Sign in to follow this  
Jerry Biggers

Peikoff vs.both Rand and Peikoff on evil and compromise

Recommended Posts

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Treason is the only crime in U.S. law defined in the U.S. Constitution. Read it and see if it applies to Snowden.

Yes, he leaked stuff and violated his confidentiality oath.

He might even be charged with espionage.

But Treason? Who is the U. S. legally at war with. Is information leaked to the Russians aiding and abetting enemies of the United States. Who are, legally speaking, the enemies of the United States? Has Congress authorized any Letters of Marue and Repriesal against any parties or groups or nations. If so, please provide and reference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the U. S. legally at war with[?]

Congress.

That is de facto, not de jure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this