The Peikoff Endorsement Options

[ruveyn ben yosef]

What is secular about a considering a fertilized egg a human being with the right to life? Is there any non-religious organization that upholds such a position?

Even so, such a law does not establish a religion. As unpleasant as the proposed law is, it does not violate the First Amendment. Where the law can be fought is on the same basis as the Supreme Court partially legalized abortion in the first place, to wit, the ninth amendment.

ruveyn

[Carlos]

...but how is religion going to stand up to Objectivism?

Out of all the people I've ever met, religious individuals have been the most sympathetic towards Objectivism and if not that at least respectful of it, whereas secular non-Oists just hate it.

I too have met many religious people who are sympathetic to Objectivism. But, I also know people who have had miserable childhoods because religion was foisted on them dogmatically. I know a few Objectivists have said as much and I believe you'll find they have a much dimmer view of religious people as a rule. Religion unleashed is dangerous, after all.

I would bet that far greater people in America have had terrible childhoods with secular or mostly non-religious parents then with religious ones.

[Paul's Here]

What is secular about a considering a fertilized egg a human being with the right to life? Is there any non-religious organization that upholds such a position?

Even so, such a law does not establish a religion. As unpleasant as the proposed law is, it does not violate the First Amendment. Where the law can be fought is on the same basis as the Supreme Court partially legalized abortion in the first place, to wit, the ninth amendment.

ruveyn

Such an argument is typical for conservatives who drop the context of the First Amendment. What would the First Amendment mean? That Congress pass a law saying the the pope is now the head of state? Such an interpretation is unreasonable. The Supreme Court did not legalize abortion based upon the Ninth Amendment. Any law that uses a religious tenet as the basis for its passage is a law respecting the establishment of religion, and is unconstitutional. Such a law uses force to make other religious (or non-religious) people abide by that legislation.

[Jack Wakeland]

One of the things that strikes me about Peikoff's analysis, i.e. that religion is the biggest threat, is that I don't remember Ayn Rand ever making an equivalent point...

Yes.

Precisely.

Ayn Rand argued again and again that the primary problem with religion in American politics is that it is used to argue in favor of liberty and that religious arguments for liberty undermine it at every level:

1.) Ayn Rand objected that when American conservatives based their argument for man's rights on the idea that they're god-given, they conceded that reason and science were on the side of socialism.

2.) Ayn Rand objected that it attempting to argue that the American system of liberty was based on universal Christian standards, American conservatives were attempting to base the justification for capitalism on tranditional religious-altruist morality -- a contradiction that, over and over again, required Conservatives to concede that socialism held the moral high ground.

3.) Ayn Rand objected that in attempting to base the American system of liberty on Christianity, American conservatives were doomed to repeat the exact process of defeat at the hands of the sophistries of Kantian-subjectism that had already led to all of the abridgments of liberty we already suffer.

Ayn Rand saw religion as a false doctrine doomed to fail as a defense of liberty and as a false doctrine that politically-culturally displaces any meaningful attempt to challenge any of the philosophical premises that led to the rise of statism in America.

Ayn Rand saw religion's danger to American liberty as an indirect. Religion is a false defense that acts as an ideological fifth column within the ranks of those who attempt to defend liberty using it.

That is not to say that Ayn Rand ever neglected the potential for religion to be a direct threat to liberty. She fiercely opposed all religious restrictions on abortion as direct threat to liberty: an attempt to enslave women to the "un-born" non-existent non-entity -- the fetus -- that is a part of their body during pregnancy.

Remarkably, in her public statements, Ayn Rand often turned away opportunities to ridicule religious belief. Instead she focused her comments on building a new rational foundation for moral belief and moral aspirations. It appeared that she did not want any part of tearing down the moral aspirations of others unless it was a part of building rational foundations for morality. To me, a life-long athiest, this was a remarkable aspect of Ayn Rand's treatment of religion. It almost looked like a gesture of respect towards religious people -- not to their irrational, evil, and self-destructive beliefs -- but to their personal, spiritual, moral ambitiousness.

Leonard Peikoff's current view of the dangers of religion to American liberty is different from Ayn Rand's. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, he sees religion as the primary and direct threat that exists for American liberty. This difference is based on the change in historical circumstances: there is no more international loyalty to a Communist "ideal." This change in circumstance is a real change that must alter the way we Objectivists treat religion. As long as socialism is dead, religion is the alternative as the primary threat to liberty.

Unfortunately, the events of the past ten years have proved that socialism is not dead. It has reared its ugly head in more purely nihilistic and anti-intellectual neo-Marxist variants of collectivism and in the anti-man ideology of environmentalism. Unfortunately, Dr. Peikoff's view that religion is the primary threat to American liberty does not fully acknowledge the fact that socialism is still alive. Furthermore, Dr. Peikoff's view on the nature of the religious threat are based on his "DIM Hypothesis" on the role of epistemological method in history.

It is clear (to me, at least) that Dr. Peikoff refers to his "DIM Hypothesis" as a hypothesis precisely because it is not an idea that Ayn Rand formulated and was not a part of her philosophy of life. He argues that his hypothesis is consistent with Objectivism and he treats his hypothesis as a logical extension of Objectivist views in epistemology. The "DIM Hypothesis" is not, however, a part of Objectivism...at least not as of yet. As of now, it is unproven.

Based on what I know of it, I do not agree with the DIM Hypothesis. In-so-far as it correctly identifies the effect that epistemological method has on the ideas that move history, it is only correct to the extent that it repeats Ayn Rand's many philosophical distinction between the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. Without going into details, I will simply assert that I do not think it is a good method for understanding the way that ideas have moved history. At best, the "DIM Hypothesis" can only describe half of the way ideas move -- the half in which they move deductively from the general principle to the specific practice. As far as I can tell, the DIM Hypothesis is invalid when it comes to the other half of the way ideas move history -- the half in which they move inductively from the human experiences of specific practices to general principles.

(I must also disclose that I find the terminology of the DIM Hypothesis personally revolting. The use of specialized jargon and acronyms such as "I2" "D2" "M2" are -- at best -- a bad use of language. For we who speak and read and write it, plain English is objective communication. Semi-cryptic acronyms are not.)

One participant on this thread referred to "the anti-Peikoff crowd." On one topic, I guess I am "anti-Peikoff." I find it peculiar to be in that position. It was the taped lecture courses on Objectivism taught by Dr. Leonard Peikoff that helped me -- more than any other source of information or experience in my life -- to understand Ayn Rand's idea of objective methodology.

That philosophical understanding, above and beyond the general "logical-empirical-scientific" mental method I had prior to reading Ayn Rand, has been a constant source of intellectual strength that has enabled me to bravely face and successfully penetrate many confusing questions. But based on what Dr. Peikoff taught me I cannot integrate or use his pronouncements on the most elementary of the current political issues of the day: which candidate I should or should not vote for. I know well his feeling of frustration and utter contempt for the political choices we face today -- they are my own -- but his pronouncements on this and other elections are not intelligible to the mind that he helped to train: mine.

In making a choice on November 4, I don't have to stay home because it is impossible to chose the lesser of two evils this year. There is no reason for paralysis. Both candidates aren't equally bad. There is a significant difference between the two. It really does matter which of the two candidates wins; which of the two parties wins. I can vote against the candidate who obviously is the worst; the party that plainly should not win. Arguing for liberty is more important than voting, but voting is something that I can do, too.

[Paul's Here]

--------
I would bet that far greater people in America have had terrible childhoods with secular or mostly non-religious parents then with religious ones.

Irrationalism is not confined to religious people.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Such an argument is typical for conservatives who drop the context of the First Amendment. What would the First Amendment mean? That Congress pass a law saying the the pope is now the head of state? Such an interpretation is unreasonable. The Supreme Court did not legalize abortion based upon the Ninth Amendment. Any law that uses a religious tenet as the basis for its passage is a law respecting the establishment of religion, and is unconstitutional. Such a law uses force to make other religious (or non-religious) people abide by that legislation.

Here is a snipped from the wiki article on Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right to privacy was established as a consequence of the ninth amendment in Griswald v. Connecticut.

So the right to privacy and due process is at the heart of Roe v. Wade. if the Colorado legislation is to be fought in the courts, it must be on the basis of the ninth amendment right to privacy and it must also prove that the proposed legislation deprives a woman of due process. If the matter if fought in the courts it must be along the lines that the court has established. General philosophical principles do not win cases. Basing the case on precedent and the constitutional right to privacy and due process might win the case, if it goes to court. The court makes the rules and the case must be fought on the basis of these rules.

I too, object to the proposed Colorado legislation on both scientific and philosophical grounds, but that will not win the case in court.

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher]

The first amendment concerns any legislation that has its origin in religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"Respecting" there means "has as its subject." You can't have a law whose subject is establishing a religion like the Anglican Church in England. In England, the Church is supported by tax money and once did not allow full religious or political freedoms to Jews, Catholics, and other non-members of the Church. This led to many of them fleeing to America and making sure, in the First Amendment, that it could not happen here.

What is secular about a considering a fertilized egg a human being with the right to life? Is there any non-religious organization that upholds such a position?

That's a scientific / political issue and I have known a few atheists -- and even A.R.I. contributors -- who have believed a fetus is a person with rights.

[Mercury]

In the long run, the religious are worse, because mysticism will trump consistent skepticism and apparent moral authority will trump relativism.

If this is true, how did skepticism ever come to overcome religion in Europe and among the Left?

As I understand it, it was Aristotelianism (Aquinas, Bacon, Galileo) that overcame religion in Europe (the Renaissance and the Enlightenment), then Hume, Kant, and others, re-introduced skepticism.

It is not religion that skepticism is attacking now but reason, and, if reason is defeated, religion will fill in the blanks.

Having said all that, I think the Left is more injurious in the short to intermediate term, and that's really what's important. The near-term threat is the important one for our purposes (spreading Objectivism).

[Brad Aisa]

In this case he said he's not voting, which is different from last election, where he said he'd vote for Kerry.

Doesn’t Palin believe in evolution? I thought she did. I could be wrong.

Palin said in a rather dishonest interview that she thought evolution should be taught in science class. (The interview was dishonest, because both the interviewer and Palin skirted around the substance of the issues, essentially making it seems as if Palin is a perfectly reasonable, rational individual.)

The context of that question was the seeming fact that Palin is a creationist. THAT is such an egregiously irrational viewpoint that it disqualifies someone for the position of President.

[Brad Aisa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFjYBLkvND8

Dr. Peikoff echoes my own personal sentiments exactly. I have been saying here all along that the religious right and the Republicans are vastly more dangerous than the Democrats, and that in this election, both sides are equally awful and there is no one to vote for.

I think the people arguing otherwise have not been eating their Objectivist Wheaties.

IMHO.

[Arnold]

[The context of that question was the seeming fact that Palin is a creationist. THAT is such an egregiously irrational viewpoint that it disqualifies someone for the position of President.

It's all irrational, where do you draw the line? Resurrection? Virgin Birth? Holy Ghosts?
One thing is certain, anyone who doesn't believe in most of this stuff, is not in the running.

[Brad Aisa]

[The context of that question was the seeming fact that Palin is a creationist. THAT is such an egregiously irrational viewpoint that it disqualifies someone for the position of President.

It's all irrational, where do you draw the line? Resurrection? Virgin Birth? Holy Ghosts?

It's true, that it's all irrational, but I think one can draw the line based on a few characteristics:
1. is it going to affect how they approach policy? many classically religious people who accept religion as a personal matter do not bring their beliefs into politics--Canadian politicians, especially Liberals, have traditionally been very good this way (3 of the most gay-rights-friendly politicians were devote Catholics, and several Catholic Prime Ministers disavowed any attempts to overturn Canada's lack of abortion laws on religious bases.)
2. is it just fairly abstract religious belief, that doesn't really tie to actual life? belief in "god" and mythological religious figures tends to be quite abstract and disconnected from real life

Notice how the creationists fail this test-- they believe very absurd concrete nonsense that directly contradicts vast quantities of very clearly documented scientific evidence. If there is such a thing as Dr. Peikoff's "inherently dishonest ideas" I would put Creationism into that camp.

[Arnold]

[The context of that question was the seeming fact that Palin is a creationist. THAT is such an egregiously irrational viewpoint that it disqualifies someone for the position of President.

It's all irrational, where do you draw the line? Resurrection? Virgin Birth? Holy Ghosts?

It's true, that it's all irrational, but I think one can draw the line based on a few characteristics:
1. is it going to affect how they approach policy? many classically religious people who accept religion as a personal matter do not bring their beliefs into politics--Canadian politicians, especially Liberals, have traditionally been very good this way (3 of the most gay-rights-friendly politicians were devote Catholics, and several Catholic Prime Ministers disavowed any attempts to overturn Canada's lack of abortion laws on religious bases.)
2. is it just fairly abstract religious belief, that doesn't really tie to actual life? belief in "god" and mythological religious figures tends to be quite abstract and disconnected from real life

Notice how the creationists fail this test-- they believe very absurd concrete nonsense that directly contradicts vast quantities of very clearly documented scientific evidence. If there is such a thing as Dr. Peikoff's "inherently dishonest ideas" I would put Creationism into that camp.

Well, if it is how they approach policy that concerns you, she indicates no bias about teaching evolution, which is the core area of this belief. I have not seen where she intends forcing her views on the electorate, which is more than can be said for the socialists and environmentalists (the new religion). The whole concept of someone dying for our sins, and the gruesome display of that sacrifice worn by so many, is more worrisome than arguments on the age of the earth. Note that none dispute the big fella made it.

[CICEROSC]

should at least place all of Ayn Rand's works into the public domain so that they can be freely copied, quoted, translated, wiki-fied, analyzed, argued about, stored on millions of electronic devices, transcribed onto etched superalloy sheets (one of my ideas) that would last millions of years, and searched all around the internet.

I have no clue who owns these copyrights or the background of that ownership, but Phil Oliver is making a hugely important point here. If a fund-raising campaign needs to be undertaken to buy out the copyrights, so be it. It ought to be a prime focus of organized Objectivism to get the work of Ayn Rand freely available and organized on the internet in its fullest possible extent, in as many languages as possible, as soon as possible.

If this is not near the top of the agenda for ARI, I wish someone would explain why it isn't so we can get to work and deal with the problem!


One more thought -- I think I've read comments like this from Phil before, and yet I've never seen much followup from others. Phil, I want to publicly volunteer to sign on and contribute to any effort you might decide to put together to carry on this effort, and I publicly challenge others on this board to do the same! This goal is too important, and time is too short, for this issue to remain in the shadows.

[bborg]

So the right to privacy and due process is at the heart of Roe v. Wade. if the Colorado legislation is to be fought in the courts, it must be on the basis of the ninth amendment right to privacy and it must also prove that the proposed legislation deprives a woman of due process. If the matter if fought in the courts it must be along the lines that the court has established. General philosophical principles do not win cases. Basing the case on precedent and the constitutional right to privacy and due process might win the case, if it goes to court. The court makes the rules and the case must be fought on the basis of these rules.

I too, object to the proposed Colorado legislation on both scientific and philosophical grounds, but that will not win the case in court.

Philosophy is not irrelevant in the courtroom. Judges make decisions based on arguments, not a mere list of precedents. And precedents in this case are on our side. But you're right that there could be problems. Conservatives object that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that there is no right to privacy. The problem is that privacy derives from the right to life, which so-called "pro-choice" advocates have conceded to the Right. It is possible to defend the decision, but not based on any ridiculous notion of "the right to choose".

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Philosophy is not irrelevant in the courtroom. Judges make decisions based on arguments, not a mere list of precedents. And precedents in this case are on our side. But you're right that there could be problems. Conservatives object that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that there is no right to privacy. The problem is that privacy derives from the right to life, which so-called "pro-choice" advocates have conceded to the Right. It is possible to defend the decision, but not based on any ridiculous notion of "the right to choose".

A philosophical approach may have some relevance to arguing a case, but the -grounding- of the case must consist of (1) the constitution or (2) or prior decisions. To be sure, logic is used to infer legal conclusions from legal premises, but purely abstract grounding for a case will usually go nowhere. Hypothetical-s and counter factual definite premises generally do not win cases in courts of appeal.

The first thing that a would be prospective judge in an appeals court must establish before he is appointed, is the acceptance of -stare decicis- that is the respect for prior decisions of the court. If the court overthrows a prior decision, it must do so on the basis that the constitution applies differently in -this particular- case than from prior cases. In any case the major grounding of any argument in court is -legal- more than philosophical. If purely philosophical arguments were decisive, our country would not be in the mess it is in now.

The fact of the matter is that we are not governed by rulers who are philosophers and philosophers who rulers. Plato's fondest wish has not become true, and in view of how much misery the principles of -The Republic- have led to*, I, for one, am grateful. If I am to be governed I would rather be governed by decent, fair minded people who have a real life outside of government, than by Philosopher Kings.

*See -The Open Society and Its Enemies- by Karl Popper (yes, -that- Karl Popper). He takes Plato's ideal state apart nail by nail and bolt by bolt.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here]

Such an argument is typical for conservatives who drop the context of the First Amendment. What would the First Amendment mean? That Congress pass a law saying the the pope is now the head of state? Such an interpretation is unreasonable. The Supreme Court did not legalize abortion based upon the Ninth Amendment. Any law that uses a religious tenet as the basis for its passage is a law respecting the establishment of religion, and is unconstitutional. Such a law uses force to make other religious (or non-religious) people abide by that legislation.

Here is a snipped from the wiki article on Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right to privacy was established as a consequence of the ninth amendment in Griswald v. Connecticut.

So the right to privacy and due process is at the heart of Roe v. Wade. if the Colorado legislation is to be fought in the courts, it must be on the basis of the ninth amendment right to privacy and it must also prove that the proposed legislation deprives a woman of due process. If the matter if fought in the courts it must be along the lines that the court has established. General philosophical principles do not win cases. Basing the case on precedent and the constitutional right to privacy and due process might win the case, if it goes to court. The court makes the rules and the case must be fought on the basis of these rules.

I too, object to the proposed Colorado legislation on both scientific and philosophical grounds, but that will not win the case in court.

ruveyn

What evidence do you have that the right to privacy was based upon the Ninth Amendment? I know of no such connection. Nor do I agree that we have a right to privacy. Such a right is quite nebulous and undefinable, in my opinion.

[Paul's Here]

The first amendment concerns any legislation that has its origin in religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"Respecting" there means "has as its subject." You can't have a law whose subject is establishing a religion like the Anglican Church in England. In England, the Church is supported by tax money and once did not allow full religious or political freedoms to Jews, Catholics, and other non-members of the Church. This led to many of them fleeing to America and making sure, in the First Amendment, that it could not happen here.

Then there is no basis for asserting the First Amendment in any case since such a law would never be proposed here. "Establishment of religion" does not mean an state church. It means a law that has one religion's point of view and support, and restricts the rights of others.

What is secular about a considering a fertilized egg a human being with the right to life? Is there any non-religious organization that upholds such a position?

That's a scientific / political issue and I have known a few atheists -- and even A.R.I. contributors -- who have believed a fetus is a person with rights.

A religious doctrine may be stripped of its religious meaning by secularizing its ideas in the same what that Marxism secularized politics by substituting society for god. But the ideas are still mysticism in epistemological method. One just has to argue against the idea from a different perspective.

[Paul's Here]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFjYBLkvND8

Dr. Peikoff echoes my own personal sentiments exactly. I have been saying here all along that the religious right and the Republicans are vastly more dangerous than the Democrats, and that in this election, both sides are equally awful and there is no one to vote for.

I think the people arguing otherwise have not been eating their Objectivist Wheaties.

IMHO.

Argumentation, please.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

What evidence do you have that the right to privacy was based upon the Ninth Amendment? I know of no such connection. Nor do I agree that we have a right to privacy. Such a right is quite nebulous and undefinable, in my opinion.

Griswold v Connecticut. A right to privacy was found in the "penumbra" of the 9th amendment. There is no general right of privacy enumerated in the Constitution. There is a partial right of privacy implied by the 4-th amendment.

see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/

paragraph 1.2



ruveyn