Search the Community

In Peikoff's podcast for August 26th (number is not given), which is primarily devoted to the NSA domestic spying, Peikoff takes a diametrically opposed position to that of Harry Binswinger, who minimized its importance in an op-ed in Forbes [i think]) and the end of the pod cast he starts talking about the former NSA document leaker, Edward Snowden. Snowden is a great hero to him for revealing the NSA's electronic eavesdropping. He dismisses any damage that might be done by Snowden revealing defense secrets to Russia. In my mind, if Snowden has done this or is likely to do it, that makes him a traitor, Not to Peikoff, who comes up with a convoluted ethical theory that one good deed cancels out any evil deed that that person has done. You have to listen to his explanation, which is near the end of the podcast. By this time, he has gone beyond just sounding agitated to raving, and it is hard to determine whether he understands the implications of this absolution from evil by committing one act that is sufficiently good. Peikoff's new "discovery" or pronouncement, that one good deed absolves the perpetrator from any evil deed he has also done (this is a paraphrase. Listen to his last podcast, near the end, in his discussion of Edward Snowden), is in direct contradiction not only to Rand's position on evil and moral compromise, it is in conflict with Peikoff, himself (see his OPAR, Chapter 8, Virtue (in particular, his section entitled "Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles," and pp. 264-267 in that section.). Either he does not remember what he said, or he has now dropped an essential position of Rand. .I am transcribing exactly what he said so that a comparison can be made, and will post it here..