Barbara, It’s my conviction that the Objectivist “plague” is a largely understandable phenomenon. As I see it, the explanation lies not primarily in the philosophy or its philosopher, per se; nor in the characters and actions of the denounced. The explanation lies chiefly in the denouncers themselves (and their “me-too” followers) who perform the excommunications. However, the underlying issues in each denouncer’s character, and the motivations behind their actions, are myriad; ranging from innocent lack of knowledge to blatant lapses of integrity. As you know, it starts with the Objectivist virtue of justice, and in particular, with the execution of moral judgment. If the excommunications, which are based on a negative assessment of the denounced’s moral character, are commonly rooted in unconsciousness or outright irrationality—whether it’s a matter of mindlessly mimicking Ayn Rand while reciting her injunction to "never pass up an opportunity to pass moral judgment," or the wielding of an ethical sword with the intention of cutting down one’s real or perceived enemies—a resulting “plague” should be of no surprise. But I’m sure that many denouncements and excommunications are the result of an honest attempt at evaluating the character of another, then acting accordingly; a task which is obviously more complicated than it sounds. Even with the best intentions in the world, executing moral judgments—and doing so objectively—is not easy. Rand herself said, “it is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought.” An example of the complexity can be seen in Objectivism’s own schism: Philosophically, it can be traced back to differing views of the nature of objectivity itself, and how the concept applies to the virtue of justice and the execution of moral judgment. This brings me to an interesting twist of the discussion’s application. I asked myself: “If I were in the position to ‘excommunicate’ a leader or two in the ‘true-believers’ camp, would I?” My automatic response was, “you bet!” But that begged the question: “Would I call that denouncement a perpetuation of Objectivism’s ‘plague,’ or perhaps explain it in more benevolent terms, based on my ‘tolerantist’ view of objectivity?” I believe that combating the “plague” starts with a commitment to individual responsibility. If I blame Ayn Rand’s personal choices for my mindless decision to brand someone an “irrationalist” because they happen to disagree with me—I’m not taking responsibility. If I blame Objectivism for my choice to practice the virtue of justice, but misunderstand its proper application—I’m not taking responsibility. If I blame a certain organization’s teachings because I simply recycle their ideas without considering them myself—I’m not taking responsibility. Ultimately, these are scapegoats, which are used less often to explain poor choices, but more often to justify them. Thank you for raising this issue, Barbara, which I see as relevant not only to the movement, but to our personal and professional relationships as well. Respectfully, Jason
