There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one’s privacy from snoopers. (p. 276)

Do you think that considering the fact that she lied directly to his face that he felt compelled to add the privacy lies business to OPAR because he viewed her morally perfect and if she lied to HIM to protect her own privacy, then it must be acceptable according Objectivist ethics? Was he trying to justify her behavior to himself in his own mind?

Using LP's broad-based privacy lie, it seems like you could be perfectly justified in lying your ass off constantly to anyone, anytime, anywhere because you could say that pretty much any question asked invades your privacy and the questioner is snooping, so lying would be an acceptable response.

One of the ironies, of course, is that Ayn Rand lied to him about the affair. He didn't learn about it until after her death.

Alan,

I believe that Ayn Rand never thought of disclosing her affair with Nathaniel Branden to Leonard Peikoff, for the same reason that Dagny Taggart never thought of disclosing her affairs with Francisco d'Anconia or Hank Rearden to Eddie Willers.

Guys, you're completely off on this!! Haven't any of you taken P's taped courses? And his famous example of the maniac with the bloody knife who comes to your door and wants an honest answer to 'where are your childdren'.

An eagerness to dislike everything about Peikoff leads to the absurd and cynical manufacture of the idea that he said this only because of (or after) PAR.

Reminds me of the Diana H or Wolfpack types who try to pin every kind of uncharitable misinterpretation on every sentence David Kelley utters.

Actually study Peikoff before speculating or accusing him of every possible sin from eating too much breakfast cereral to having sex with swamp creatures.

> I've heard, from more than one source, that Leonard Peikoff adopted his view on "privacy lies" only after The Passion of Ayn Rand came out

Robert, you heard wrong. One shouldn't simply pass along whatever are the worst or most uncharitable rumors one hears. Fairness is fairness even to one's enemies.

Selective timeline and links of the Kelley-Peikoff schism

Here is a small timeline and some links of how all this came about and what impacted the attitudes:

. . .

• Up to 1986 – An underlying tension in the Objectivist movement concerned whether or not Rand really did have an affair with Nathaniel Branden. It is hard to imagine this climate now, but there is a very good story about what it was like back then by Robert Bidinotto.

If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.

That is the Objectivist criticism leveled so often against religious faith, in such faith-based notions as a perfect, infallible God. The criticism, however, loses none of its force when self-described "Objectivists" employ that irrational methodology, and when their perfect, infallible goddess is Ayn Rand.

In this vein, let me tell you a story...and I beg your indulgence at the length of this post as a result.

Back in the mid-1980s, when rumors of Barbara's forthcoming biography began circulating, I vividly recall the "official" Objectivist position -- stridently maintained for years by Peikoff, Schwartz, et al. -- that the Brandens were filthy liars for even daring to absurdly suggest that there ever had been an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I just as vividly remember the "reasoning" offered to support these denials: that Ayn Rand was madly in love with and faithful to her husband; that Branden was a low-life and that a relationship with him would have been morally and psychologically impossible for "a heroine" and a "spiritual giant" like Ayn Rand; that Leonard Peikoff, as an intimate friend of Rand's and as her "intellectual heir," would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter, and that he had always vigorously denied it; that you'd have to believe Ayn Rand was less than she was, and that her Intellectual Heir was a bald-faced liar, in order to believe the claims of the sleazy Brandens; etc., etc.

That, my friends, was the official Party Line about the affair...before Barbara's book came along.

Around that same time, I was still on speaking terms with ARI people, and in fact had been writing for Peter Schwartz's Intellectual Activist. As a reviewer for other publications as well, I received an advance copy of Barbara's book in galley form, and of course devoured it quickly. It blew me away, to say the least. The details provided by Barbara were utterly compelling, and left no doubt in my mind that the disastrous relationship had, in fact, occurred; that it had been covered up for years; and that Rand's own account of the reasons for her break with the Brandens was -- to put it in Objectivese -- a highly selective re-creation of reality.

Given that I already knew Schwartz's hatred of the Brandens and his pre-publication hostility toward Barbara's book (which he had not even yet read), and given that I knew I'd be giving it an enthusiastic early review, I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)

About the same time, still prior to the book's publication, I went to a party in New Jersey at which some people prominently affiliated with ARI were present. The subject of Barbara's forthcoming book came up, and I mentioned that I had read a review copy and would be reviewing it soon. One of those prominent ARI people, an artist, asked with an indignant tone: "Well, does she [Barbara] contend that Miss Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair?"

I remember the sick look on all their faces when I replied, "She supplies a great deal of compelling detail that convinces me that there was an affair."

Even after publication of Barbara's book, the "official" position was still heated denial: continuing accusations that the Brandens were liars, that their accounts were "non-objective." But I noticed cracks in the public facade. In his own published screed against Barbara, Peter Schwartz asked in his closing paragraphs: So what if any of the claims in Barbara's book happen to be true? The real importance of Ayn Rand, he said, lay in her philosophy and novels: "It is her books that she should be judged by."

A curious position coming from people who had long argued that Objectivism permits no breach between mind and body, theory and practice -- and who had, since 1968, used that very argument against the Brandens.

Then -- FINALLY -- at a Ford Hall Forum speech which I attended, Peikoff revealed during the Q&A that he had recently "discovered" among Ayn Rand's personal papers some letters that confirmed that, Yes, there had been an affair.

Folks, you would have had to have been there to appreciate the thundering silence that greeted this stunning revelation. Imagine the sounds of hundreds of trains of thought suddenly screeching to a halt before hitting some unexpected obstacle on the track...then trying frantically to somehow reverse direction prior to impact. I mean, you could see it in the eyes around you: the smugness of moral superiority suddenly replaced by darting sideways glances, each person wondering how he should take this cataclysmic news, what others were thinking about it, how to reconcile it with all the previous self-righteous denunciations of the Brandens being liars...

The best historic analogy I could come up with was how U. S. Communist Party members responded early in the World War II period to sudden news from Moscow of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact." Overnight, the hated Nazis, denounced for years, were to be considered allies. Many of the more honest Party members quit in disgust. What remained was an unthinking contingent of dogmatists whose first loyalty was not to reality, but to their venerated icons: Stalin and the Party.

But just as new rationalizations flowed forth to encourage the Party faithful to navigate this startling ideological about-face, so too did Peikoff & Co. soon offer what have now become the familiar rationalizations for Rand's private behavior. No longer was their argument the one Schwartz had advanced in print -- i. e., that Ayn Rand should be judged only by her books. No, now they offered a new defense: that Ayn Rand had done absolutely nothing wrong. And more: that there was nothing wrong with extramarital affairs generally; that Rand had entered this one with everyone's full "rational" knowledge and complete "moral" consent; that the only thing wrong with it was that Nathaniel Branden had deceived her about his moral character, before, during and after the relationship began. In short, Ayn Rand was a totally innocent victim of the devious Branden. This was the new Objectivist Party Line.

Guys, you're completely off on this!! Haven't any of you taken P's taped courses? And his famous example of the maniac with the bloody knife who comes to your door and wants an honest answer to 'where are your childdren'.

An eagerness to dislike everything about Peikoff leads to the absurd and cynical manufacture of the idea that he said this only because of (or after) PAR.

Actually study Peikoff before speculating or accusing him of every possible sin from eating too much breakfast cereral to having sex with swamp creatures.

Guys, you're completely off on this!! Haven't any of you taken P's taped courses? And his famous example of the maniac with the bloody knife who comes to your door and wants an honest answer to 'where are your children'.

An eagerness to dislike everything about Peikoff leads to the absurd and cynical manufacture of the idea that he said this only because of (or after) PAR.

PS. If Leonard Peikoff has thought about the Eddie Willers analogy (and it would be extremely difficult for him not to), it's hard to imagine him being comfortable with it.

> does Leonard justify Rand lying to him about the affair with Branden because she considered him a "snooper"

Alan, I don't know. It's not a major enough issue with me to burn up any more neurons about it. There is too much focus on trying to find feet of clay in one's Oist opponents...or trying to erect timelines...or trying to do other personality or gossip type things beyond simply applying the ideas to improve one's life.

--The Endless Focus on Personalities: Rand's Personal Life, Movement Figures one Wants to Support or Attack--

We live in a Jerry Springer culture, a gossip and paparazzi world, a reality television and National Enquirer...and map to the homes of the stars... culture. Or psychoanalzing Richard Nixon or George Bush from a distance. Or Michael Moore questioning the motives of his opponents. Or conservative talk show hosts doing the same thing in reverse. And a food fight culture in which these issues are discussed with the vilest kind of gutter psychologizing and ad hominem. One in which if you are a Democrat, you believes every negative assertion about every Republican and vice versa. And a sensationalist culture in which these kinds of personal issues are what the "yellow journalist" what-did-Mel-Gibson-say-yesterday and how-was-Britney-dresed and was-Paris-Hilton-well-treated-by-the-sherrif press and television keep alive 24/7 instead of substantive news or explanations of causes operating in the world.

It's depressing when intellectuals get obsessed with the same issues, with bringing them up over and over, while the world is starved for a philosophy of reason.

It is tempting and easy to do it obsessively or compulsively - like downing an entire box of empty calories at one setting, because these are colorful, vivid, emotional issues. And one always will have *one more thing* to say or one more rebuttal or one more new wrinkle or tidbit of gossip from another source to read.

And you can always come up with a rationalization for doing what you feel like doing. And why it is "important".

The idea of lying to protect one's privacy -is- an intellectual issue and my view is that I or Rand or anyone else is justified in lying to protect their privacy, their personal lives from no longer being private . . . within certain limits.

Obviously, protecting your 'privacy' by lying about your infidelity to a lover who has a moral right to know would not be a case of a 'privacy' you are entitled to. Your sexual history and preferece, your tax and financial status, your philosophical leanings in a hostile graduate school where it could prevent you getting your degree, your politcs if you live in Lebanon . . . etc. are (sometimes) a different context.

There is a context for this, but I'm not sufficiently interested to spend time right now in defining the 'boundary conditions' myself. If anyone else wants to do so in any systematic and thorough manner, I'd be interested in reading it however.

....

The principle is that (within an appropriate context) there is a RIGHT to privacy. And therefore a right to protect and defend it.

> it is not a matter of whom has a right to know what, for in regard to the Rand-Branden affair

Brant, I wasn't talking about the Rand-Branden affair (or about when Leonard Peikoff had what viewpoint, before or after what / nor am I talking how -he- would apply principle or define a snooper..but *what my views are*). I have been posting instead about the wider and I think more important issues of:

1) privacy as a right (contextually)

2) certain situations in which it is proper to lie to prevent the loss of that privacy

3) the need to stop obessing over personalities and raking up ancient history about who did what to whom and instead spend more time on ideas (again I moved to a wider point about Oists doing this...which is not just about the R-B affair...I'm not talking about that example, but a wider issue that has many other instances).

So, yes, it is appropriate to lie about it when Janey for a dozen quite proper reasons wouldn't want that revealed. (No credit bureau or other source necessarily involved).

Phil,

Like for instance if you are a woman, the leader of a philosophical movement, have the habit of harshly condemning people for lack of integrity, evading facts and not accepting reality, then get exposed for having an affair with your No. 1 disciple who is half your age?



(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

Michael

Phil,

Like for instance if you are a woman, the leader of a philosophical movement, have the habit of harshly condemning people for lack of integrity, evading facts and not accepting reality, then get exposed for having an affair with your No. 1 disciple who is half your age.

On February 12, 2006, Mike Lee made two posts on Nathaniel Branden’s Yahoo forum. The views he presented are ones that are held by many, many people, but hardly ever given formal expression. They sum up a refreshingly frank and insightful historical perspective. I asked for (and received) permission from him to consolidate the two emails and present them here. I have eliminated references to posters and some other people and rearranged a couple of paragraphs.

Thank you greatly for these thoughts, Mike.

Michael

Brant,

If you find Rand's behavior about the affair something to be admired and something you want for your loved ones and yourself to emulate, I'm listening. I have seen nothing so far. All I can see (with the one exception I mentioned) is something that needs to be pointed to while saying to them, "Don't ever do what Rand did there. That's wrong." And if they ask for something specific, give the grocery list. It's not a short one.

> If you haven't been in the habit of stating that certain matters are private and are consequently none of the questioner's business, a sudden veer into "That's none of your business" probably will serve as an implied confirmation of the answer. So, it's up to you to develop the right habits...

Robert, for most people it's not necessarily the right habit to say myob or the equivalent with people you know or work with or have as either acquaintance or fried. It's not until the one question you don't wish to share "Oh is Janey sleeping with Tom?" comes up that you would need to.

And then "No Comment" or "I don't like to discuss such matters" gives it all away.

So, yes, it is appropriate to lie about it when Janey for a dozen quite proper reasons wouldn't want that revealed. (No credit bureau or other source necessarily involved).

> Amid this war you want to dust the furniture.

No, Brant. Amidst this dusting the furniture, I would like to urge people to fight the real war.

One on which civilization depends.

> If you haven't been in the habit of stating that certain matters are private and are consequently none of the questioner's business, a sudden veer into "That's none of your business" probably will serve as an implied confirmation of the answer. So, it's up to you to develop the right habits...

Robert, for most people it's not necessarily the right habit to say myob or the equivalent with people you know or work with or have as either acquaintance or fried. It's not until the one question you don't wish to share "Oh is Janey sleeping with Tom?" comes up that you would need to.

And then "No Comment" or "I don't like to discuss such matters" gives it all away.

So, yes, it is appropriate to lie about it when Janey for a dozen quite proper reasons wouldn't want that revealed. (No credit bureau or other source necessarily involved).

If you find Rand's behavior about the affair something to be admired and something you want for your loved ones and yourself to emulate, I'm listening. I have seen nothing so far.