Moral perfection

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, ok. If this is the case, your contention might have been clearer if you had used a couple of actual examples of this equivocation in your essay. It seemed to me you were simply saying Rand/Objectivism only advocated an impossible ideal (and this is the source of Merlin's disagreement, as he seems to have got the same impression). If you're merely saying she made highly equivocal pronouncements on the subject, you're right.

Daniel,

This conclusion is not precise (I call it "pushing"), but let me condense some quotes on this thread where these issues are dealt with.

What I do get is a constant shift from cognitive (fact/truth) to normative (importance/volitional). Often she will use a term near the beginning of an essay in a cognitive manner, redefine it according to Objectivism with a strong normative element added, then end with a conclusion that the word does not mean what it does in the original sense at all. This is a rhetorical device for normative emphasis.

An example is the statement that art reflects the soul of the artist (i.e., "selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments"), then modern art according to this standard reflects a sordid anti-life soul (sense of life), then according to the Objectivist view of existence, modern art is incapable of presenting that view and is trash, and then to the statement that modern art is not art.

Cognitive to normative in one breath. Yet the same word is used and if one ignores this cognitive to normative progression, it appears that she ended by contradicting herself.

She does that with rights (some rights at the beginning are not rights at the end), with altruism (from evil morality to not morality) and with several other words.

Now that you have honed in on the meaning of "moral perfection" from the angle of what Rand really meant, I think that the term deserves a similar analysis. I do catch the meaning of "high degree of intent" (or striving) in her statement, but that is not the only meaning I discern. I will have to dig for some quotes and do some thinking on this to unravel this point correctly and bring it to a clear exposition (and possibly see what else is mixed in along with a flip-flop between cognitive/normative abstractions).

That is hardly saying that Rand made some "highly equivocal pronouncements." In terms of examples:

As to the actual ideas under discussion, more later after I do some research.

I do intend to document my views with Rand's own words, as I have done time and time again on OL.

Incidentally, this article was originally in the "Rant" section. It got moved over to here by request from Robert Campbell. It was meant as a complaint, not a technical critique. I think it deserves to become one, though, so I will eventually do it.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>That is hardly saying that Rand made some "highly equivocal pronouncements."

Well you wrote:

Mike: "My contention is that Rand uses the phrase (and some key words) to mean one thing in one place and another thing another."

Using key words and phrases "to mean one thing in one place and another thing in another" is equivocating in my book, but if it's not in yours, well that's fine.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Technically it is equivocating if seen as follows:

1. Only cognitively or only normatively,

2. Semantical consistency.

In terms of seeing why Rand did it, i.e., as a rhetorical device, there is a process with specific meanings that can be discovered and identified. Once that is uncovered, the equivocation makes sense. But even after understanding the what and why, I think it is a poor choice of rhetoric.

The way you make it sound (implying "Oh, if you were merely saying that Rand was wrong about everything, that's OK") is not my way of understanding this rhetorical device nor the message I want to transmit.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Well, guess I gotta eat crow. I could've sworn that she had a prob with the concept 'moral perfection.' Guess I was definitely not correct there.

~ As shown in this thread, she clearly persistently praised the idea and had not the prob everyone else herein clearly has with it.

~ Plus, as a bonus, she was clearly an out-and-out equivocator, near par excellence, chronically playing with term-meanings when the...whim...hit her.

~ What can I say? I know not how to 'explain' or be an apologetic re all this. Researching the fine-point nuancing-analysis of such subject matter is not my forte (especially not having all the usable data for such subject debating...obviously).

~ I have one question though: given these two, quite clearly established, views of her 'thoughts', what then, is the worth of discussing her...impossibly-idealistic, equivocational, ergo irrelevent and ambiguous...'thoughts'?

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

From what I am able to gather, Rand's concept of moral perfection started as a reaction to the Christian assertion that man is born with original sin, i.e., he is born a sinner, thus he is born morally flawed and has a debt to pay to be redeemed. This was added to the Christian concept of God as the only morally perfect being in the universe, and His state was morally impossible for man to achieve.

She was right to rebel against that. But she went too far in the other direction and practically made the same error—i.e., her premise is that man is born morally inept and can only find salvation with philosophy, which will allow him to become morally perfect. There's a lot of fancy reasoning around values and so forth, but the original sin idea is her basic argument (choose to think or else stay in you default immoral state).

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ OK. You regard that as 'her error.' (epistemological, historical-perspective-bias, merely 'logical analysis', or other? Ie: what 'type'?)

~ A-n-d, you're correction to that is....?????

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

The obvious correction is to check your premises and reject the false parts. I did that above.

As with most parts where I disagree with Rand, the problem is scope, not basic concept. It is possible to make a morally perfect decision. It is not possible to freeze time, eliminate all context and become a morally perfect being, which means to Rand, make only morally perfect decisions intention-wise, honest mistakes being permitted. She called this "unbreached rationality."

Once again, unbreached rationality (moral perfection) is only possible item by item. There are too many variables in life to control all contexts. You can make a general commitment to rationality and practice one decision of unbreached rationality after another, with some very irrational decisions sandwiched in along the way. That's reality and that's as good as it gets.

EDIT: To add to that, greatness comes from achievements, not your moral state as a human being. You use morality to obtain and/or keep values. You do not use morality as an end in itself.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Merlin,

Dr. Peikoff's discussion of pride in OPAR (pp. 303-310) is clearly not just about aspiration or striving.

The key quotation is on p. 308:

Like any moral attribute, pride and self-esteem are open to everyone. The heroes of Ayn Rand's novels possess a superlative intelligence, but they are still normal men, human beings and not another species; with "human" meaning "rational."

He goes on to say that Roarkhood or Galthood requires only a "functional intelligence" plus the correct moral code, consistently put into action.

In "About the Author" I take Rand to be putting forth moral perfection as a constituent of being an ideal human being. So when she asserts her own Galthood, with that famous "And I mean it," I take her to be claiming moral perfection for herself.

Robert Campbell

I think it is a mistake to mix up LP and AR this way with AR's "And I mean it." But my objection is not substantive. She earned the right to such hubris, LP never did.

But notice how LP's attitude as depicted above, actually excludes true heroism, which appertains to how men and women and even children (AND DOGS!!) act under extreme duress. In "Atlas," the heroes were relieved of their heroism once they found Galt. That is, once they found the power of the sanction of the victim. What a put down! We don't have to be heroes, for ye be not dragons! All we have to do is leave the scene! Why did Galt's speech come at the end of the novel (aside from literary reasons or aside from the fact that it was really for the readers--at least a few of them [ye be a hero if ye get this, but ye not need do anything else, including educate the unwashed])--because for the great unwashed left here is a great, ____ YOU!

In toto, AR's whole life and career was a heroic reaction to what happened to her and her family courtesy of what the commie bastards did to them--she cut off their balls. (Sanction of the victim.) Of course the collectivists and "liberals" hated and disdained her. So what? ____ 'em!

--Brant (somewhat drunk)

Edited June 24, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, apropos my previous post above, maybe this is the reason Objectivists aren't heroically giving Objectivism to the world: They don't sanction the world. What else needs to be done? That, of course, really wasn't Galt's speech; it was Rand's speech; and it was for those who would be Objectivists and screw everyone else who don't get it! What Galt's speech really says is you need to be educated but you don't have to educate only make sure your fellow educated don't screw up the message! Once it is heard the morally virtuous will repair to it and the rest will get their natural theirs! This is"philosophy" by osmosis. This is Objectivism as a religion. This is Orthodox Objectivism. Thus LP is the "intellectual heir" of AR, only on that level there isn't any "intellectual" there.

--Brant

Edited June 24, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[John Dailey]

~ MSK: Get back to you on...some of what you said.

~ However, others brought up new, but relevently associatable, points that I must comment on (well, given I read 'em!)

~ Galt was after the 'motors.' Were the 'motors' passively waiting for a 'leader'? I think not! In such a situation you can bet Galt had his (unspecified, obviously, in the book; think 'implied'!) work cut out for him just in PERSUADING each of them of the worth of his vision of their place in the present world, a-n-d, the worth of joining into his...'gultch'-community (and it's potential 'later'-place). --- Talk about wishing to be a 'fly-on-the-wall' in those discussions! (I wonder if Rand 'back-story' had worked them out, tailor-made they'd needed to be for each persuaded! Why am I thinking of the Founding Fathers' 'back-room' discussions?)

~ Ok; like Brant, this is a bit late for me too (hic)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ In other words, your analysis/idea of 'unbreached rationality' is NOT different from what you interpret (and, I agree with your interpretation) her's as being.

~ You argue about such being interpretable ONLY in terms of 'item-by-item.' I have no disagreement with that. B-U-T, I totally disagree about PAST 'items' being inherently pertinent to PRESENT evaluations of the person, as a 'person', especially when 'immorality' is NEVER specifically charged, but merely innuended.

~ I argue that only the PRESENT behaviour counts, for evaluating living people, and for the deceased, whatever is considered 'morally'-relevent in their last days/weeks/etc. Especially since Rand's being supposedly advocated as a 'moral Saint' since she was born (shades of the Virgin Mary) by her orthodox supporters.

~ Needless to say, I find 'prickly' dislikes about her perceived personality style irrelevent to all this.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

I don't understand some of what you say.

As far as I am able to understand, I think one should be careful about saying things like "I totally disagree about PAST 'items' being inherently pertinent to PRESENT evaluations of the person, as a 'person', especially when 'immorality' is NEVER specifically charged, but merely innuended. I argue that only the PRESENT behaviour counts, for evaluating living people."

In general I agree with the spirit of what you say about most people (who are a mixed lot anyway). But I would have a hard time judging Hitler in your manner, even if he had a change of heart, precisely because of his past.

As for the letter, I tend to give people with good pasts more benefit of the doubt than I do those with sordid pasts. Who is saying this is one who has gone through both ends of the moral spectrum.

In Brazil, they say you don't really know a man until you have eaten a kilo of salt with him. (That means a lot of meals.) I prefer this form of judging someone than talking about their present only. It takes a hell of a lot of "past" to arrive at a "present."

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ I'm unclear as to what you don't understand; ntl, I totally agree with the words of your next paragraph, though not it's innuendo. I believe that I am 'careful.' Yes, I'd thought about Hitler (and other noted historical ones) when deciding to type that, believe it or not.

~ Risking being accused (probably correctly) of seeing too many things in terms of movies I've seen (but then, I think I see movies in different lights than most, such as The Matrix being primarily a 'love' story), remember Lucas' SW saga? Before part 6 (RotJ) came out, Ford was interviewed and answered the closest to what the ending was all about: "George believes in redemption." Then, this was more a riddle than an informative answer; however, Ford was talking about Darth, as we now know. --- This gave me 'pause-for-thought' about the very meaning of...Redemption; this subject is little discussed in O'ist circles, and, so far, only Rand had a passing comment on it, if I remember correctly.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Of course I believe in redemption. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here.

I don't consider myself to have been redeemed into some kind of morally perfect state, though. (I know you didn't say that. I am merely commenting on an idea that came into my head.) I have a huge mess to clean up on this forum because I staked a lot on redemption.

Strictly speaking, redemption is a transaction. Not all transactions are successful. And, of course, the best transaction is when everyone gains.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Re your ending comments...

Strictly speaking, redemption is a transaction. Not all transactions are successful.

...truer words were never said. --- Redemption is a 'contract' of sorts; indeed it is a 'conditional' one: that *you* (generally speaking) will foreverhereafter ignore 'X' having been done by 'A', as long as 'A' shows trustworthiness re all which you value. ('Why' the contract/transaction was offered by you is a whole 'nother subject, of course, but not pertinent here.)

~ I think the subject of 'redemption' is itself worth its own thread; maybe I'll start it ('Ethics' sub-forum, maybe?)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ I have a B-I-G problem with your...mere assertion:

Anyone who preaches moral perfection has something shameful to hide.

~ Where'd you come up with THAT one? I mean, how many 'one's HAVE preached such in history? --- They say that one CAN be so, and this implies that they're 'hiding' something? Hmmm...

~ I've often thought otherwise...plus:

Anyone who preaches against moral perfection counts on the envious and guilt-ridden to accept them as a leader. --- Think of evangelists...as only one noteworthy and obvious group (then, of course, there's Toohey).

~ I think that 'light-bulb going off' (you really did mean 'on', right?) of yours was actually short-circuiting...and...really going 'off.'

~ I don't think you really want to be associated to the likes of Swaggert, Hinn, etc.

A 'Morally Perfect' Person

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 17, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Mike, ADDENDUM:

~ To buttress your assertion, you ask, clearly rhetorically-intended as an innuended explanation of the assertion:

Didn't even Rand have an affair with one she disapproved of that she hid from everyone all her life? I could go on...

~ Your innuendo that she had an affair with someone she was simultaneously disapproving of is really skirting 'smearing' here. Not nice.

~ Your insinuation that she (and ONLY *she* [!?]) did this hiding of it from everyone (until someone decided to write a book...after she died) is...a bit noticeably biased.

~ Your implication that 'everyone' (excluding those important to her, and relevent to the situation, who obviously already knew about it), like, her fans/detractors/National Enquirer/etc was owed the nuts and bolts of her intimate life with...whomever, whenever, for-ever...is silly on its face.

If you're going to put cement on her corpse's shoes...make sure it has sticky stuff in it. You (and a couple others, btw) seem to be trying to outdo William Buckley.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Please read my stuff in context. When I discussed moral perfection, I mentioned that it was possible to make morally perfect choices, one by one. This is because isolated things are easy to evaluate (true/false). The concept is meaningless to apply to a whole human life because it undermines the very concept of volition and the need for constant choices. (If you like, I can expound on that.)

Therefore, when I say to run from one who preaches moral perfection, I obviously mean the kind who says, "Do this (usually meaning, "join this group and obey us") and you will become morally perfect. Our way is the ONE TRUE WAY. Let us be YOUR GUIDING LIGHT." Blah, blah, blah.

Your observation about those who preach that people are morally imperfect is true, too. So run from them, too. Run fast. Notice that they also preach, "Our way is the ONE TRUE WAY. Let us be YOUR GUIDING LIGHT." But they really mean "join this group and obey us." Blah, blah, blah.

None of these people (on both sides of the issue) are interested in you thinking for yourself. They want you to obey them and they want power over you.

You see, my problem is that I don't like people controlling me, but I have an even deeper issue. I don't believe in Original Sin. If I have to do something I didn't do before to become a morally perfect person, that means I was born a morally defective, or morally imperfect, person. That's Original Sin from anyway you look at it. That's a stupid concept in Christianity and it's a stupid concept in Objectivism. At root, it is actually a perfect example of the stolen concept fallacy.

I stand by my comment about those who preach moral perfection (in the above context) having something to hide. Most everyone I have ever met who was a control freak or interested in power had something nasty to hide.

My comment about Rand also hiding something was not clear and I had to go back to the post and read the ones before it to remember what I was talking about. Here is a clearer version (and I do admit that my original statement was not my finest moment in terms of clarity).

"Didn't even Rand have an affair with a person she later disapproved of, but, after it was over and for the rest of her life, still hid that affair from everyone?"

My point was that she was ashamed of having had the affair after she broke with Nathaniel (among other emotions). Otherwise, there was no reason for such secrecy. That was a skeleton in her closet. (You must have heard the stories about her saying "He's not my type" when asked, and so forth.)

I didn't mean she simultaneously hid the affair while having it because she disapproved of Nathaniel, of course. When Rand had the affair, she was deeply in love with him and there is no reason to suppose otherwise. I believe she hid the affair at the time for PR reasons, but that is another story. Taking my statement to mean simultaneously and adding crap like "put cement on her corpse's shoes" was worthy of Valliant-speak. That's the kind of reasoning he does.

I think you're better than that.

But this does bring up an interesting point. Rand constantly nagged Nathaniel about his moral character. If you want proof, read her entries in PARC and try to ignore Valliant's yapping. You will see her constantly admit to this, talking about exploding, quarrels, telephone calls to clarify this or that, points she raised based on X premise and Y premise (like "big shot premise," for example), etc.

As a proponent of morally perfect people, doesn't this cause some dissonance in your mind? Rand, to you a morally perfect person, deeply loved and called her "highest value" someone she obviously thought (all along) was not morally perfect and needed constant nagging to become that way. There were so many "morally perfect" specimens all around her according to your standard, yet she did not love them. She loved the morally imperfect.

Is that something a morally perfect person would do over years? Or do you believe Rand was helpless against her feelings and was incapable of choosing her highest value? You either live with that contradiction (and blank it out if it bothers you like so many do) or chuck out the concept of judging people as morally perfect/imperfect and judge their thoughts/actions that way instead.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think Ayn Rand hid the affair so she could have the affair--and on her terms. I don't think she understood that this made it essentially a predator-prey relationship.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Ayn Rand hid the affair so she could have the affair--and on her terms. I don't think she understood that this made it essentially a predator-prey relationship.

Brant,

I agree with this. And I would call "on her terms" by another name. I would call it controlling others as regards the affair. Barbara and Nathaniel and Frank adored her, so it was easy to be in control with them. It would not be so easy to keep that control if outsiders started offering uninvited opinions, but planting seeds of doubt.

Michael

[UncleJim]

To achieve "moral perfection"; or any other goal, one must have a standard to compare it against. To achieve any goal and thereby experience the consequence resulting from its achievement one must actually do something based on what the standard is.

When one is acting in accordance with a particular standard, one is considered to be a properly functioning (i.e., a virtuous) human-being. The principles of ethics are derived by observing how a virtuous person acts. Ethics explains the proper actions of individuals. A properly acting individual performs those actions which naturally results in his remaining a properly acting individual. Fundamentally this requires that his actions support the continued existence of his life. This argument makes the continued existence of ones own life the standard of ethical behavior.

When two or more ethical persons engage one another, observation of how they act is recorded under the concept of morality. Morality describes those actions individuals engage in which (in some way) affect the proper existence of others while not threatening ones own existence. This argument makes the continued existence of ones own life the standard of moral behavior. Morality is the application of individual ethics to society.

Acting in reality; whether ethically or morally, produces natural consequences. The natural consequences of acting ethically are termed "selfish." The natural consequences of acting morally are termed "capitalistic."

The natural resultant of acting selfishly is called a benefit where the natural resultant of acting capitalistically is called profit. Profit is; then, the additional benefit one is able to enjoy by result of acting properly in a social setting.

The attainment of "moral perfection" is a goal set by the requirements of ones own life when one is functioning in a social setting. The measurement of how well ones actions address the requirements of ones own life is called - happiness. To be happy one must not only know that one exists but one must understand why.

Edited February 22, 2008 by UncleJim

[UncleJim]

Was Ayn Rand a moral actor? That is determined by the consequences of her actions on her own life. Not on the lives of those who she knew.

We all to easily design the resultants of our actions at the privilege of the desires of others. This is altruism.

Sure she fucked around. And she did so at the exclusion of the desire of her marriage partner and the marriage partner of her fuckee. Is this an example of an immoral act? Notice: That is determined by the affect of that act one her own life; not on the lives of those others (including the life of the fuckee).

She acted selfishly - but did she benefit from the results of those actions? Well..... Does she have children? No! Then; fundamentally, she failed at being a properly functioning human-being.