Letter from Nathaniel Branden on Morality

[JennaW]

From my own observations, I have perceived that one of the most poisonous moral postures is a false dichotomy (and it really is one) where a person believes that admitting the existence of a moral gray situation results in destroying the black and white - and vice-versa. It doesn't. Some things in life are meant to be extreme. Others go way out of whack when you take them to the extreme because they don't belong there. They belong in the middle. You also ruin an extreme by putting it in the middle.

Now to stretch this metaphor, moral events don't fall simply into a dichotomy with in-between (black/white or a blend of the two). There is a mix of many more elements. How about something that is morally orange, or morally light blue or morally dark brown? Is the issue A or is it B or is it in between? How about none of the above? How about over in left field somewhere?

That was awesome, MSK! I have had the same thoughts within the past months on this. What do I analogize this to? Photography (I have a degree in it).

An Ansel Adams photograph is not all black/white. You'd only see blobs. Nor is it all grey. You'd see shades of gray and no contrast. What it really contains is BOTH.

A color photograph contains all of that, and more. There is such a thing as balance in photography--- color balance and constrast balance. These are used so that the photograph doesn't look too Technicolor, flat, blobby, blurry, etc. It is a balance.

I'm going to write something on it. I'm writing it in my head currently...

[Aggrad02]

This is a little ranting and one of my first post, so excuse me if any of this is off base.

I just began reading this board this week and have tried to not join this conversation because it was apparently started long ago, but I think that I must.

I haven't been able to find Michael's moral dilemma, but from the first couple of posts seem to get the idea.

A man is walking in the wilderness and spots an unattended baby that is apparently hungry. The man has some food, so the question is whether he should feed the baby or continue on his way risking the baby dying of starvation.

"Ayn Rand upholds rational self-interest. This means the ethics of selfishness, with man's life as the standard of value defining self-interest, and rationality as the primary virtue defining the method of achieving it." (From Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, p.234)

To determine how he (the food man) should act ethically, he would have to determine rationally what is in his best interest. And it does not seem that given this problem the way that it is presented you can accomplish this. If the problem stated above is the correct one, then I think that it is not specific enough to be analyzed rationally and objectively. Instead of a possible real life situation, it seems only a mere painting of one, a snap shot of time.

There is alot of context missing:

Where in the world is this wilderness? In a state park in the US? In the middle of the Sahara? In the jungle?

How far it is from civilization? One day? Two days? 10 Days?

Where is the man going with the food? On a day hike? Is he lost himself? Going to feed his family of 20 likewise starving children?

What condiiton is the food in? Is it edible for a baby? Maybe it is posionous and the man is trying to keep it from harming anyone?

What is the food for? Does the man just have it? Is it for his family? If he is lost does he need it for himself?

What does the man know about babies?

Is there any other context missing? Maybe in the area there has been several robberies involving stranded babies, that when travelers try to help it they are ambushed by hiding thieves.

Without knowing the answers to these questions and many more we cannot adequately help this man make a rational ethical decision. Are there possible situations in which the man can pass on helping the baby and still be morally good? Of course, since an ethical man must value life. And there are many possible situations in which passing the baby is morally evil as well. If the man has to take a self destructing or value sacraficing action to help or pass the baby then the he has made a unethical decision.

In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Peikoff says that: "As to helping a stranger in an emergency, this is moral under certian conditions. A man may help such a person if the concept "emergency" is properly delimited, if no sacrafice is involved on the helpers part; if the recipient is not the cause of his own suffering, i.e., the helper is supporting not vices but values, even though it is only the potential value of a fellow human being about whom nothing evil is known; and, above all, if the helper remembers the moral status of his action. Extending help to others in such a context is an act of generosity, not an obligation. Nor is it an act that one may cherish as one's claim to virtue. Virtue, for Objectivism, consist in creating values, not giving them away" p. 239.

On another note about this delimma, dying of hunger is probably the fourth thing that will kill this child if left unattended. The baby will die of dehydration, exposure or wild animals long before it dies of hunger, making the man's food useless and act of assistance what is crucial to the survial of the baby, not the man giving up food (which may be a value to him).

--Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Years ago, when I started seeing things in the black and white of Objectivism, I started forgetting that these are only two colors in existence. There's a whole spectrum that I stopped seeing.

From my own observations, I have perceived that one of the most poisonous moral postures is a false dichotomy (and it really is one) where a person believes that admitting the existence of a moral gray situation results in destroying the black and white - and vice-versa. It doesn't. Some things in life are meant to be extreme. Others go way out of whack when you take them to the extreme because they don't belong there. They belong in the middle. You also ruin an extreme by putting it in the middle.

Michael

Michael I have to disagree with you.

If being moral is seeking values to promote rational self-interest, then there can be no grey.

There are only four scenarios:

Either someone is being rational and pursuing his self interest. or

He is being irrational and pursuing his self interest or

He is being rational and pursuing his destruction or

He is being irrational and pursuing his destruction.

Only one of these decisions is white and the other three are black, the middle two are not grey.

That does not mean that a person can never make a wrong decision. That person may have inadequate knowledege, but as long as he acts rationally with the knowledge that he has it is a morally white.

If a person comes to a rational decision that he is emotionally uncomfortable with and which is a really tough decision considering the situation, the decision and the alternative are not grey, one is superior rationally and white and the other is black.

Rationality is not an extreme. Existence is not and extreme. Life is not an extreme. Their is no middle between rationality and irrationality, existence and nonexistence, or life and nonlife.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hi Dustan (is that your name?),

I agree with you about the need to establish context in order to analyze this situation. My example was meant to be the most normal one with no special considerations (healthy adult, basically healthy child, lots of good food, no other adults around, etc.).

If you want to see where this evolved from, it started at an Objectivist club meeting here in Florida. I am of the opinion that there is a "meanness" factor in a some people in the Objectivist movement and they get off on trying to sell the philosophy by inverting traditional values (sort of trying to ape Ayn Rand at her most rhetorical). So they say things like starving a baby to death is morally acceptable because... (fill in the blank). It seems they get pleasure from contemplating this. Another poster has called this the "ick factor." It certainly is a problem, too, since it keeps people away from the philosophy - and these "icki" people are some of the noisiest.

At the meeting, I mentioned that I would have the hide of a person who did such a thing (in my mind I was contemplating one who was sadistically enjoying it). Another member of the meeting simply went off on me, then the next day he posted a long post on RoR stating that I was a fascist yada yada yada. So I started getting my back up and responding, then some of the "ick" people, plus several others involved in background political manipulations of the different online websites, all chimed in and started calling me every name in the book. It got pretty ugly. Then I transferred the discussion to here (OL) in the following essay:

The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth – Part 2 – Moral Ambivalence

After a while, Nathaniel Branden sent me a letter about this and I thought the issue belonged in "Ethics," not "Rants," so I opened the present thread. (Also, it was quite a treat receiving such a letter from NB - I am not close with him as I am with Barbara.)

What is very clear is that this is an issue that bothers many people on many levels. I believe it is something that Objectivism "pigeonholed" and did not explore properly. As you posted, Peikoff gave a few rules based on the logic he developed (and Rand did a few), but I don't find that logic corresponds with the human nature I observe all around me, day after day. I want to get to the root of this.

So you can take two basic approaches (more actually) with a whole lot of middle positions: on one end you can discuss this issue from all angles and see where the principles reflect or do not reflect reality (i.e., see what needs to be learned and/or enforced and what needs to be modified), or you can do as was suggested by one poster (the one who started this thing) - if your emotions are in conflict with the philosophy, then reprogram your subconscious according to the principles. I consider the second manner to be self-induced brainwashing - especially if your view of human nature is not properly developed.

To be clear, I hold that for the good/evil philosophical spectrum to be employed in life (through volition), the brain and mind must be healthy according to a healthy/sick spectrum. A sick mind might be capable of properly judging evil, however it is more prone to make mistakes and poor choices.

Since feelings about children are part of our biological make-up, and apparently this goes into the healthy/sick part, this issue cuts deep (on all sides), especially when children are ignored.

All this needs to be fleshed out a great deal before we come to rights, yet rights is the area most people bring up. They tend to get highly emotional about it.

Edit - I just saw your second post. There is a fight between philosophy and psychology. The way you postulate things (claiming that you know what does not exist) is a philosophy trumping psychology position. As I implied, my view is that the context has to be a healthy mind before rationality can be moral or not. A sick or damaged mind has the volitional capacity impaired. That makes for a lot of color (not just gray).

Second edit - I posted the following on RoR earlier today. It was addressed to a very nice woman who loves kids named Sharon and bears repeating here.

Sharon,

I know of one extremely good and intelligent poster who eschewed Objectivist forums because this person felt he/she was being pushed into becoming something against his/her nature. Here is what this person wrote to me:

... the vast majority of Oists have followed this tradition of malice and intolerance toward all dissent, rational or otherwise -- the mark of fundamentalism. Once I started seeing myself act like that, I had to leave.

This person's basic outlook and path in life is:

... love and compassion tempered by logic and reason...

I had no words to defend against the first charge (except to point to myself and say, "I am not like that, but I did catch myself becoming like that"), and I fully agree with the second statement.

What I perceive about your argument about the human adult not being an end in himself, but a means for reproduction instead, shows a strikingly similar aspect. My opinion is that you were so harshly criticized - with oodles of rhetoric - from one all-or-nothing side, this led you to adopt the other end.

But what if it ain't all-or-nothing? What if it's both?

Rand defined a human being as a "rational animal." Many Objectivists I have interacted with normally concentrate all their mental and emotional energies on the "rational" part (differentia) and forget all about the "animal" part (genus). But the truth of the matter is that you can't be a rational human being without being an animal too. Being an animal means (in part) to reproduce and raise your young. Even if you are gay, this capacity comes built in with the wiring and a person seeking serenity and happiness addresses this issue at some level. He doesn't just pretend that it does not exist, or try to rationalize it out of existence.

This could simply take the form of him understanding the difference between children and adults and treating each accordingly, granting a special "need for nurture" metaphysical status to children. But that also means that he is dealing with that part of his nature and doesn't run from it.

Individuals have every right on earth to be selfishly happy and choose whether or not to have children. And all children have every right on earth to get a decent shot at becoming adults. These two statements are by definition (even Objectivist definitions).

We can have both. (Modern society even strives in that direction, in its own bumbling manner.) It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing at the human nature level. Or better yet, in one respect it does. Man is what he is, whether Objectivists, communists, Christians, Muslims or whoever like it or not. Man has a specific nature. To coin a phrase, A is A. Part of responsible rational existence is to correctly identify that nature.

The magic word I learned the hard way in life is "balance." Sometimes it is called "keeping context," but I find it goes deeper. On a philosophical level, balance to me means (1) deriving all principles from reality and constantly testing them against it, eliminating or modifying the principles that fail the reality test, and (2) making sure that I understand as many of the elements in a situation as possible, including their hierarchical importance.

Whatever principle or position advocated that goes against those rules is imbalanced.

btw - My friend's "love and compassion tempered by logic and reason" is not altruistic. It also includes "self-love and self-compassion tempered by logic and reason." This deals with the whole human being, the "rational animal."

I suggest you look in the mirror and see if you are becoming a reverse image of something you don't agree with - and if that is what you want for yourself. (As I believe you are a former kindergarten teacher, I fully understand your intimacy with the child's world, but check a premise or two and see if you haven't been pushed to where you would not go on your own.)

You have a wonderfully independent mind. And you have the guts to speak your honest mind in a hostile environment. Those are two very good traits that I value highly (they are even good Objectivist traits). You certainly have my respect.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Thanks Michael for the clarification on the example and the context of the discussion.

I think in that situation a morally right person would have to value life and help the child. Someone who purposefully didn't help the child for sadistic reason would cleary be acting with evil intentions, while someone who doesn't want have to deal with the situation and ignore the situation would be blanking out.

I haven't studied alot about rights (or too much for that matter), but I don't think that the child's rights would oblidge the stranger to help him. I don't think one person's rights can obligate someone else. I think that the child's right to life comes more from the parents responsiblity to care for them as the parents chose to reproduce.

-- Dustan (That is my name, I graduated from Texas A&M University in 2002, so that is the screen name I use for various things, it is easy to remember when you have just one.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

If I haven't already, let me give you a warm welcome to OL.

I hope you like our little home.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Edit - I just saw your second post. There is a fight between philosophy and psychology. The way you postulate things (claiming that you know what does not exist) is a philosophy trumping psychology position. As I implied, my view is that the context has to be a healthy mind before rationality can be moral or not. A sick or damaged mind has the volitional capacity impaired. That makes for a lot of color (not just gray).

Michael

What do you consider a healthy mind and unhealthy mind? Some people would consider an irrational mind as unhealthy, or do you mean a medically unhealthy mind (such as schizophrenia, bi-polar, alzheimers)?

I don't think that an unhealthy mind can be rational consistently, while a healthy mind can be irrational. A person does not have to be irrational all the time to be considered irrational, just some of the time.

Ayn Rand considered rationality as "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge; one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action". Basically recognizing reality and using reason to make decisions.

I don't think you can make an unhealthy rational decision. If the mind is not healthy enough to either grasp reality or use reason, then it cannot be rational. If the decisions are truely rational (knowledge gained through reality and decisions made using reason) then they shoulded be judged black or white.

Since philosophy is the base of all sciences, it should follow that psychology should be integrated on a foundation of philosophy. A psychology that fights philosophy would be a psychology founded on a different philosophy than the one it is in conflict with. In reality this would be a clash of philosophies and not psychology/philosophy.

Edit- I just read again your explanation. If what you mean by an unhealthy mind = loss of volitional capacity, then that person is no longer able to make decisions freely (there is some physical disturbance in the brain that affects decision making). If that is the case then that person's decisions could not be considered rational, nor do I think that you could consider their actions as moral or amoral, as to judge an action it must be freely chosen. If would be the same as judging a person who is being commanded at gun point to do a certian aciton, since that person no longer has free will, then they no longer can be judged morally.

[Aggrad02]

Dustan,

If I haven't already, let me give you a warm welcome to OL.

I hope you like our little home.

Michael

Thank you very much, I is really hard to find people to have discussions about philosophy with as I am not a student and do not make a career in academics.

Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

There is a little sucker in our brain called the amygdala, which is the source of our emotions. I am not a neuro-scientist, so I have used some of the more popular literature to understand some basic concepts. Apparently some reactions have been mapped in the brain by science. Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman discusses this in layman's terms and gives solid sources in the bibliography.

One interesting case is with sight alone as the sensory input. Light waves enter the retina, turn into impulses that can travel along the optic nerve, going up to the thalamus (another little sucker in the brain that's like a CPU for processing sensory input). From there these signals are translated into "brain language" and sent to the visual cortex for analysis. If something is alarming, it is sent from the visual cortex to the amygdala for the normal emotional stuff (heart beating faster, release of adrenaline, etc.). If something is VERY ALARMING, the signal goes from one little sucker (the thalamus) directly to the other little sucker (the amygdala) without ever going through the visual cortex for analysis.

If this reaction is extremely strong, it results in what is called an "emotional hijack." A person who is under an "emotional hijack" has his rational faculty impaired at that moment. "Fight or flight" kicks in and he DOES SOMETHING. Sometimes that something is a real bad thing, too.

Apparently the amygdala and many other parts of the brain are capable of storing memories, so if a memory has been repressed, and it should have triggered the amygdala when the event happened, it will constantly send out small triggers on its own. These will constantly "push" the person in a non-rational direction, regardless of how rational he tries to be.

Getting the mind into a healthy state for making proper decisions means cleaning out the emotional garbage. Understanding that you did something bad because of an emotional hijack or something that needs some work to be uncovered so it can be discarded is the first step in fixing it. I would not call such an act "evil," although it may have been irrational. The source was not a moral choice, but a short circuit (or even override path) in the brain.

For a simple example, planning and executing a homicide is evil, even if such a person has seriously threatened a loved one. There are other manners available of dealing with this situation. Seeing a loved one be seriously threatened by another at the moment of the threat and suddenly going nuts on the attacker to the point of killing him is not evil. It was prompted by an emotional hijack.

There are no clear and fast rules for all of this. There is way too much context that needs to be evaluated. This is one area where I claim the grays come in. (Which part was moral and which was automatic reaction?)

This example is far from comprehensive, but this is a good one for illustrating which area belongs to philosophy and which belongs to psychology.

No amount of philosophy will help a person whose amygdala goes berserk. And no amount of psychology will help a person choose the good if he has chosen evil (he needs to make a rational moral choice to change that).

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Dustan,

There is a little sucker in our brain called the amygdala, which is the source of our emotions. I am not a neuro-scientist, so I have used some of the more popular literature to understand some basic concepts. Apparently some reactions have been mapped in the brain by science. Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman discusses this in layman's terms and gives solid sources in the bibliography.

One interesting case is with sight alone as the sensory input. Light waves enter the retina, turn into impulses that can travel along the optic nerve, going up to the thalamus (another little sucker in the brain that's like a CPU for processing sensory input). From there these signals are translated into "brain language" and sent to the visual cortex for analysis. If something is alarming, it is sent from the visual cortex to the amygdala for the normal emotional stuff (heart beating faster, release of adrenaline, etc.). If something is VERY ALARMING, the signal goes from one little sucker (the thalamus) directly to the other little sucker (the amygdala) without ever going through the visual cortex for analysis.

If this reaction is extremely strong, it results in what is called an "emotional hijack." A person who is under an "emotional hijack" has his rational faculty impaired at that moment. "Fight or flight" kicks in and he DOES SOMETHING. Sometimes that something is a real bad thing, too.

Apparently the amygdala and many other parts of the brain are capable of storing memories, so if a memory has been repressed, and it should have triggered the amygdala when the event happened, it will constantly send out small triggers on its own. These will constantly "push" the person in a non-rational direction, regardless of how rational he tries to be.

Getting the mind into a healthy state for making proper decisions means cleaning out the emotional garbage. Understanding that you did something bad because of an emotional hijack or something that needs some work to be uncovered so it can be discarded is the first step in fixing it. I would not call such an act "evil," although it may have been irrational. The source was not a moral choice, but a short circuit (or even override path) in the brain.

For a simple example, planning and executing a homicide is evil, even if such a person has seriously threatened a loved one. There are other manners available of dealing with this situation. Seeing a loved one be seriously threatened by another at the moment of the threat and suddenly going nuts on the attacker to the point of killing him is not evil. It was prompted by an emotional hijack.

There are no clear and fast rules for all of this. There is way too much context that needs to be evaluated. This is one area where I claim the grays come in. (Which part was moral and which was automatic reaction?)

This example is far from comprehensive, but this is a good one for illustrating which area belongs to philosophy and which belongs to psychology.

No amount of philosophy will help a person whose amygdala goes berserk. And no amount of psychology will help a person choose the good if he has chosen evil (he needs to make a rational moral choice to change that).

Michael

Thanks for the information. You probably wrote this as I wrote the edit on my last post. I clearly agree that if your response is triggered by an unconscious physical phenomena of the brain then it cannot be judged.

Just to give a little background on myself. I recieved my BS in Psychology with a Minor in Philosophy. Unfortunately in my 21 hrs of philosophy I never recieved any discussions of Ayn Rand or Objectivism (which I now think was a crime). During my senior year I started my own retail cell phone accessory business and continue business and investing today. I am an avid reader and had to discover Ayn on my own, her philosophy was a great relief to me as it cleared up alot of questions that I had. I haven't really studied psychology since then but am still very fond of it.

[Aggrad02]

Michael,

I agree with you and your friend. I think that reproduction is part of human nature and part of living for yourself. What is more egoist than wanting to pass part of yourself (your DNA) on into the future.

[DavidMcK]

Dustan, Mike and Kat's resident psychologist (if I may so speak) is Nathaniel Branden, the author of many books which many have found to be a new and exciting way of looking at yourself and others, particularly with respect to self-esteem. There is a Branden corner here, and many comments about Branden's work. I'm a guest here but I can extend a welcome.

David

[Aggrad02]

Dustan, Mike and Kat's resident psychologist (if I may so speak) is Nathaniel Branden, the author of many books which many have found to be a new and exciting way of looking at yourself and others, particularly with respect to self-esteem. There is a Branden corner here, and many comments about Branden's work. I'm a guest here but I can extend a welcome.

David

Thanks David for the welcome and the information.

I have read two of Nathaniels books, Judgement Day and Six Pillars of Self Esteem. I found him through reading Capitalism The Unknown Ideal. Under every article that Nathaniel wrote there was a disclaimer stating he was no longer associated with Ayn and Objectivism. I wondered how someone who wrote so well and seemed to promote objectivism and reason so well deserved such a disclaimer. I looked him up and read Judgement Day and then found SPoSE in a used bookstore. I thoroughly enjoyed and respected it. Like not learning about Ayn in Phil class I had never heard about Nathaniel in Psyc class either. I have since ordered about 5 more of his books. It may take me a while to get through them all adequately, but I have so much to catch up on. I wish I could have found out about Ayn and Nathaniel much early in my life (before I started college) instead of after I graduated.

Thanks, Dustan

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen, thank you for sharing your perspective on the Atlantis list discussion of rights in emergency situations. I'm sorry for insinuating that you were being condescending and ridiculing to Bill. I don't mind the label "disappearing rights" for his (and my) position, as long as it is realized that we are arguing in a larger context, in which various moral principles can be suspended and reactivated in certain situations. The best parallel is to the moral principle of honesty, which you always owe yourself, and which you owe others, except when being honest to them would, for instance, put your life in jeopardy. (Nazi: are there any Jews in there? Homeowner: well, I have to be honest: yes, there are.) This could just as well be called "disappearing honesty." Bill and I prefer to recognize that honesty and rights are contextual and not always in effect as actual obligations between specific people.

I realize that you are not a deontologist. I also realize that the harshest criticisms of Bill were leveled by those who disdained him the most strongly, especially Ross Levatter. But even people disposed to agree with him on many issues (Gayle Dean was one) seized upon your label and used it as a tool of ridicule, rather than just a description. I'm sorry for lumping you in with the others. I guess I didn't recall your explicitly stating your disapproval of or dissociation from those ridiculing Bill with the label you coined.

I think a case can be made that someone taking the property of another during an emergency (when survival is not possible otherwise) owes restitution to the property-owner, but I'm not convinced yet. Some other day, we can explore this, but I too don't really want to open up this particular can of worms.

Again, my apologies for blaming you for how others mistreated Bill in what should have remained a decent intellectual discussion, instead of a series of nasty personal attacks on Bill.

REB

[Fran]

I want to suggest another angle for that question about the abandoned, starving child.

If you saw a passer-by, with plenty of food in his knapsack, ignore the abandoned, starving child on the roadside, there would be another question to be asked beside the question of whether or not one should ask for government intervention.

It is simply this: What do you, the bystander, the observer, think about this passer-by who walks on doing nothing to help the child? I think a high percentage of us would feel moral indignation.

Nathaniel's argument misses the point that it takes more than one meal to help an abondoned, starving child. What would the man do, feed the child and then walk on, knowing that the next day the child would be in the exact same predicament? Is it a case of hoping that everyday another passer-by will do the same thing, essentially feeding the child for a decade or so until he/she is an adult?

A child is fairly helpless and would require an adult to take care of it for many years, something the man with the knapsack may not feel that he is willing to do. He could take it to a home for children, if one such exists close-by, and hope that it was the sort of home that treated children kindly (but again this would need to be run by people who want to spend their life doing this sort of thing). I'm not intending to be callous, I wouldn't want to see starving children in the street, but neither would I want to spend my life looking after them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fran,

Hi (and a hearty welcome to OL).

To be fair to NB's example, he was addressing the moral indignation we feel on seeing an act of blatant callousness to a stray hungry child - what the source of that indignation is. I don't think we would feel such indignation for a stranger not providing the long-term solution you mention.

But we would feel indignation on seeing a stranger refuse to get such a child out of harm's way or observe him look on the child's hunger with total indifference.

This is a human nature thing. I believe that empathy (especially for children) is is biologically a part of our mental equipment. I don't hold empathy to be the same thing as altruism or collectivism as some Objectivists do. I also believe that understanding empathy and letting it bloom, along with the rest of our positive mental capacities, is a very selfish thing to do. This realizes our potential as whole and healthy human beings.

If the goal is to resolve the child's life, you are correct, of course. Long term measures are needed. And I also don't want to spend my life looking after stray children. But when I have run across them, I have tried to do what I think is right at the moment. (In São Paulo, Brazil, where I used to live, they were easier to find than here in a nice part of Florida.)

Michael

[John Dailey]

Hello again, Mike:

~~ I gather that you've read some of my recently-'crystalized' viewpoints...elsewhere. Assuming we're still friends, given my views re Rand and the Brandens, then, for what it's worth, I here add my thoughts on this specific and apparently neverending concern you've brought up. (And I stress: it IS a very worthwhile point ALL self-called O'ists should be ready to deal with...and most really have shown that they're not ready...except moi, of course )

~~ I've read the posts following our 'last discussion' on this thread. May I add, as a tip to all...

~~ Identify and, most importantly, specify, the territory of the 1st, primary, 'problem' (moral-rights, 'legal'-rights, emotional-empathy, wha'?) 1st.

~~ Given whichever, then, 2nd, oriented around WHOM? The infant/'child'/kid/legal-minor, OR the lackadaisacle...legal 'adult'? --- (only 1 or the other re 'starting' points here; one can always find logical implications 'back' to the other, and find reasons to, well, start over in one's assumptions to refigure the solution-to-the-puzzle.)

~~ Further: 3rd, before even THINKING about talking about 'legal'-rights (apart from establishing whatever they are in which state...at the moment, or, what the Fed ones are), establish the moral-rights territory; this is the ONLY base to argue what 'legal'-rights ought/should be changed from A to B. ---Arguing about 'legal'-rights without establishing anything about MORAL 'right's is...only for lawyers to quibble over, really.

~~ On hindsight, I agree that my concern about the 'Psychology' of relevent ones was irrelevent. I do agree that there's an 'Ethics/Morality' (indeed, 'rights') concern here, BOTH re the 'adult' and the 'child' (or, 25-yr-old 'retarded' ignoramus). This scenario is akin to what BB once brought up elsewhere about 'abused pets/animals', no? --- Indeed, no '3rd party' should be added as a consideration (police, random-passerby, whatever) as they merely complicate the conundrum. They CAN be 'handled'/figured-in, but, not until AFTER the 1st two are settled about.

~~ The question boils down to "Who's got the MORAL 'right' to do/not-do what?" re the 'adult' and the 'kid'. --- I admit that I still don't really know.

~~ However, as long as we're going to stay ambiguous about what's supposedly 'obvious' re the terms (ergo populous-TYPE) we're using, suppose the 'adult' is a female-dwarf (er, 'little-person') who's a 'legal-adult' (turned 18 last month, AND, she's an Eagle Scout) and the 'child' is a 5'7" 180-lb 14-yr-old male? Would 'empathy' change? Raise 'his' age a yr older; empathy-change yet?

~~ My question here is about the 'empathy-base' of the very question concern itself --> Are there sex/physical-age limits re the 'empathy'-orientation of the question? Or, are we all just gonna stick to the ambiguous 'adult'/'child' terminology searching/expecting a one-answer-fits-all response? Eh-h-h-h...(chomp, chomp), as I said, I CAN be a 'stinker'. Consider all as food-for-thought...re terminology and scenario-depiction.

~~ Of course, if one's thinking of the scenario ONLY in terms of easily-stereotyped (re your original) ones...anyone seen The Earthling yet, and formed an opinion about William Holden's readiness to let the little kid stay lost?

LLAP

J:D

P.S: Unfortunately, this conundrum seems like so many others: everyone participating turning into a mere part of Ouroboros. Hope we can let go of the tail in this apparent moral-paradox.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Of course we're still friends. I am VERY PLEASED you started seeing some of the difficulties I have had in discussing this. It's like a slippery fish. The moment you start talking about one perspective or one topic, somebody comes up with another. Then somebody else comments on that, but brings in another, and off you go.

I agree fully with your description of what should be delineated BEFORE even talking about anything at all. (ALL of my attempts to do this have failed, too. People just don't stick to the limited topic.)

One thing is for sure. This issue causes a great deal of confusion because (1) it is extremely important to most people concerned with Objectivism, whether they admit it or not (and their actions do speak quite loudly), and (2) Objectivism is not clear at all about this, irrespective of what any new "owner" of Objectivism may say.

I still think that a thorough discussion of human nature is an area needed for Objectivism. Only then, can ethics and all the rest be properly analyzed.

(btw - I'm not worried about what you write about the Brandens on other forums. I know I'll win you over in the end anyway... //;-)) )

(Also, I haven't seen The Earthling yet, but it is on my to-do list.)

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~~ Yer stallin' [-X

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~~ I was really going to wait a 'week or so' before checking back...given the perplexing conundrum 'paradox' this situation you've discovered re a prob in 'Ethics/Morality', whether O'ism per

se, or, 'any' moral-perspective-base (wonder how Catholic 'christian' OFFICIALS [such as Jesuits] would handle it...depending on how they actually 'identified'/specified the problem). As things are, methinks meneeds to add an addendum caveat.

~~ I admitted that I do believe that the whole prob comes down to concern about the O'ist-established view of ethics/'right's, etc.

~~ I stick to my arg re my example re the prof-hitman and Roark in the 2 cars passing an apparent 'crisis claim for help'. I repeat that the likes of an actual O'ist personality-style would be little different from a passing Buddhist (or 'most people'), for the REASONS I gave, but also that all such would be VERY different from a passing pro-hitman/James Taggart; one is willing to be 'bothered' (without even 'thinking' about the bother)...the other isn't willing to be (since they'd be AWARE of the 'bother'). Yet, this, the Psychology of all relevent to the situation, is clearly irrelevent to the scenario you originally set up.

~~ Ok: so, the 'adult' is NOT an empathic bona-fide O'ist/Unitarian/liberal-Muslim/whatever. STILL, such people who are not sadists, but merely "Get away from me, kid; ya bother me" extremes of W. C. Fields, seem to be the essence of *your* problem-scenario.

~~ Ergo, the question remains (as *you* 1st specified, though here *I* paraphrase): --> How 'should' one properly regard the (I stress here, 'so-called'... ) 'adult', and, upon finding such, how 'should' one treat them, morally and/or legally, regarding the (I stress again, the 'so-called'...) 'child'?

~~ I said before, "I have no answer"; but I must add..."I'm not all that clear on the actual question re what's presumed as what's definedly meant re 'child' and/or 'adult' other than Extremes-of-iconic-imaged-stereotypes. In such a case, whatever is acceptably arguable re 'right'/wrong about a '40+'-yr-old with a '10-'-yr-old should be an acceptable argument re a '18-yr-old-yesterday' with a 'WILL-BE-18-yr-old-tomorrow'? I don't think so! --- It's those 'limit' territories of meaning re 'adult'/'child' that complicate determining the 'proper' placement/mis-placement of attitude/empathy.

~~ What I'm saying here is that methinks there are deeper ('psychological') questions involved here than your scenario seems to imply...even though, all said and done, the scenario IS properly concerned ONLY with the subject of who...the kid or the adult...has the bottom-line justification for a 'right' that trumps the other's claim to such.

~~Now, at this point of my consideration of your emotionally-oriented scenario (re talking about 'kids' and 'adults'), I've got to point out that I now see there is NO SINGLE ANSWER applicable across-the-board. One might as well ask "If you use a electronic 'bark-collar' (ie: remote 'stun-gun') to train your recalcitrant pit-bull, are you an evil pet-abuser, or are you not?" --- Like the controversy re 'spanking'-your-kid (or taking-them-to-the-woodshed, if you will)...IT DEPENDS. All depends on the kid, the pet...and, the adult.

~~ Can one say 'context'?

~~ The 'adult' has the right to turn-away, and ignore the kid (a la James Taggart: "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me"), or, the 'kid' (who may be The Karate Kid) has the 'right' to TAKE food from the adult-ignorer. Problemo-Paradoxico. --- WHO has the 'right' to do what?

~~ I iterate: I dunno...and clearly, as you, neither does anyone else. --- Ie: don't cop an 'attitude' to those who disagree with your [possibly mis-placed?] empathy! Not all 'kids' are automatically worth helping/saving. Think about it.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: I must admit, this prob you brought up on RoR really bugs me (which is why I'm back again; YOU'RE the only one promoting its worth [ok: I'm a help herein]). I'm one for being attracted to paradoxical-appearing probs. THIS is definitely one of those. Pity that others (especially "O'ists") don't appreciate the worth of dealing with this one, since it's obviously more than merely an 'academic puzzle' akin to the one about the card having "The statement on the other side is true" on one side, and the other side having "The statement on the other side is false." --- This prob you brought up is definitely more than a mere academic/linguistic-analysis prob. It IS clearly 'ETHICALLY/MORALLY' relevent to anyone concerned with the subjects of ethics/morals/'rights.' --- Wish more "O'ists" would pay attention to...and deal with...it.

P.P.S: I've come to think that your 'scenario' is not really a 'well-formed' one. It lacks specifics for it's requiring a specific 'yes/no' or 'good/bad' answer/evaluation/justifiably-empathic-rapport. --- In short: it's equivalent to your asking "Is it in the box, or is it not?" You can see the questions that would have to be asked by the questioned, and answered by the original questioner, for a 'full context' to be established for any responder to give any kind of absolute 'yes/no' answer to the original questioner, n'est pas? --- Ie: I argue, now, that your scenario...lacks necessary specificities for context, and merely counts on 'read-into' Rorschachian imagery of loaded terminology for empathy that's only pro-'kid'. --- In other words, without context-specifics, for all we know, the 'kid' could be The Good Son (or, The Bad Seed) and the 'adult'...recognizes the little sicko-brat for what they are...and treats them as they deserve! --- No context-specifics, no absolute-empathy, in my book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

You better be careful among Objectivists, because if this problem is bothering you, they will consider you as: (1) an altruist, (2) a collectivist, or (3) a mystic. Frankly I am pleased by the fact that this is bugging someone (Objectivist or Objectivist-friendly) enough for him to get back to it. You stated in this last post:

Now, at this point of my consideration of your emotionally-oriented scenario (re talking about 'kids' and 'adults'), I've got to point out that I now see there is NO SINGLE ANSWER applicable across-the-board.

That is the problem. There is "NO SINGLE ANSWER applicable across-the-board." That goes for the Objectivist side too. But "SINGLE ANSWER applicable across-the-board" solutions is all you hear.

Like I stated, I believe there is something within human nature the Objectivist ethics simply left out. We all know it, we sense it, it bothers the hell out of us, yet it is not explained in clear language in the literature with a "smart-aleck" put-down aimed at altruists/collectivists/mystics/etc., tacked on at the end like Rand usually did.

An element of human nature is missing. Ethics is supposed to be derived from human nature. I am not willing to give up the Objectivist designation because something is missing. I want to make it right and keep the rest, which is wonderful.

So I don't have an answer yet, either, John. I know that if I saw someone acting as given in my scenario under one circumstance, I would ignore it, but if I saw it under another circumstance, I would have the guy's hide - at the very least I would become highly inconvenient to him.

I'm not saying this because I want to justify third-party intervention among strangers, yet the definition of a child as "need for nurture" on a metaphysical level sticks out like a third thumb - and a very sore one at that - in the middle of our neat and tidy Objectivist ethics.

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that if you were younger, you would not be so bothered by this. At least that is what happened with me.

Any thoughts on human nature aimed at finding out why this bugs us? I have been exploring pre-wired species-related urges.

Michael

[Fran]

Michael

I agree with you that there is something missing from the Objectivist ethics and I'd like to contribute from a different slant.

A former clinical psychologist, Marshall Rosenberg Ph.D worked with Dr Carl Rogers at a time when he was developing the components of a helping relationship. Marshall then went on to develop something which he has termed "Non-violent communication" (NVC) - don't be put off by the name

NVC stems from the premise that all of people's actions come from a desire to meet one or more universal needs.

These are split into categories:

PHYSICAL WELL-BEING (e.g. food, shelter, clothing, water);

AUTONOMY (e.g. freedom, self-responsibility, choice);

MEANING (e.g. learning, self-expression, understanding);

PEACE (e.g. harmony, order);

CONNECTION (e.g. love, companionship, security, empathy, compassion);

HONESTY (e.g. authenticity, integrity, presence);

PLAY (e.g. joy, humour).

When we meet our needs we feel pleasure and when our needs are not met, we feel pain. However, we can also feel pleasure by meeting other people's needs, if we are clear about what needs of their's it would meet, and if we are doing it out of choice. This is because one of our needs is to 'contribute to another person's well-being'.

NVC is not about being altruistic and is very clear about "Never doing anything for anybody else unless it meets your need to do so, otherwise you'll only make the other person pay." Marshall is also adamant that people are fully responsible for their actions and their feelings (nobody makes you feel a certain way, they can only trigger feelings within you).

NVC teaches that as people all share the same universal needs, people only clash in their strategies to meet those needs. For example, an Objectivist will try and meet his/her need for security by living in a free country with minimal government control. Whereas someone else may try and meet his/her need for security by wanting to live in a country where everything is regulated. Once people have a conscious awareness about what needs of their's they are trying to meet, they can choose better strategies for meeting that need. They can also see that it might not be meeting other needs as well, such as their needs for autonomy and freedom.

NVC differs from Objectivism in that rather than judging people's actions, the purpose instead is to understand what needs of theirs they were trying to meet and empathise with this. There are several advantages to doing this, firstly they are more likely to alter their behaviour because empathy is a more effective tool at catalysing change than judgements (otherwise psychotherapists would judge rather than accept their clients); it brings greater harmony to relationships with people, and most importantly when I judge people I don't feel great, I feel annoyed. Whereas if I can hear people's needs behind their rants, I am in more in touch with my own needs and feel happy. So if happiness is my goal in life, not judging people is one way that I can contribute to this. This is, of course, easier said than done...

NVC is also about explicitly expressing your own needs in a way that other people can hear them without. It is easier for another person to meet your need if you are both clear about what that need is. It is split up into four sections:

1) Observation without evaluation (the facts rather than your analysis of it).

2) The emotion that you feel when you observe this.

3) The need of yours that is not being met by this thing you have observed.

4) A specific, do-able request within a given time-frame that will allow your need to be met.

You can also do the above for expressing happy emotions when your needs are being met by someone.

NVC is used in conflict situations with success. Marshall is an American Jew and he visited a Palestinian refugee camp where there were tear gas canisters that were made in USA. He was called a 'murderer' and other insults by an extremely angry mob, after spending time constantly empathising with these people's needs, their rage disappeared and he was invited that evening to a celebratory Ramadan dinner.

NVC is explained lucidly in Marshall's book: "Non-violent Communication: A Language of Life: Create Your Life, Your Relationships, and Your World in Harmony with Your Values" available from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/189200503...5Fencoding=UTF8

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just received this heart-warming story by e-mail from a friend.

Man Who Found Abandoned Baby Honored

January 2, 2007

Associated Press

Here's the report:

(AP) St. Cloud, Minn. The man who found an abandoned baby in Stearns County has been honored as a lifesaver.

Sheriff John Sanner presented Bob Klaverkamp with the award at Tuesday's county board meeting.

Klaverkamp found the baby girl wrapped in a blanket in her car seat near a remote county road near St. Augusta on Nov. 20.

The girl has since been dubbed "Baby Grace." Investigators continue to look for her parents.

Sanner said Klaverkamp saved the child's life. She was found in the afternoon. Had she spent the night outside, Sanner said, she probably would not have survived.

"For her entire life she'll have a hero," Sanner said.

Now if we can only get Objectivists to call this man a hero...

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Why is it that we can say "This is how people should live." and not force it upon people while still claiming they are wrong, but we cannot say "I wish that this person had given food to the abandoned child who was on the street by no fault of his/her own because it wouldn't have cost him anything significant." and not force him to give food to the child. We can still think he is wrong because we value human life and this child had done nothing to endanger his/her own life. In this case it seems to me that the value of the human life outweighs the value of the food to the person who owns it. Therefore, although we cannot/should not force the person to give the dying child food, we can recognize that his value judgement was that the life of another human being was less than that of the miniscule value of food to the person with more than he needs.

Does that make sense?

[Fran]

I just received this heart-warming story by e-mail from a friend.

Man Who Found Abandoned Baby Honored

January 2, 2007

Associated Press

Here's the report:

(AP) St. Cloud, Minn. The man who found an abandoned baby in Stearns County has been honored as a lifesaver.

Sheriff John Sanner presented Bob Klaverkamp with the award at Tuesday's county board meeting.

Klaverkamp found the baby girl wrapped in a blanket in her car seat near a remote county road near St. Augusta on Nov. 20.

The girl has since been dubbed "Baby Grace." Investigators continue to look for her parents.

Sanner said Klaverkamp saved the child's life. She was found in the afternoon. Had she spent the night outside, Sanner said, she probably would not have survived.

"For her entire life she'll have a hero," Sanner said.

Now if we can only get Objectivists to call this man a hero...

Michael

I would like to live in a world where people help others, so I would say that it was in my own self-interest to help this abandoned child. When people stop me and ask for directions, I always try to help unless it's not in my interest to do so (e.g. I'm running late for something or it's late at night). Thing is, the parents are not going to come forward because they're sure they will only receive punishment rather than people trying to understand why they abandoned her. I'm not saying that the baby should just be handed back to them, I'm simply questioning how helpful it will be to anybody to punish the parents for what they've done. Judging by the number of people who re-offend, I don't think punishing people is a particularly helpful strategy in preventing crime.