A Critique of Ayn Rand's Contextual Theory of Knowledge

[bmacwilliam]

The pursuit of truth, taught to a child, is a psychological virtue. The tentativeness of knowledge is a philosophical virtue and comes somewhat later. Mix them up too soon and you could ruin him for life because he needs a good, psychological foundation for everything to come.

--Brant

Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles?

Ghs

I would - absolutely - because they are.

[George H. Smith]

I'm with Robert Hartford on this one. Nothing he says about warranted certainty is incompatible with teaching a child to deal with criticisms in an honest manner. Robert obviously does not believe that certainty presupposes infallibility, and neither do I.

Ghs

Well, splitting hairs now maybe, but there's great virtue in teaching that ones knowledge self-assessment should almost NEVER be complete.

Certainty should be based upon a logical examination of relevant facts. I'm saying it's much more important ultimately, to be accepting of new relevant facts than it is to be 'certain'.

Bob

I think it is important to teach a child that if he has good reason to be certain of something, then he should stand firm in that belief until someone gives him good reasons to believe otherwise. I regard this as especially important when a child enters school, especially a public school, where he might be bombarded with all sorts of politically correct propaganda.

But as you noted, this may be spitting hairs over terminology. I suspect you wouldn't disagree with what I have said here, at least not substantially.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The pursuit of truth, taught to a child, is a psychological virtue. The tentativeness of knowledge is a philosophical virtue and comes somewhat later. Mix them up too soon and you could ruin him for life because he needs a good, psychological foundation for everything to come.

--Brant

Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles?

Ghs

I would - absolutely - because they are.

Nope.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I think it is important to teach a child that if he has good reason to be certain of something, then he should stand firm in that belief until someone gives him good reasons to believe otherwise. I regard this as especially important when a child enters school, especially a public school, where he might be bombarded with all sorts of politically correct propaganda.

But as you noted, this may be spitting hairs over terminology. I suspect you wouldn't disagree with what I have said here, at least not substantially.

Ghs

Agreed.

"someone gives him good reasons to believe otherwise." is key. Being honest with this is the key.

[Brant Gaede]

The pursuit of truth, taught to a child, is a psychological virtue. The tentativeness of knowledge is a philosophical virtue and comes somewhat later. Mix them up too soon and you could ruin him for life because he needs a good, psychological foundation for everything to come.

That makes sense. Later on when they are in court they will have to swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth and feel good about it.

I seem to have caused some confusion. I meant you start with the pursuit of truth and scale in the tentativeness of knowledge later.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

The pursuit of truth, taught to a child, is a psychological virtue. The tentativeness of knowledge is a philosophical virtue and comes somewhat later. Mix them up too soon and you could ruin him for life because he needs a good, psychological foundation for everything to come.

--Brant

Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles?

Ghs

I would - absolutely - because they are.

Nope.

--Brant

I can think of a number of situations where stealing from a classmate or starting a fight would be the right thing to do. I think you can too.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

The pursuit of truth, taught to a child, is a psychological virtue. The tentativeness of knowledge is a philosophical virtue and comes somewhat later. Mix them up too soon and you could ruin him for life because he needs a good, psychological foundation for everything to come.

--Brant

Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles?

Ghs

I would - absolutely - because they are.

Nope.

--Brant

I can think of a number of situations where stealing from a classmate or starting a fight would be the right thing to do. I think you can too.

Bob

Since you bring it up come with an example or two.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

The pursuit of truth, taught to a child, is a psychological virtue. The tentativeness of knowledge is a philosophical virtue and comes somewhat later. Mix them up too soon and you could ruin him for life because he needs a good, psychological foundation for everything to come.

--Brant

Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles?

Ghs

I would - absolutely - because they are.

Nope.

--Brant

I can think of a number of situations where stealing from a classmate or starting a fight would be the right thing to do. I think you can too.

Bob

Since you bring it up come with an example or two.

--Brant

Well, fine, I'll give you both principles in one scenario.

My son sees a boy (say with a history of violence for argument's sake) who had a angry outburst just previously with a girl in his class running down the hallway at school with a meat cleaver in his hand yelling "I'm gonna kill that bitch!!". My instructions to my son - hit him in the head as hard as you can with any object you have or your fists (in other words, start a fight - hopefully finish it) and then steal his meat cleaver.

Bob

[Daniel Barnes]

Well, fine, I'll give you both principles in one scenario.

My son sees a boy (say with a history of violence for argument's sake) who had a angry outburst just previously with a girl in his class running down the hallway at school with a meat cleaver in his hand yelling "I'm gonna kill that bitch!!". My instructions to my son - hit him in the head as hard as you can with any object you have or your fists (in other words, start a fight - hopefully finish it) and then steal his meat cleaver.

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[George H. Smith]

Well, fine, I'll give you both principles in one scenario.

My son sees a boy (say with a history of violence for argument's sake) who had a angry outburst just previously with a girl in his class running down the hallway at school with a meat cleaver in his hand yelling "I'm gonna kill that bitch!!". My instructions to my son - hit him in the head as hard as you can with any object you have or your fists (in other words, start a fight - hopefully finish it) and then steal his meat cleaver.

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

Rand never said that one may legitimately use defensive violence only when one is personally attacked.

Nor did Rand ever say that coming to the aid of an innocent victim, or potential victim, is necessarily immoral.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

My son sees a boy (say with a history of violence for argument's sake) who had a angry outburst just previously with a girl in his class running down the hallway at school with a meat cleaver in his hand yelling "I'm gonna kill that bitch!!". My instructions to my son - hit him in the head as hard as you can with any object you have or your fists (in other words, start a fight - hopefully finish it) and then steal his meat cleaver.

Do you seriously think I meant to preclude using defensive violence when I talked about teaching "a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children"?

Your examples are not exceptions to these rules. They fall into a different category altogether.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Well, fine, I'll give you both principles in one scenario.

My son sees a boy (say with a history of violence for argument's sake) who had a angry outburst just previously with a girl in his class running down the hallway at school with a meat cleaver in his hand yelling "I'm gonna kill that bitch!!". My instructions to my son - hit him in the head as hard as you can with any object you have or your fists (in other words, start a fight - hopefully finish it) and then steal his meat cleaver.

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

You think so? Two counts?

I would say that Objectivism would say that he has no moral obligation to intervene. But I disagree.

Bob

[dan2100]

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

On your first point, there's nothing immoral in Objectivism on attacking an aggressor. Rand was against initiating force, but once someome initiates force, there's nothing to limit retaliation to the victim of said initiation. (And here I think she was consistent with Objectivism as I see it.) Were this not so, this would end up with a very odd outlook: only the victim could retaliate and everyone else would be morally tied up in not doing anything against an aggressor. Imagine the case of the little old lady being mugged being some violent but rather lanky thug and the well armed body builder saying, "I cannot stop the thug. He hasn't aggressed against me. Hey, let's see how granny gets out of this one."

On your second point, there is something to debate. It matters here what the risks are, though in most of these cooked up situations the problem is likely to rest on habits inculcated rather than someone soberly considering the options.

[dan2100]

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

Rand never said that one may legitimately use defensive violence only when one is personally attacked.

Nor did Rand ever say that coming to the aid of an innocent victim, or potential victim, is necessarily immoral.

Ghs

Agree on your first sentence, but I think Rand did bring up the case of aiding strangers and, unless I'm mistaken, she did say it was immoral to sacrifice higher values in this case. I think the case she used was helping one's own child over helping a stranger's -- if both were starving. (I forget the exact reference here.) That doesn't exactly map onto this case -- unless one thinks of it as would you prefer to risk your child to save another child from the meat cleaver wielding classmate.

[bmacwilliam]

My son sees a boy (say with a history of violence for argument's sake) who had a angry outburst just previously with a girl in his class running down the hallway at school with a meat cleaver in his hand yelling "I'm gonna kill that bitch!!". My instructions to my son - hit him in the head as hard as you can with any object you have or your fists (in other words, start a fight - hopefully finish it) and then steal his meat cleaver.

Do you seriously think I meant to preclude using defensive violence when I talked about teaching "a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children"?

Your examples are not exceptions to these rules. They fall into a different category altogether.

Bob

Well see, I think that's the problem. The fact that you say they fall into a different category is exactly the point George. That's exactly why I say the priciples are indeed "tentative" - as you put it - precisely because there are situations - whole categories even - where you should replace them.

Bob

Edited March 4, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[dan2100]

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

You think so? Two counts?

I would say that Objectivism would say that he has no moral obligation to intervene. But I disagree.

Bob

I think you're right that there's no moral obligation to intervene -- though this would depend on the particulars of the relationship. I think a classmate relationship wouldn't be as strong in terms of potential for moral obligation as a friendship. (And I'd judge someone who did absolutely nothing but claimed to be a close friend as a bad character and treat him or her accordingly. I'm not sure I'd do the same for a classmate, though I certainly wouldn't expect, say, a total stranger to feel any obligation in this case.)

One must also be careful here, too, to distinguish between a moral obligation -- such as one should aid one's friends even when it might cause one discomfort or risk -- and a legal obligation when one must do something or one is violating someone's right -- such as I've signed a contract to protect the girl and then say, when the the other kid is running after her with seeming murderous intent, "Whoa! This was a stupid idea and I'd rather watch to see how she gets out of this fix. Hey, anyone getting this to put on YouTube later?" and merely look on.

[bmacwilliam]

AFAICS in Objectivism your son would be acting immorally on two counts. First, he's initiating force on someone who didn't attack him first. Second, he's be risking his life - his opponent is armed with a meat cleaver - for a stranger. This is immoral. Rand is very clear on this point. This is one of the more original points of her ethical theories. So even if he should save the girl's life, his schoolmates should then roundly condemn and shun him, as Rand is also very clear that immorality should not be tolerated.

The only exception might be if the schoolgirl in question was the love of your son's life.

You think so? Two counts?

I would say that Objectivism would say that he has no moral obligation to intervene. But I disagree.

Bob

I think you're right that there's no moral obligation to intervene -- though this would depend on the particulars of the relationship. I think a classmate relationship wouldn't be as strong in terms of potential for moral obligation as a friendship. (And I'd judge someone who did absolutely nothing but claimed to be a close friend as a bad character and treat him or her accordingly. I'm not sure I'd do the same for a classmate, though I certainly wouldn't expect, say, a total stranger to feel any obligation in this case.)

One must also be careful here, too, to distinguish between a moral obligation -- such as one should aid one's friends even when it might cause one discomfort or risk -- and a legal obligation when one must do something or one is violating someone's right -- such as I've signed a contract to protect the girl and then say, when the the other kid is running after her with seeming murderous intent, "Whoa! This was a stupid idea and I'd rather watch to see how she gets out of this fix. Hey, anyone getting this to put on YouTube later?" and merely look on.

I'm not sure whether you're saying that there IS no moral obligation to intervene, or that Objectivism says there's no obligation?

I don't think friendship status matters. However, it's important to understand that the same act could be much more or much less risky depending on the persons involved (age, relative strength, self defence skill) and so there's no moral obligation to act a specific way, but I believe there is a moral obligation to ACT nonetheless which could simply be screaming your head off to try to alert a teacher or other students, or taking things into your own hands or anything in between - all that is arguable. However I see no justification at all for inaction and a moral obligation to intervene in some way exists.

[George H. Smith]

Do you seriously think I meant to preclude using defensive violence when I talked about teaching "a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children"?

Your examples are not exceptions to these rules. They fall into a different category altogether.

Well see, I think that's the problem. The fact that you say they fall into a different category is exactly the point George. That's exactly why I say the priciples are indeed "tentative" - as you put it - precisely because there are situations - whole categories even - where you should replace them.

I don't understand your point at all. The principle that one does not have the right to initiate force against others does not become "tentative" because one does has the right to use defensive force against those who initiate its use. These are ultimately two sides of the same coin. Neither is an exception to the other, nor can one "replace" the other.

Ghs

[ginny]

The theme of what the "obligation" to help others is seems to be recurring on Objectivist forums. Why is it so hard to understand that other people, simply because they are alive, are a value. If we can offer help, we should. Why not help? I'd accept help (and I've asked for it) when needed; I've given help. Unless there is a good reason, the question strikes me as absurd. I don't view it as an obligation; more like good manners.

Ginny

[bmacwilliam]

I don't understand your point at all. The principle that one does not have the right to initiate force against others does not become "tentative" because one does has the right to use defensive force against those who initiate its use. These are ultimately two sides of the same coin. Neither is an exception to the other, nor can one "replace" the other.

Ghs

Your question:

"Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles? "

The point I'm making, and I think you'll agree, is simply that the "principles" as written are not univerally applicable, does that make them "tentative" or "incomplete", or just "one side of the coin" whatever - pick your metaphor.

It was Brant not you who challenged me to provide an example where those moral rules, as written, do not apply.

Are the rules 'wrong'? No can't say that. Are they incomplete? Clearly. Should they always be obeyed if one is to be moral? No.

So should I teach my child that they're tentative? incomplete? partially applicable? What word should I use?

[bmacwilliam]

The theme of what the "obligation" to help others is seems to be recurring on Objectivist forums. Why is it so hard to understand that other people, simply because they are alive, are a value. If we can offer help, we should. Why not help? I'd accept help (and I've asked for it) when needed; I've given help. Unless there is a good reason, the question strikes me as absurd. I don't view it as an obligation; more like good manners.

Ginny

Well, good manners is treading dangerously close to morality.

But I agree, the question is absurd on it's face and you've brought up an important point. Let's look at it with cold hard math/logic.

We value ourselves highly = V

We know we value others (most others) less than we value ourselves but greater than zero = v

Therefore the risk that we take or sacrifice that we make helping others should be greater than zero and usually less than or equal to v, and most certainly less than V. We are not human calculators, but that's not the point. the absurdity lies in the extremes. If we do not help at all, our actions mean that we either (A)think the risk or sacrifice is too high >= v, or 'B' we value others at zero.

It's clear both why we might not intervene in extreme risk situations, but it's equally understandable too why "Unless there is a good reason, the question strikes me as absurd."

Bob

Edited March 4, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[ginny]

We agree Bob-Mac. I don't know why, but this discussion reminds of when I was a youn' un, walking the streets of Boston. It was just before Christmas, and the street was crowded. All of a sudden, I'm facing to BIG guys beating up on each other. (I'm 5 feet). Without thinking, I grabbed one of the guys and told him to "Stop hitting him!" He lifted me high in the air and tossed me against a store window (ouch!!) Then he yelled, "I'm a police officer. Go away." And away I went! Sure, I made an error in judgment, but it seems that helping someone in need comes kind of instinctually to some. I was black and blue, but not really sorry. However, I haven't interfered in any fights since!

[George H. Smith]

Your question:

"Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles? "

The point I'm making, and I think you'll agree, is simply that the "principles" as written are not univerally applicable, does that make them "tentative" or "incomplete", or just "one side of the coin" whatever - pick your metaphor.

It was Brant not you who challenged me to provide an example where those moral rules, as written, do not apply.

Are the rules 'wrong'? No can't say that. Are they incomplete? Clearly. Should they always be obeyed if one is to be moral? No.

So should I teach my child that they're tentative? incomplete? partially applicable? What word should I use?"

I would recommend using words with clear meanings, and "start" is not difficult even for a child to understand. From a very early age I understood the difference between starting a fight and defending myself or someone else, and I don't think I was exceptional in this regard.

Under what circumstances would you tell your child that he should start a fight with another child? The child in your example, who intervened to help another child, did not start a fight with anyone; i.e., he did not initiate physical force against anyone.

As for the prohibition on stealing, you said that you would instruct your boy, after he stopped the aggressor, to "steal" the meat cleaver. This is either a misuse of the word "steal," or it is very bad advice. To take a weapon away from an aggressor so that he cannot use it is not to "steal" it. Your boy would not have the right to keep the meat cleaver indefinitely. He should turn it over to the police (or whomever) and let a legal process decide what is to be done with it.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

Your question:

"Suppose you teach a child that it is wrong to steal, or that he shouldn't start fights with other children. Would you also recommend that these be taught as tentative moral principles? "

The point I'm making, and I think you'll agree, is simply that the "principles" as written are not univerally applicable, does that make them "tentative" or "incomplete", or just "one side of the coin" whatever - pick your metaphor.

It was Brant not you who challenged me to provide an example where those moral rules, as written, do not apply.

Are the rules 'wrong'? No can't say that. Are they incomplete? Clearly. Should they always be obeyed if one is to be moral? No.

So should I teach my child that they're tentative? incomplete? partially applicable? What word should I use?"

I would recommend using words with clear meanings, and "start" is not difficult even for a child to understand. From a very early age I understood the difference between starting a fight and defending myself or someone else, and I don't think I was exceptional in this regard.

Under what circumstances would you tell your child that he should start a fight with another child? The child in your example, who intervened to help another child, did not start a fight with anyone; i.e., he did not initiate physical force against anyone.

As for the prohibition on stealing, you said that you would instruct your boy, after he stopped the aggressor, to "steal" the meat cleaver. This is either a misuse of the word "steal," or it is very bad advice. To take a weapon away from an aggressor so that he cannot use it is not to "steal" it. Your boy would not have the right to keep the meat cleaver indefinitely. He should turn it over to the police (or whomever) and let a legal process decide what is to be done with it.

Ghs

C'mon George. The 'third man in' in a hockey fight according to you, just protecting a weaker teammate doesn't start anything? Wrong, he's the one that 'starts' the brawl, justified or not, and is often punished more harshly than the initial combatants - rightly or wrongly. But nobody would argue he didn't "start" anything.

The child in the example clearly "started" the fight between he and the running-knife-boy. You could argue that he didn't start the violence, although only a threat existed previously. Knife-boy could change his mind before he got to his target, but he introduced HIMSELF into the situation and started a NEW conflict. He started HIS fight in any sense of "start".

Taking what does not belong to you is stealing. He would be equally be justified in stealing the cleaver from the boy's desk if he suspected possible violence before it started. Even stealing it and taking it home and using it in the kitchen forever while morally wrong, is still morally preferable compared to leaving it there.

So, I'll concede that disarming an opponent is not stealing. Taking what does not belong to you is not always stealing I guess. But I don't think you're implying that there are no examples where flat out stealing is moral?

Bob

[Daniel Barnes]

Rand never said that one may legitimately use defensive violence only when one is personally attacked.

Nor did Rand ever say that coming to the aid of an innocent victim, or potential victim, is necessarily immoral.

Well, it's obvious the application of NOIF itself is unclear, as the level of Objectivist disagreement over say the invasion of Iraq showed. It seems the NOIF is not so much a strict moral code but more like

So we can leave that aside for now.

What is more clearcut is Rand's statement from The Ethics of Emergencies that endangering one's life for a stranger is immoral. In fact, she goes further, and says that doing so shows that you're psychologically damaged.

How risking your life saving someone from drowning is supposed to differ morally - and psychologically - from risking your life saving someone from being axe-murdered I have no idea.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Daniel Barnes