Judging other people

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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.

←

Indeed! This is why ethics and political principles, properly understood, are so difficult to grasp. They are NOT perceptually self-evident at all but are many, many logical steps removed from the perceptual level.

Those who skip those steps may believe it is easier than it really is, but all they have is a "short-cut to knowledge" that is really "only a short-circuit destroying the mind."

[Stephen Speicher 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.

Try reading it an 8th time.

He demanded Mr. Bradley's initials on every drawing that came out of his drafting rooms; he remembered the Stoddard Temple. Mr. Bradley initialed, signed, okayed; he agreed to everything; he approved everything. He seemed delighted to let Roark have his way. But this eager complaisance had a peculiar undertone—as if Mr. Bradley were humoring a child.

He could learn little about Mr. Bradley. It was said that the man had made a fortune in real estate, in the Florida boom. His present company seemed to command unlimited funds, and the names of many wealthy backers were mentioned as shareholders. Roark never met them. The four gentlemen of the Board did not appear again, except on short visits to the construction site, where they exhibited little interest. Mr. Bradley was in full charge of everything—but beyond a close watch over the budget he seemed to like nothing better than to leave Roark in full charge.

In the eighteen months that followed, Roark had no time to wonder about Mr. Bradley. Roark was building his greatest assignment.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, of course, as we learn a little later, Mr. Bradley had sold 200% of Roark's job, Monadnock Valley, which is why Mr. Bradley acted as he did. So, then, by your standards Howard Roark was immoral for not knowing more about Mr. Bradley when he was suspicious of him, just because Roark "had no time."

[adriaticfish 0]

Try reading it an 8th time.

(Emphasis mine.)

←

Please, try to respond to the content of my post, rather than what you want the content of my post to be. Roark had time, you have time, I have time. He used it to pursue his values. On the contrary, a capitalist who gives tens of thousands of dollars to support the DNC is not supporting theirs. How simple can I put it.

Roark built. He wanted to build. From my standpoint, Martha Stewart could not exist in a world in which the Democrats have their way. Roark gave no sanction, he was tricked. The whole of my argument is that Martha Stewart was not tricked. She is a liberal who does not understand the kind of society that makes it possible for her to create and keep her wealth.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

First question: What basis [do I have for saying that Ethics is the least complicated of fields (of philosophy]...

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. [...]

←

That's simple, all right. See, feel, pass judgement.

The whole of my argument is that Martha Stewart was not tricked. 

←

I am still waiting for a "whole argument." I haven't even seen any part of an argument. So far, all I see are assertions.

Since these assertions contradict my own experience with people, I am unconvinced.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Please, try to respond to the content of my post, rather than what you want the content of my post to be.  Roark had time, you have time, I have time.  He used it to pursue his values.  On the contrary, a capitalist who gives tens of thousands of dollars to support the DNC is not supporting theirs.  How simple can I put it.

Roark built.  He wanted to build.  From my standpoint, Martha Stewart could not exist in a world in which the Democrats have their way.  Roark gave no sanction, he was tricked.  The whole of my argument is that Martha Stewart was not tricked.  She is a liberal who does not understand the kind of society that makes it possible for her to create and keep her wealth.

←

This thread is not about Martha Stewart. There is another thread dedicated to that. Here in this thread you have made broad generalizations having to do with the moral status of an entire class of people. And, frankly, generally you have not directly addressed the substance of many challenges. At this point I am inclined to agree with the assessment voiced by several others, namely that you are advancing an intrinsicist view and ignoring the importance of context. And doing so in the name of Objectivism is substantially worse.

We certainly allow for disageement here on THE FORUM but, speaking as moderator, you are free to advance your view only as long as you directly address the challenges that have been presented to you.

[Brian Smith 0]

First off - to everyone else. See - this is why you ask explicit questions, even if they might seem obvious or redundant.

Now, for Betsy -

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.

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. 

I am a bit confused here - and not just because the explicit context of all my questions and statements to which you have responded, has been moral judgment, not 'action' judgment. Would you mind elaborating on what it means to judge a person's actions, but not the person's character?

For instance, to take the first of the examples, which you have used more than once throughout the discussion. You say this is what you do:

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.

Why don't you give him the next job though? Previously you said: because the conclusion you drew from his past behavior was that you could not "count" on him. Is there a name for someone you cannot count on? I would likely identify him as unreliable. But if you prefer, we can identify him with a term you previously used to identify him with: "lazy".

So, the questions:

Are you saying his actions are unreliable - but his character may be reliable?

Are you saying his actions are lazy - but his character may not be lazy?

Or - if you would prefer not using a specific term of identification:

Are you saying that his actions are of someone who doesn't complete his tasks - but his character may be of someone who does complete his tasks?

In other words, when we say a person is unreliable, or lazy or doesn't complete his tasks (or as the question to which you had originally responded indicated, he is "lazy, or purposeless, or dishonest, etc"), we are not speaking to his character - we are only speaking to his actions?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

In other words, when we say a person [...] doesn't complete his tasks [...] we are not speaking to his character - we are only speaking to his actions?

←

Yes. Actions of a man are nonessential characteristics of a man; character is the essential characteristic. "Essential" means "explanatory" (epistemologically) or "causal" (metaphysically). One's character causes and therefore explains one's actions.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I am a bit confused here - and not just because the explicit context of all my questions and statements to which you have responded, has been moral judgment, not 'action' judgment.  Would you mind elaborating on what it means to judge a person's actions, but not the person's character?

←

A moral judgement is a more comprehensive evaluation. It is an evaluation of a person's character, i.e., his characteristic way of acting.

A moral judgement takes more time and more information than a simple evaluation of some of a person's actions. Sometimes there is a reason to take the time and effort to make a moral evaluation and sometimes there isn't. The deciding factor for me is a person's potential value.

It's like this: A man sees an ugly woman who speaks in trite platitudes and has some disgusting personal habits. He avoids her. Then he meets a lovely lady who makes some insightful comments. He wants to know her better. A lot better. He spends time in her company, asks her questions, observes her in varying situations, and spends much time thinking about what he observes. Proper moral judgement is hard work. Sometimes it is worth it and sometimes it isn't.

Why don't you give him the next job though?  Previously you said: because the conclusion you drew from his past behavior was that you could not "count" on him.  Is there a name for someone you cannot count on?  I would likely identify him as unreliable.

That is an apt word.

Are you saying his actions are unreliable - but his character may be reliable?

All I know from the evidence I have is that he has been unreliable. I don't have enough evidence to assert anything about his character.

Or - if you would prefer not using a specific term of identification.

I would use the most accurate evaluative language I could justify with the evidence I have.

[Brian Smith 0]

Yes. Actions of a man are nonessential characteristics of a man; character is the essential characteristic. "Essential" means "explanatory" (epistemologically) or "causal" (metaphysically). One's character causes and therefore explains one's actions.

←

I wasn't trying to reverse cause and effect, if that is your inference. My comment merely spoke to the fact that actions (along with words) are the source from which we derive our inferences about character - and thus by identifying them, are we not, at least to some degree, identifying a person's character as well (since as you say, action is caused by character).

To put it metaphorically (must be my night for that ), since actions (and words) are the window to the soul, by identifying an action, are we not identifying at least a part of that soul?

[Brian Smith 0]

A moral judgement is a more comprehensive evaluation.  It is an evaluation of a person's character, i.e., his characteristic way of acting. 

This makes sense. And it serves to clear up some questions I had originally intended to ask near the beginning of this thread before I got involved in the question on psychology. For instance, it explains why the virtue of justice is identified as that of judging men's character AND conduct objectively. Before these last couple posts, I took that to mean something a little different.

A question: I assume that this is some fundamental division in the judgment of man that I missed somewhere in my readings on Objectivism. Could you provide me some references so I can study it further?

A moral judgement takes more time and more information than a simple evaluation of some of a person's actions.  Sometimes there is a reason to take the time and effort to make a moral evaluation and sometimes there isn't.  The deciding factor for me is a person's potential value.

Oh - I understand that most definitely. When I said I was going to post further after my little 'diamond prospector' metaphor, the amount of time it takes to identify the moral character of an individual seemed to be directly proportional to the value you place upon them. And i was going to ask some questions about that, specifically since there didnt seem to be a differentiation between the more quickly made decisions and the much more agonizingly arrived at ones. But now that I have at least the basic category difference between judging 'actions' and judging the more comprehensive 'character', some of the questions I was going to ask about appear to have resolved themselves fairly well (at first blush of thought at least).

[unreliable] is an apt word.

This is more of a technical question. Are some words which are used to as action judgments also applicable to character judgments as well? Or are they automatic indicators of character?

IF you identify something as a lie (which is intentional falsehood vs error) as opposed to identifying it simply as not the truth, are you not also identifying that person's character as dishonest - since Honesty is the refusal to fake reality?

I have some more questions as this relates to the virtues, but I am really fading fast here, so I will hold them off.

But thanks for this so far. Definitely something to digest.

[Janet_Busch 0]

I see two questions in this discussion: The question of the proper way to go about making a moral judgment, and that of how we make judgments about a person on a daily basis, i.e., how we deal with people.

There are very few times in my life that I have actually deemed another person to be evil, and have only decided that about one individual that I knew personally. If there is something about someone that I'm uncomfortable with, or that I don't like, etc., I have nothing else to do with them. I don't get to know such a person well enough to determine if they are corrupt enough to judge as evil.

My attitude is much the same as Betsy's, though I'm not nearly as to the point and no-nonsense as she is (does that constitute agreeing too easily ). On the whole, I take people as I find them. If someone has something that is of value to me, and thus enhances my life, well and good. If not, or if I see behavior which is such that it outweighs what value I find, I drop them. I usually become bored very quickly with someone I find to be intellectually dishonest and not open to reason; it doesn't take much discussion to determine this. As for whatever vice I may find, it depends on the nature and extent of the vice whether or not I choose to end a relationship. Generally, I find most people are a mixed bag, just like their philosophy.

I'll have to read and think further about psychologizing. At this point I don't think my assessment about my friend constitutes psychologizing as I understand it. If it does, then it is a mistake and I want to correct it.

As an aside, I have had some training in psychology, both while I was studying to become a nurse, and in continued work to better my skills. Basic knowledge in this field is necessary to properly assess and assist a patient. However, I am certainly not an expert and I do not attempt to diagnose pathology in anyone.

[Janet_Busch 0]

I see that others have answered both questions while I was writing that mush above. At least Brian has the sense to stop when he gets too tired!

Thanks for giving me so much to think about. I have found this thread to be very enlightening.

[Brian Smith 0]

This is more of a technical question.  Are some words which are used to as action judgments also applicable to character judgments as well?  Or are they automatic indicators of character?

IF you identify something as a lie (which is intentional falsehood vs error) as opposed to identifying it simply as not the truth, are you not also identifying that person's character as dishonest - since Honesty is the refusal to fake reality?

Ignore this last one. Definitely the sleep deprivation talking here.

Though, if I am thinking straight enough, identifying this one as the vice of dishonesty would not necessarily be as involved a process as it would be with some of the other virtues or vices, would it?

[Brian Smith 0]

At least Brian has the sense to stop when he gets too tired!

As my last post indicates, I apparently didn't have quite enough sense to catch myself soon enough.

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I wasn't trying to reverse cause and effect, if that is your inference.

No, I suspected that you might be thinking that (1) if one identifies Mr. X's actions, then (2) one automatically identifies Mr. X's character-type, the one that would engage in such actions. I am trying to point out that a particular action (such as failing to deliver an assigned project on time) might be due to some factor other than character. The problem, as you know, is that an effect might have resulted from either of several causes. Which was the cause cannot be determined without further information.

My comment merely spoke to the fact that actions (along with words) are the source from which we derive our inferences about character - and thus by identifying them, are we not, at least to some degree, identifying a person's character as well (since as you say, action is caused by character).

←

[bold added for emphasis.]

No, identification of actions and identification of (causal) character are separate steps. It is true that immediately after I identify an action's nature, my subconscious mind might send me a pop-up, so to speak, telling me the kind of character I would usually associate with that kind of action. But my conscious mind can edit that pop-up by saying: "Perhaps, that is a possibility, but it is much too early to be identifying character traits; I need more information first."

[Brian Smith 0]

No, I suspected that you might be thinking that (1) if one identifies Mr. X's actions, then (2) one automatically identifies Mr. X's character-type, the one that would engage in such actions.

It's true. But its funny, because I would distinguish between a person's action and a person's character on numerous occasions (including quite. It just never clicked with me as the explicit principle for some reason. Go figure.

I think it is because terms like 'unreliable' 'evasive' 'lazy' 'liar' 'spineless' etc etc seem so evocative of a person themselves and not just their actions I always conflated the two. But with explicit knowledge of difference between these identifications of actions and say 'dishonest' 'unjust' 'unproductive' as the identifications of character, I am now in a position to properly identity a person's character (if I have the proper information), and will not mix that with an identification simply of their actions.

Thanks to both you and Betsy for slapping me across the mind and pointing out the explicit implication of that difference.

--

Just as a clarification - none of this changes my point about psychological problems. When one does engage in moral judgment, as opposed to behavioral judgment, one must - as Betsy indicated - rule out the two errors of knowledge as the cause of a person's actions before identifying those actions as moral evasion, and thus a breach of morality. But, unless someone can identify for me an objective means of ruling out evasion, I see no way of identifying any act as specific evidence of a man's inability to think, as opposed to his refusal to think. And, as Ms. Rand indicates, absent such evidence, one cannot attribute psychological reasons as the explanation of a man's behavior.

--

Oh. And if anyone wants to - they can point to me and show adriaticfish how 'simple' it is to understand ethics. I've been 'exposed' to a ton of knowledge, including a vast amount of information about Objectivism. I was even seeing - I was identifying - the difference between a person's actions and their character. But I was blind to the importance of this distinction as related to the identification of character. Not purposefully blind. Nor psychologically incapable of seeing it. I was even getting the logic correct. It was simply an ignorance of an explicit piece of knowledge - a specific association between actions and virtues (or vices).

But since I was 'exposed' to it all and didn't see it, I guess that means I am evil.

(But since I am from the 8th Dimension, you all knew that anyway. Pure and simple. )

[adriaticfish 0]

Oh.  And if anyone wants to - they can point to me and show adriaticfish how 'simple' it is to understand ethics.  I've been 'exposed' to a ton of knowledge, including a vast amount of information about Objectivism.  I was even seeing - I was identifying - the difference between a person's actions and their character.  But I was blind to the importance of this distinction as related to the identification of character.  Not purposefully blind.  Nor psychologically incapable of seeing it.  I was even getting the logic correct.  It was simply an ignorance of an explicit piece of knowledge - a specific association between actions and virtues (or vices).

But since I was 'exposed' to it all and didn't see it, I guess that means I am evil. 

(But since I am from the 8th Dimension, you all knew that anyway.  Pure and simple.   )

←

It should go without saying, but, just because you have difficulty in a certain area, does not mean that it is difficult. The Objectivist ethics is clear and simple to understand. That does NOT mean it was simple to create or define for its originator. That DOES mean that Dr. Peikoff wrote a clear, concise, and easy-to-understand treatment of the subject. When I hear someone say they have difficulty with the accosiation between actions and virtues or vices, it speaks volumes about their own character. I have no such difficulty. And that is what I am being attacked for. Sounds like something Ayn Rand used to call "hatred of the good for being the good."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

When I hear someone say they have difficulty with the accosiation between actions and virtues or vices, it speaks volumes about their own character.  I have no such difficulty.  And that is what I am being attacked for.

You are not being attacked, but you have been roundly criticized by some for indiscriminantly wielding the sword of morality without due attention to the context upon which moral judgments should be based. Such out-of-context moral judgments do not dispense the justice that moral judgments demand.

Sounds like something Ayn Rand used to call "hatred of the good for being the good."

←

When Ayn Rand used that phrase she did so with good reason. Your attempt to capitalize on Miss Rand's proper judgments as justification for your mistaken views does not do justice to anyone, Ayn Rand included. Better you spend your effort attempting to rationally justify your ideas instead of appealing so often to what Miss Rand and other authorities did or did not do.

[Brian Smith 0]

It's like this:  A man sees an ugly woman who speaks in trite platitudes and has some disgusting personal habits.  He avoids her.  Then he meets a lovely lady who makes some insightful comments.  He wants to know her better. A lot better.  He spends time in her company, asks her questions, observes her in varying situations, and spends much time thinking about what he observes.  Proper moral judgement is hard work.  Sometimes it is worth it and sometimes it isn't.

Right. And I have been doing this sort of thing all my life of course. Indeed, I have been engaged in the behavior you described in your previous posts as well - evaluating a person based on their value to me - which is why I concurred with your identification of that approach. I was simply mixing up the identification of the terms and what they were specifically referencing (action vs character). If I had this new knowledge in my possession prior to now, I don't think I would have acted too much differently towards others, given the context of my goals and my ends.

---

I have a question here now. If it is true that we cannot judge a man to be evil simply by evaluating his actions, because the determination of evil is a character judgment and involves a much more in-depth analysis to establish - is not the converse true as well? One cannot judge a man to be good either, without such an in-depth analysis - because his actions do not necessarily inform us as to his character?

Or, in the above, am I making an error about the burden of proof? Do we (seemingly properly) assume a person to be of good moral character so long as we have no evidence to the contrary? But once we come across such evidence ('he lied to me' - 'he was lazy' - etc etc) that assumption of good character is put on hold (you become "wary" of someone, as you put it)? In other words, you don't declare him to be of evil character, but neither do you declare him to be of good character any more either?

Or, until he is proven to be of evil character - ie proven to be irrational, unjust, dishonest - do we still identify such a person as virtuous, despite his lies or laziness or the like? Do we still identify him as a practitioner of rationality, of justice, of honesty, etc. regardless of his actions, so long as we do not know the reason for the actions?

--

More to come I am sure

[Brian Smith 0]

just because you have difficulty in a certain area, does not mean that it is difficult.  The Objectivist ethics is clear and simple to understand. ... That DOES mean that Dr. Peikoff wrote a clear, concise, and easy-to-understand treatment of the subject.    When I hear someone say they have difficulty with the accosiation between actions and virtues or vices, it speaks volumes about their own character.  I have no such difficulty.

That is great to hear. Since I am still confused on the subject, perhaps you can point me to the page or pages in OPAR where Dr. Peikoff wrote clearly, concisely, and in an easy-to-understand way about the explicit difference between moral judgment and behavioral judgment.

[Brian Smith 0]

I have another question, but I want to be sure of something first. Just to be perfectly clear on this point:

Behavioral judgment is the judgment of a man's actions, but not his character. It is not a moral judgment.

Moral judgment is the judgment of a man's character.

[adriaticfish 0]

You are not being attacked, but you have been roundly criticized by some for indiscriminantly wielding the sword of morality without due attention to the context upon which moral judgments should be based. Such out-of-context moral judgments do not dispense the justice that moral judgments demand.

When Ayn Rand used that phrase she did so with good reason. Your attempt to capitalize on Miss Rand's proper judgments as justification for your mistaken views does not do justice to anyone, Ayn Rand included. Better you spend your effort attempting to rationally justify your ideas instead of appealing so often to what Miss Rand and other authorities did or did not do.

←

Where have I not paid due attention to context? And what does due attention consist of? Does it consist of looking for any remotely possible reason for someone doing something foolish?

If someone supports the spread of socialism, they are wrong for doing so. Pure and simple. Socialism is anti-man and anti-life. By supporting it they are working against thier own life. The context is present-day America. I have honestly thought about it and cannot fathom a moral reason for supporting the spread of socialism in present-day America. Can you?

[Janet_Busch 0]

---

I have a question here now.  If it is true that we cannot judge a man to be evil simply by evaluating his actions, because the determination of evil is a character judgment and involves a much more in-depth analysis to establish - is not the converse true as well?  One cannot judge a man to be good either, without such an in-depth analysis - because his actions do not necessarily inform us as to his character?   

Or, in the above, am I making an error about the burden of proof?  Do we (seemingly properly) assume a person to be of good moral character so long as we have no evidence to the contrary?  But once we come across such evidence ('he lied to me' - 'he was lazy' - etc etc)  that assumption of good character is put on hold (you become "wary" of someone, as you put it)?  In other words, you don't declare him to be of evil character, but neither do you declare him to be of good character any more either? 

If you hold a benevolent view of man, I think you assume the good until something happens to give you pause.

Or, until he is proven to be of evil character - ie proven to be irrational, unjust, dishonest - do we still identify such a person as virtuous, despite his lies or laziness or the like?  Do we still identify him as a practitioner of rationality, of justice, of honesty, etc. regardless of his actions, so long as we do not know the reason for the actions?

←

In this case, I would be neutral until I had more information; i.e., I would assume neither the good nor the bad, but would be agnostic until I could identify one or the other. If I identify a specific vice, I would then want to understand the degree to which the vice has infected the whole character (as I said above, most people are a mixed bag), and how that vice affects what value I find.

(I apologize for the clumbsy constructions. I'm having a hard time maintaining my focus. I've decided that rather than not participating because of this, I would keep trying and maybe break through the problem. If it gets too bad, I promise to stop taking up space with useless drivel.)

[Brian Smith 0]

(I apologize for the clumbsy constructions.  I'm having a hard time maintaining my focus.  I've decided that rather than not participating because of this, I would keep trying and maybe break through the problem.  If it gets too bad, I promise to stop taking up space with useless drivel.)

Don't worry. So focus, so good.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Where have I not paid due attention to context?  And what does due attention consist of?

At this point I need only direct you to the many posts on this thread where criticisms were made of your views, as well to the Martha Stewart thread that you dredged over to here. An intrinsicist view of morality, and of knowledge as well, lead directly to out-of-context absolutes. Due attention to context consists, in part, of recognizing that abstract principles are not like fruit growing on trees, to be plucked and swallowed whole. Due attention recognizes that human beings have a context of knowledge upon which they act, and lack of knowledge, and errors of knowledge, are not per se deserving of moral condemnation.

Due attention also applies right here, and you really need to directly address the specific points that others brought to your attention, rather than just keep repeating the socialism spiel.