would I get from that very limited induction to the universal moral principle that all initiation of force is morally wrong?

Further, how many inductions (among other mental activities) would I need to perform to also grasp that, for example, regulating business is an initiation of force?

I would suggest that the issue here is not complexity but abstraction. Objectivists are not intrinsicists. Objectivists don't just see and then grasp anything beyond ostensives. Many, many steps are involved in developing abstractions that apply to a vast array of concretes in a variety of circumstances. That is tough to do. Only a few individuals are even qualified to do it -- by interest, time, and intelligence.

Let me emphasise that I am not summarizing the whole field of ethics here, and that I said that it was relatively simple.

Yes, you are not summarizing the whole field of ethics. That is part of the problem. It is impossible to develop a principle of noninitiation of force in isolation from its foundations -- for example, in a theory of man and, more specifically, in recognizing both that rationality is good and that initiation of force destroys rationality. To attempt to develop a moral principle directly from sense-perception would be a form of intrinsicism, not a form of objectivity (which among other things requires a recognition of the contextual nature of one's ideas).

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Who, on earth, ever said that creating an ethics and politics . . . is the simplest of all fields of study???  I surely didn't.

←

In post 60, you spoke of creating these branches of philosophy when you said:

"A man does not need to acquire an 'innumerable' amount of facts to form a solid ethics, and thus politics." [bold emphasis added.]

As for "simplest," you have not yet explained what you mean by the term/idea of "simple" -- or why you think ethics is simpler than esthetics for example.

I simply mean that everyday questions of ethics and morality, are simpler than questions that I see in the fields of, metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics.

adriaticfish, the "everyday questions of ethics" are questions of ethics, which is one branch of philosophy, which (in all its branches) is a systematized set of univerals, which require enormous inductions to understand, that is, create. There is no system of ethics out there which we can look at and directly form a prinicple about.

Last, I earlier asked what you mean by simple and complex. Would you now take the time to answer, especially in light of your study of Objectivist epistemology?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Second part: If, as you say, the more you learn. . ., the harder you find it. . ., then all I can say is, "Stop learning." It's like the theory and practice dichotomy that some people have. The purpose of learning is so that you can be more efficacious in the real world, not less. Learning should make you better, not worse.

I can see that this is not going to go anywhere, therefore let me just say my final word on the subject and let that stand for now. Lack of moral condemnation is not a lack of efficaciousness. Capacity (or rather willingness) for moral condemnation is not a sign of efficaciousness. I don't know for sure, but you may be turning Ayn Rand's philosophy upside down, i.e. thinking that Galt is efficacious when he condemns the evil characters as well as he does. So let me just end my participation in this thread, for now, with these words: you have a whole number of things seriously upside down, i.e. the cause and effect in morality, the importance of means vs importance of ends in people's actions, etc. A lot of people on this forum are very wise and knowledgeable, yet practically no one is as willing (eager?) to condemn as you are. Have you ever wondered why that is? A wise woman once said, "Check your premises." I would strongly recommend you do so.

[Brian Smith 0]

Before proceeding any further, I want to make one thing clear: I do not personally hold the view expressed by my questions here. I have asked them because I have been confronted by them on more than a few occasions - sometimes even by some Objectivists. Because of this, I want to confirm my reasoning on the subject. As Betsy might put it, I am asking these questions in order to make certain I am not ignorant of some facts or not using proper logic. Or as I would put it, I am checking my logic to make sure I have not committed any errors of knowledge.

That said, I will respond to each person individually:

Burgess - I would agree. The context of the one making the moral judgment is a decidedly important factor. It determines, among other things, the focus of the inquiry, the amount of time of the inquiry, and the amount of effort one puts into acquiring the facts necessary to make a judgment, etc.. Of course, the standard of judgment will remain the same regardless of that focus, time, and effort. In other words, whatever evidence one acquires in that investigation, one will consider it rationally. One will not evade that evidence, nor allow one's emotions to overrule those facts. One will use logic to come to one's conclusion. And, if one is presented with evidence that one is incorrect in one's conclusion, one would re-evaluate that conclusion by integrating in the new evidence.

So while one would definitely not seek "perfectionism" - one would definitely seek to be perfect with what one has and in the context of one's goals.

--

Ray - Yours is an excellent explanation and example of the proper principle. As you say, it is not 'rashness' to come to a quick decision, so long as it is consistent with one's ends, and so long as the process one uses to reach that decision is logically valid.

--

Oliver - It wasn't that I necessarily didn't find Betsy's post unclear. It was just that her answer was implicit and, to confirm my understanding - as well as to make certain she might not include some additional facts or the like - I thought it prudent to ask the question explicitly, so as to avoid any possible misinterpretation on my part.

--

Janet - I hope it is clear now that I am most definitely not talking about my own position with most of the questions I have asked.

The one position that is decidedly mine however, is the other one that you comment on - identifying psychological problems. You said that because a person doesn't exhibit the vice in other areas of their life, that isolation of vice is somehow evidence, not of their conscious attempt to evade simply something in that part of their life, but is something which they simply have no control over at all. But, as I already pointed out, it is not consistency, but inconsistency which is the hallmark of vice. In fact, Dr. Peikoff explicitly states that irrationality (not psychological problems but philosophical evasion)) "is the deliberate suspension of consciousness, the refusal to see, to think, to know - either as a general policy, because one regards awareness as too demanding, or in regard to some specific point, because the facts conflict with one's feelings." (emphasis added)

Unless you rejecting this latter claim and stating that an individual is incapable of evading only one part of their life - of compartmentalizing for any number of philosophical reasons - then the fact that the person evades only in regard to some specific point is not evidence of a psychological problem. And as such, you still have not provided a rational method with a rational standard by which you, the average person, can rule out evasion and identify psychological problems instead.

I think you have thrown too broad a net for what you consider to be psychologizing.

I am merely throwing the 'net' which was created by Ms. Rand (as evidenced by all the previous quotes I provided) and with whose net 'design' I approve.

--

adriaticfish - a few things:

First - Stephen is correct. You assume infallibility in the complex chain of reasoning required to develop one's metaphysics, epistemology and subsequent ethics - as well as infallibility in the application of that ethic. You additionally assume omniscience, in that you require a man to have not only been exposed to but to have grasped the meaning of and integrated without error every fact of reality necessary to come to a valid conclusion about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

That should be an obvious error.

Second - you say:

I can hold men responsible for these things because the field of ethics is perhaps the least complex of all fields

Yes. That is why it took more than 2000 years, from the time of the Greeks, for Ayn Rand to come along and identify a proper ethic. REAL easy.

Such a quote as yours demonstrates a lack of knowledge about what is required to achieve an understanding of ANY ethic, let alone a proper one.

Now, since - through your signature, you boast of being not only an Objectivist, but a superb one at that - I would like to ask you: how do you reconcile your stated principle with Objectivism, which rejects such a principle? Ayn Rand explicitly indicated one does not judge a person based on those criteria:

Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality.  An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience.  But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought.  That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know is an account of infamy growing in your soul.

Finally, in conjunction with the points being made here about moral evaluation, you made a reference back to your assertions in the Current Events thread about Martha Stewart. Inclusion of it here is a suggestion that the principles being discussed here somehow support the conclusion you arrived at and the means by which you continue to support it.

They most certainly do not.

Now, I will be happy to identify - in that thread - why yours is NOT an example of what we have referenced here. At the same time, I will also be happy to identify why a judgment against you, based solely on the content of your posts there IS an example of the principle involved here.

[Brian Smith 0]

Whew! Now that I have addressed everyone's posts, I'd like to make a few additional observations.

I don't know if this metaphor has been used before, but looking for value in people- ie judging moral character - is like prospecting for diamonds. (Now, since I know next to nothing about the intricacies of diamond etc, please forgive any errors in that respect. This is being written very extemporaneously and is for metaphorical purposes only.)

As a prospector for diamonds, one finds one's self, at the beginning of life, on an almost infinite field of assorted rocks, stretching off in every direction. Each and every stone has the potential to be of great value to you - a priceless diamond. But to find such diamonds, one must stop and examine each of these innumerable rocks. Many will be almost immediately be identified as useless hunks of dirt or broken boulders. Not the stuff of diamonds at all. And so one will quickly drop such worthless rocks and pick up the next.

This process will continue until you spot a rock that catches your eye for some reason. Hmm. Could it be a diamond. You pick it up for a closer look. Its outward murky appearance is a bit promising, so you peer closer. Indeed you can see a bit of the sparkle through one part of it as you brush some of the dirt away. You have done it. You have found a value - a diamond.

Analyzing this diamond a bit further you discover it is a relatively good sized stone, but its potential to be a really nice diamond is marred by some flaws on either side. And its clarity is far less than perfect. Do you throw it away because of this? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends upon what sort of flaw and if it ruins the stone - or if there is enough unaffected quality to make something of it. And who knows, with some polishing and other work, it might turn out to be a nicer stone than you imagine. So you identify it one way or the other and move on.

As you continue prospecting, the pattern repeats itself. Many rocks of little to no value and some smaller diamonds or larger ones with flaws, but from which you can still get some worth.

Intermingled into this pattern will be the joyous discovery of a really fine stone. As you brush the dirt away and analyze it generally, you see the shape is promising, its clarity fine and its color very pleasing. As you polish the stone with your cloth, you see that it will be of considerable value. So you look at it further. You pull out your jeweler's eyepiece and examining it in much more detail. Marvelous you think. Wonderful. This is indeed of great value. What a find you have made.

Ah - but then you see the tiny crack. While it may not destroy the value of the stone, thus making it of greater value than most if not all you have collected, it is not perfect. It is not flawless. But you are happy. Happy because you have added a remarkable value to your growing store of wealth.

And so you keep looking. You continue your journey through life, collecting your valuable stones and discarding the rest. Then, one day, if you are lucky, you see it - shining in the sunlight - a brilliant stone. You rush to it. Yes. This looks remarkable. You dust it off some. Great shape. You examine it more. Perfect color. You pull out your jeweler's eyepiece. Flawless clarity. The more you look, the deeper you probe, the more excited you get. It is meeting all the qualifications of a perfect diamond. The more investigation you perform, the more you confirm that perfection. This is it. This is a diamond worthy of kings.

You are ecstatic.

But - do you stop? No. You have not reached the end of your trail. A prospector of diamonds is always looking for even greater values - because, no matter how many small diamonds he may have collected - no matter how may big diamonds he may have added to his treasures - and no matter how many flawless diamonds he may have secured in his vault - he will never be satisfied. This prospector knows one can never be too wealthy. He wants to be the richest man in the world.

And so he continues looking through that field of rock until the day he dies.

In the end, while it may have taken much time and much effort to find them, and while he may have thrown away more tons of useless rock than he would wish to count, that isn't what mattered to him. What mattered was the wealth of stones he was able to amass in that lifetime.

They were more than enough reward.

--

Now - there is a point buried in there I wish to elaborate upon. But I have already written too much for one evening. I'll try to touch on it when next I post.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Some might say that you are being unjust to engage in such identification and actions so quickly.  They might say one cannot logically make the claims that you make about these individuals. 

←

Let's be clear about what I am identifying and acting on: what I see a person do and its effect on me. I am not responding to his character or his psychology, just his actions that I can perceive with my very own eyes.

That you can't identify someone as unproductive if he doesn't do much of anything - you cant identify someone as evasive if he explicitly avoids your questions - you cant identify someone as dishonest if he lies to you - you cant identify someone as lacking integrity if he is a "Yes" Man - you can't do any of these things justly IF you don't first look at that person's potential lack of facts, his potential faulty logic, and his potential psychological problems (still wish someone would tell me the means one uses to rule out evasion and identify pych problems as the source of another's behavior) and rule them all out before coming to your conclusion.

But I'm not doing that since I am not judging his character, his knowledge, or his psychology -- things I don't have the evidence to do properly and may not have a good reason to investigate.

Here is what I AM doing:

If someone didn't complete a task, I will note that fact and, when I have a job to be done, I'll ask someone else to do it.

If someone avoids my questions, I may decide it is not worth the effort to discuss things with him.

If someone lies to me, I won't trust him.

If someone seems to agree with me too easily, I'll check to see if really understands what he is agreeing to.

Etc.

In other words, you are being both illogical and unjust if you don't consider another person's entire context.

What for? If I don't have a reason to believe that dealing with that person will add value to my life, I'll leave him be and spend my time with people who will.

Ayn Rand certainly seems to confirm this perspective when she admonishes us not to morally judge another person on the basis of their errors of knowledge, since those things are not moral flaws (due to the fact man is neither omniscient nor infallible). 

Right. That is why I don't judge a person's character unless I have a reason to and enough evidence for it. Until then, I judge his ACTIONS.

So, if someone evidences laziness, or evasiveness, or dishonesty, or moral cowardice, is it not illogical and unjust to identify them as such, let alone treat them as such, if you have failed to first identify their errors of knowledge and (for sake of argument purposes only here) their psychology?

Sure, but it is usually sufficient to decide I don't want to be around people who do things I don't like -- for whatever reason -- and find people who do things I value.

[adriaticfish 0]

To Mr. Laughlin: to define "simple" or "complex" I would agree to an average dictionary definition. Simple means, in my context, "easy to understand." OPAR is a very well-written, almost flawlessly written, treatment of a comprehensive philosophy. Peikoff makes things "simple" to understand. He shows no signs of the "complexity worship" exhibited a mind such as Kant.

And to seemingly everyone: Ethics is regardless of what you all say, a relatively simple field. Not in terms of its development by minds such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand, but in terms of grasping it. I, and would imagine others, grasp the sections "The Good" and "Virtue" chapters of OPAR, easier than they do ITOE.

And, more imortantly, this is even more true for the average man on the street. A layperson can read and understand the former, while the latter takes some serious work and even a predisposition towards the subject that is very uncommon.

Does anyone seriously disagree with what I have said so far in this post?

If so, why? And, on another note, if there is this much disagreement with me on the relative simplicity of Ethics, then why don't some of you tell me a field of philosophy which you consider easier to grasp than ethics??

Eight year old kids know that they have been wronged when someone steals their baseball glove. Show me a kid in America who grows up with the philosophy that "all property is theft." and I will show you a true anomaly - even if that kid's father is a Marxist professor. Even that kid probably dreams of being a doctor or fireman rather than overthrowing a factory. Show me an eight year old who knows why romanticism is better than naturalism, or why he can be sure his senses are valid, or why he knows what he knows and you have something truly rare.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The answer to this, is, if he or she is an adult living in a place where facts are available, is total responsibility.  The act of learning is, in the absence of brain-damage, volitional.

←

How about in the absence of TIME?

Learning takes time, and there are an almost infinite number of things to know. If Howard Roark spends 16 hours a day doing architecture, is too busy to pick up a newspaper, and couldn't even tell you what political party the President belongs to, would you consider that evasion?

[adriaticfish 0]

How about in the absence of TIME?

Learning takes time, and there are an almost infinite number of things to know.  If Howard Roark spends 16 hours a day doing architecture, is too busy to pick up a newspaper, and couldn't even tell you what political party the President belongs to, would you consider that evasion?

←

This ignores the fact that thereis time. Everybody has it. You do. I do. So did Roark. He read Dominique's columns, he talked with Mike, he had long periods where he didn't have much work. I've read the Fountainhead 7 times. And I don't care about the almost infinite number of things to know --there are not an infinite number of things one needs to know to make decisions.

And, if you're going to do something like give over a hundred thousand dolars away, you take the time to find out whom you are giving it to. Let's be realistic.