THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Victor Pross]

Dan, you said:

“The specific targeting of pre-schools would certainly be immoral and counter-productive, but not for the reasons [some] are offering. It's not wrong to bomb toddlers because we would be ‘violating their rights.”’

A question of clarification: How would the specific targeting of innocent children be “immoral” --but not a “violation of their rights”? Are not “rights” based on moral principles?

Let's phrase it this way: It's not wrong to bomb toddlers [the specific bombing of them yet, that is; let's keep your context here] because it's not a violation of their rights--but it is immoral.

Hmm. Interesting, very interesting.

I don’t know, it seems to me that you contradict yourself here. I want to see if we have the same understanding of rights and moral principles.

Victor

Edited October 12, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

John Lewis's article in "The Objective Standard" [Craig Biddle’s publication] explains why Sherman's march was not projected to kill civilians --but rather to destroy infrastructure and supply, crippling the South's ability to wage war. As a strategy, you can find and destroy their nuclear installations, [if any] factories, supply lines, cripple their infrastructure--bridges, rail lines and such--so as to cripple their war efforts. These are the first line attacks to end a war, one that the United States is very able to do. On the other hand, Biddle advocates the bombing of mosques as a first course of action—is that right? He says that “The preachers and teachers of Islamism are not innocent; they are guilty. And they are not merely legitimate targets; they are mandatory targets.”

What is more practical--moral--in your view?

Are not these men on different pages?

Victor

Edited October 12, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

It is very good military strategy to cut military supply lines and supply sources. No one can argue with that.

I have not read Dr. Lewis's essay and my own knowledge of the Civil War is sketchy. I will look this campaign up later as the comments on it I have read have piqued my interest. The way Dr. Lewis's portrayal of the campaign has been described so far (in the items I have read) makes me remember the good old days:

(taking off hat, putting it over breast, looking up to the stars and sighing deeply...)

I remember the days when when men were not mean to other men, and everybody had at least 3 square meals a day, and social institutions worked far better than today, and people did not try to cheat each other, and wars were fought over noble ideals, and love was in the air, and people were generally happier and healthier, and men were men and women were women and God was in his Heaven and all was right with the world. Ugly words like rape and plunder did not exist...

(snapping out of it...)

(ahem...)

I agree that Biddle's rhetoric is different than that of this article (or the Brook and Epstein essay I intend to critique), but it is a logical extension of the tribal premises I have read so far.

I also agree that genocide works. It solves the issue for all time for one side of a conflict.

Michael

[L W HALL]

In an attempt to do a little sorting out of the argument for the targeting of civilians, I will restate some things which have been posted in this thread:

First: In post #228 Dan was replying to Victor in this quote and it was his(Victor's) question which is in quotation marks:

"A question: what historical precedent would you cite where the mass killing of unarmed citizens—women and children included—would you call as being most “effective”?"

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden, and Sherman's march through the South during the Civil War are good examples that have been cited recently. But that's not even the point here. The question is not whether or not you believe targeting civilians (to any degree) is an effective tactic in this or that context. The question is whether or not you would support it if were demonstrated to you that it *is* effective in a particular context.

You still didn't answer the question

Second: I responded to the use of Sherman to uphold this theory in post #246 with this following quote:

One other point, and that is regarding the continual citing of Sherman's targeting of civilians. This is again taken out of context due to the fact that although I view Sherman's actions as illegal and find him reprehensible, nonetheless he did not directly target civilians, but instead his focus was on materials and the means for waging war. This leaves the argument in support of the targeting of civilians for death in regards to Sherman's actions as useless in these discussions.

My final point for this post is the following quote from Victor who has, I assume, read all of John Lewis' article making the same argument against the idea that Sherman intentionally targeted civilians in his war effort:

John Lewis's article in "The Objective Standard" [Craig Biddle’s publication] explains why Sherman's march was not projected to kill civilians --but rather to destroy infrastructure and supply, crippling the South's ability to wage war

This is all I have time for this morning, but what I am going to try and get done over the next couple of days is to look at whether the premise of targeting civilians in Japan and Germany during WWII carries as much strength of argument as what has been stated.

L W

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been doing some reading on an actual case where innocents were killed in a relatively recent air raid.

On April 15, 1986, there was a joint United States Air Force and Navy bombing raid on Libya and the reason was Libya's sponsorship of terrorism. Here is the GlobalSecurity.org article on it, called Operation El Dorado Canyon. Terrorists had bombed a discotheque in West Berlin and the USA had intercepted a cable from Gaddafi ordering the attack on Americans, which included the following phrase: "to cause maximum and indiscriminate casualties." The criteria in making the decision to bomb Tripoli and the choice of targets are specifically stated in the article:

The raid was designed to hit directly at the heart of Gaddafi’s ability to export terrorism with the belief that such a preemptive strike would provide him "incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior." The final targets of the raid were selected at the National Security Council level "within the circle of the President’s advisors."

(...)

All except one of these targets were chosen because of their direct connection to terrorist activity. The single exception was the Benina military airfield which based Libyan fighter aircraft. This target was hit to preempt Libyan interceptors from taking off and attacking the incoming US bombers.

I submit that this is the correct way for the military to behave. They identified an enemy, established priorities to neutralize that enemy and executed an air strike. There was no consideration of whether it was moral or not to bomb innocent people. On a military level, such question was not even considered. The innocents who suffered damage were people who happened to be nearby. Here is another quote from the article:

It should also be noted that the French Embassy in Tripoli and several of the neighboring residential buildings also were bombed inadvertently during the raid; they were not targeted.

In other words, it was an accident that they were hit. There is no moral sanction to justify accidents. They merely happen.

Also, Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hanna was killed during the raid. It was neither moral or immoral that this happened. She was not specifically targeted. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Where I see the ARI view differing from the one I hold is in how to consider the death of someone like Hanna or even the damage to the French Embassy (and other damage and deaths).

ARI considers her death and all other collateral damage to be the moral responsibility of the vast majority of the people in Libya (for sanctioning Gaddafi, either directly or through passivity). It also considers that Hanna would be a proper target if the military so decided (for example, to demoralize the father).

The view I hold is that her death and all other collateral damage are not the moral responsibility of anybody. These things merely happened as a consequence of the nature of war itself (i.e. of using lethal force). I also hold that targeting innocent family members of an enemy for killing them falls outside proper military action (defense of a nation).

I have a suspicion also that my reaction to the following story will be greatly different than that of those who hold the ARI view. The is from the Wikipedia article called Operation El Dorado Canyon.

Early on April 15, 2006 – to mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing raid – a concert involving US singer Lionel Richie and Spanish tenor José Carreras was held in front of Gaddafi's bombed house in Tripoli. Diplomats, businessmen and politicians were among the audience of what Libya dubbed the "concert for peace". The BBC reported Lionel Richie as telling the audience:

"Hanna [Gaddafi's adopted daughter] will be honored tonight because of the fact that you've attached peace to her name."

The source for that story is a BBC article Libya concert marks US bomb raids of April 15, 2006.

I have repeatedly stated that in the war on terrorism, there are two fronts - one military and one intellectual. I take my hat off to Lionel. On the intellectual front, the results of that concert was that "a crowd of diplomats, businessmen and politicians was brought to their feet," and that Lionel struck a stronger blow against terrorism with that one gesture than all the "moral justifications" of ARI combined.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thinking in principles

There is another thing that needs to be said about principles that my last post on Reagan's Libya air strike eloquently illustrates. This needs to be said by an Objectivist.

According to the ARI view, the principle behind Bush's poor performance is ultimately altruism, as embedded in the just war theory.

I hold that the identification of this principle is completely wrong for the case of Bush. In in both Afghanistan and Iraq, under Bush's command, the USA military correctly identified the enemy (even in light of the WMD intelligence fiasco), targeted specific elements based on military priorities and brilliantly executed stunning victories. Victory in both cases was accomplished in record time with minimum loss of American lives.

Just like what Reagan did.

The difference is that Bush kept American forces around to clean up whereas Reagan did not. The reason Bush did this was not altruism at all. It was to give his cronies fat reconstruction contracts.

The correct principle to criticize is government monopoly of business.

The USA government is in the business of protecting monopolies in reconstructing the two countries. There is plenty of smoke and mirrors, but that is what is happening.

And that - government monopoly - is what is killing our American soldiers over there. If we had left the clean-up to the locals, and even to any American businessmen who wanted to risk dealing with locals without USA government interference (which I doubt would have happened), the message would have been very clear to other terrorists.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

I'm late in posting this. Sorry. But I want to say something about the objections -- including my own -- that have been raised against the portrayal of Diana Hseih in the nude in Victor's caricature of Craig Biddle. (Beause the issue was discussed there too, I have also posted this on the "Biddle in Battle" thread.)

Some of you have completely misunderstood why some people-- myself included -- have objected to the portrayal of Diana Hsieh as nude. It has nothing to do with an artist's right to do as he wishes; is it really necessary to say to Objectivists that this is not being contested? Nor has it anything to do with prudishness or any sort of animus against nudity per se. It has to do with the offensiveness of attempting to satirize someone's ideas by removing their clothes. What possible valid purpose can that serve? It may embarrass or humiliate the person so portrayed, but it surely will not convince anyone of anything. The portrayal of Biddle and his book title amid a sea of corpses communicates something; the portryal of a naked Hseih communicates nothing.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

I do understand your objection. And I respect you for speaking your mind on the issue. And judging the work purely from the basis of “selectivity” you may very well have a point: Biddle is the focus of the rendering. If you wish to discuss the principles of aesthetics and selectivity and theme and such, I’m game. I would benefit greatly as an artist from such a conversation. But I disagree with the issue of any objections regarding “obscenity” --which is merely a subjective term in this context. Let’s leave that rubber term at the door, please. It’s a nothing word to me when it comes to art.

Looking at it from the artist’s perspective, if I worried about who might be offended [or who may not be offended] by one of my caricatures—meant to satirize in the first place—then I would be paralyzed before the blank sheet of paper or canvas. I can’t create wondering if the viewing audience has the thin skin of a suburban Shriner or the roughness of a tattooed sailor. I don’t care.

Listen, if the issue of so-called “obscenity” where the focus to move forward or not, I wouldn’t be in business at all--and I hardly think that Biddle himself is pleased as pink punch being portrayed as a murderous bigot! And I’m sure that he and his defenders consider the caricature obscene, don’t you think? But I don’t care. Obscenity is simply not an issue to me when caricaturing --and it never will be. It is the death of a caricature artist.

What’s more, I need to be brutally honest: I don’t care if Diana was offended or humiliated by the rendering. I am as indifferent to her feelings as she was to mine when hurling her insults—prior to this caricature. There, I have said it. I don’t care. In fact, her remarks regarding it actually made my insides warm like a hot toddy. However, it is true that I find her abhorrent—and I may very well do a caricature of her that speaks to that, but fully clothed, and it will be such that she'll prefer the Biddle caricature. If I am inspired to render a “dark caricature”—you best believe that I sincerely consider them deserved targets. I also happen to believe that any objections to my caricatures come from a minority. It’s the silent majority that is getting a blast out of it.

But if you are concerned about the issue of obscenity: My caricature is exposing the actual obscenity, which happens to be, by the way, um, the topic of this thread: genocide. Let’s all get back to that, shall we? In the realm of ideas, there are things I consider obscene--and I will express myself as *I* see fit to expose it.

Victor

Edited October 13, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara,

I do understand your objection. And I respect you for speaking your mind on the issue. And judging the work purely from the basis of “selectivity” you may very well have a point: Biddle is the focus of the rendering. If you wish to discuss the principles of aesthetics and selectivity and theme and such, I’m game. I would benefit greatly as an artist from such a conversation. But I disagree with the issue of any objections regarding “obscenity” --which is merely a subjective term in this context. Let’s leave that rubber term at the door, please. It’s a nothing word to me when it comes to art.

Looking at it from the artist’s perspective, if I worried about who might be offended or who may not be offended by one of my caricatures—meant to satirize in the first place—then I would be paralyzed before the blank sheet of paper or canvas. I can’t create wondering if the viewing audience has the thin skin of a suburban Shriner or the roughness of tattooed sailor. I don’t care.

Listen, if the issue of so-called “obscenity” where the focus to move forward or not, I wouldn’t be in business at all--and I hardly think that Biddle is pleased as pink punch being portrayed as murderous bigot! And I’m sure that he and his defenders consider the caricature obscene, don’t you think? I don’t care. Obscenity is simply not an issue to me when caricaturing --and it never will be. It is the death of a caricature artist.

What’s more, I need to be brutally honest: I don’t care if Diana was offended or humiliated by the rendering. I am as indifferent to her feelings as she was to mine when hurling her insults—prior to this caricature. There, I have said it. I don’t care. In fact, her remarks regarding it actually made my insides warm like a hot toddy. However, it is true that I find her abhorrent—and I may very well do a caricature of her that speaks to that, but fully clothed, and it will be such that prefer the Biddle caricature. If I am inspired to render a “dark caricature”—you best believe that I sincerely consider them deserved targets. I also happen to believe that any objections to my caricatures come from a minority. It’s the silent majority that is getting a blast out of it.

But if you are concerned about the issue of obscenity: My caricature is exposing the actual obscenity which happens to be the topic of this thread: genocide. Let’s all get back to that, shall we? In the realm of ideas, there are things I consider obscene--and I will express myself as *I* see fit. This is where the freedom of the artist comes in. He may listen to objections...or respectfully ignore them.

Victor

Victor: Before a torturer tortures he strips his victims naked. Before you attacked Diana you did the same. You simply went too far whatever it was you thought you were doing. Biddle deserved your caricature, which was your primary focus, Diana did not, however innocent your motivation. I simply think you made a mistake. Let's consider the most horrible human being possible--Hitler--do we want to see him naked no matter how much he deserved it? When you do such you deny him his humanity--yes Hitler's humanity (humans wear clothes in social contexts)--and in so doing we exculpate him from human sinning. You made a mistake, that's all.

--Brant

Edited October 13, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

You may have a point, Brant. I don’t want to see Hsieh naked, and that’s why I turned my head while drawing it…then I erased it all together and used another women’s body as a model.

[Barbara Branden]

Victor, your post, which supposedly is a response to me, is extremely confusing. I don''t know who you're defending yourself against, because it is not directed at anything I said.

You wrote:"But I disagree with the issue of any objections regarding 'obscenity' --which is merely a subjective term in this context. Let’s leave that rubber term at the door, please." You then proceed to continue discussing obscenity as if you hadn't said it, and as if you were responding to something I said. But I was very careful to note that my objection had "nothing to do with prudishness or any sort of animus against nudity per se."

Nor did I say, as your arguments suggest, that you should not humiliate or embarrass Hsieh, or that you ought to care about her feelings, or that she doesn't deserve to be caricatured. I wrote, "It has to do with the offensiveness of attempting to satirize someone's ideas by removing their clothes. What possible valid purpose can that serve?"

You wrote that if you worried about who might be offended by one of your caricatures, you'd be paralyzed. But I did not say you should be concerned with it.

You wrote that criticisms of your caricatures come from a minority. What has that to do with my criticism? Are you suggesting that I should I be concerned with whether or not a majority will agree with me?

You imply that I am attempting to censor you when you write, in a post directed to me, "I will express myself as 'I' see fit."

I have no idea how to answer your post, and little inclination to do so, since it does not address anything I wrote.

And please, do not now suggest that I consider you a monster for creating a caricature that I believe was in part a mistake -- or that I am denouncing you as an artist -- or that I have appointed myself the editor of your work.

Barbara

[CNA]

Since I'm slowly trying to catch up on threads that I want to respond to, I figured I would start here and can get all you guys in one post....hehehehehe

Angie, Ayn Rand would agree with you. Me too. It's a matter of self esteem, so is freedom.

--Brant

Brant, thank you. Yes, I agree that self-esteem is a huge factor.

Angie,

That was a wonderful response. Any 5 year old can understand it the way you put it.

You kept your answer tied to actual reality and values and you did not bite at the trap that was set (to "prove" that the person answering either is a hypocrite or is not patriotic or, in your words, a trap to discredit the person).

This is called conceptual thinking, with both cognitive and normative abstractions based solidly on reality.

Michael

Thanks, Mike. I'm totally joyed that I've been compared to a 5 year old. LOL j/k I don't think he understood what I meant by a compound question and have seen it used in court and the way it is designed and setup. I imagine there's no law degrees in his cv but anyway. I'm glad you liked my post. Atleast I was able to provide a scenario where I imagine it would be used and I would support it even.

Martin Radwin wrote:

Excellent post, Angie!

Thank you, Martin. Yeah, I'm sure everybody on here is smiling or laughing at me now. Hey, I'm appreciative that you guys took the time to acknowledge my post. I thought it was very sweet. Since taking a break from work, I figure I can take the time to acknowledge you guys and say thank you.

Angie

Edited October 14, 2006 by CNA

[CNA]

(Note from Administrator: This post has been moved to another thread. It is now here.)

[Barbara Branden]

I just received a phone call from a young friend of mine, a student at UCLA, telling me about a speech given there by Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of The Ayn Rand Institute. Three different times, I said to my friend, "Are you certain this is an exact quote?" Three times he answered: "I'm certain."

Brook: "If you're happy at a Hamas victory, you deserve the bullet of an American soldier."

Brook: "If you wear a tee shirt with a silhouette of bin Laden on it, an American has the moral right to kill you."

My friend had brought a girl with him to whom he had been introducing Objectivism. After Brook's statements, he said to her, "Ayn Rand would not agree with this." The girl responded, "Really? But this is the Ayn Rand Institute!"

I hope no comment from me is needed.

Barbara

[Jonathan]

Barbara wrote,

My friend had brought a girl with him to whom he had been introducing Objectivism. After Brook's statements, he said to her, "Ayn Rand would not agree with this." The girl responded, "Really? But this is the Ayn Rand Institute!"

Barbara,

If you haven't already, you should invite your young friends to come and visit with us on OL.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Is there any way to get more corroboration on these Brook quotes like a tape recording (or best of all, a video or written statement from him)? The standards of investigative reporting would be well worth pursuing for these Brook quotes if he doesn't repeat them in other places. Maybe your young friends could do this somehow. The following passage on such standards is taken from the "Forward" of Greek Fire by Nicholas Gage (biography of the Onassis-Callas romance):

I have rigorously maintained the standards of an investigative reporter, validating each fact with at least two independent sources—two individuals who concur but don't know each other—or an original document.

If these quotes are accurate, now Brook wants to turn American military guns on American citizens for holding repugnant ideas.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Jonathan, I had already invited my young friends to join OL, and I believe they intend to do so.

Michael, in response to your suggestion, I've contacted my friend and asked him to get further corroboration of the Brook quotes.

Barbara

[Martin Radwin]

I just received a phone call from a young friend of mine, a student at UCLA, telling me about a speech given there by Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of The Ayn Rand Institute. Three different times, I said to my friend, "Are you certain this is an exact quote?" Three times he answered: "I'm certain."

Brook: "If you're happy at a Hamas victory, you deserve the bullet of an American soldier."

Brook: "If you wear a tee shirt with a silhouette of bin Laden on it, an American has the moral right to kill you."

My friend had brought a girl with him to whom he had been introducing Objectivism. After Brook's statements, he said to her, "Ayn Rand would not agree with this." The girl responded, "Really? But this is the Ayn Rand Institute!"

I hope no comment from me is needed.

Barbara

So, assuming that this is an accurate quotation, Brook thinks that people who are happy about things that he doesn't think they should be happy about should be shot. He is advocating the death penalty for the crime of feeling an emotion that he considers to be unacceptable. This man is a raving lunatic. He is also president of the Ayn Rand Institute. How sickening.

Martin

[L W HALL]

I also would like to see a corroboration for the statements. This has nothing to do with any belief that Barbara did not report it correctly, but more of a context situation and to make sure Barbara's friend recalled it exactly as it was spoken.

If true, and at this time I have no reason to believe it's not, then this is truly a despicable stance.

L W

[Brant Gaede]

The only problem is not the authenticity of the quotations or what their context was, but that this man is speaking in the name of "The Ayn Rand Institute." Ayn Rand this and Ayn Rand that--from beyong the grave!?

It's character defamation run subjectively wild and completely parasitical. The whole "Institute" is automatically self-refuting.

--Brant

[sjw]

I just discovered this thread tonight after spending far too much time at Solo trying to figure out exactly how people using the name "Objectivist" could have so insanely perverted Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I don't think I agree exactly with anyone's viewpoint here, but I have to say, at least you guys have a basic respect for individual rights. Which shouldn't be saying much, but evidently, it is.

Shayne

PS: I think it's critical to make sure those Yaron Brook quotes are correct and in context, because they are indeed a damning and eloquent summary of the attitude spewing from the ARI crowd.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

We have had our differences and it is likely we will have many more, but let me extend you a warm welcome to OL. That's from the heart.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Shayne,

Good to see you here.

Robert

[Mikee]

Shayne! It's good to see you.

-Mike Erickson

[sjw]

Thanks guys!

Michael: Yes, I'm certain that we would have our disagreements if I posted much here. But your posts are so damn long that I think I'll just throw up the white flag right now.

Shayne