Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic by Leonard Peikoff

[Donovan A.]

I think it would be very interesting to compare and contrast Peikoff's lecture on: Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic to David Kelley's The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. I have not completed my study of Peikoff's lecture given in 1995, but take a look at the following quote:

“A man with an evil idea is not thereby evil (you have to write that down). Now there is such a thing as an evil idea, not just a mistaken idea which is one [an idea] that doesn't correspond to reality. But an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good. And I'll give you three [examples] right here: socialism, God and non-objective art. Socialism as an idea, is the enslavement and destruction of the producer (which means of the mind). God is the assault on every human concept and therefore [is] a direct assault on the mind. Non-objective art is an assault on all art and therefore on all human values. Those ideas are not merely wrong they are evil, as against and I could give you a whole list of ideas which are wrong but not inherently evil: hedonism, naturalism in art, Aristotle's theory of the golden mean. Materialism the way the ancient Atomists held it, now if materialism the way that B.F. Skinner holds it, where he is out annihilate consciousness and will and he calls his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity that is evil, because of all that he is trying to destroy. So if somebody is coming up with ideas that you disagree with, the first thing you have to do is decide, besides these ideas being false are they evil? And then, does the person holding the idea know the meaning and consequences of the idea. And if you don't know whether he knows, whats the simplest way of finding out? Ask him! Not only does he know? But ought he to know? Given his position in life and the actions he has taken.”

Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff, Lecture 1, Disc 2, Track 1 at 00:22

Edited July 24, 2009 by Donovan A.

[Donovan A.]

If you don't know whether he knows, whats the simplest way of finding out? Ask him! Not only does he know? But ought he to know? Given his position in life and the actions he has taken.

- Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff

To judge an action morally, we must consider motive as well as consequence. We must ask what goal the person was trying to pursue, and what connection he saw between his action and his goal, so that we can assess his rationality in choosing to act as he did...

The best way to avoid these hasty judgments is normally to ask the person.

- The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, David Kelley (p.25-26)

Edited July 24, 2009 by Donovan A.

[Barbara Branden]

Peikoff: "... an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good."

Can someone explain to me how the essence of an idea can be the act of destruction?

Barbara

[Donovan A.]

Peikoff: "... an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good."

Can someone explain to me how the essence of an idea can be the act of destruction?

Barbara

Hi Barbara,

For over the past two years I have been studying Objectivism using a historical approach, and keeping a lookout for any and all information that might be relevant to the Peikoff/Kelley dispute. I have noticed that some terms seem to be rather loosely defined, some words even equivocated.

This terminology seems to be highly problematic, especially if not clearly defined:

Good/Bad

Good/Evil

Thoughts/Actions

Emotion vs. Thought

Idea/ideas

Sanction/Existential Aid

One of the major attacks and accusation I have heard repeatedly against Kelley from ARI-Objectivists is that Kelley does not judge ideas morally, but only epistemologically. That by Kelley's theory, evil is sanctioned (morally approved of) and tolerated (accepted or not judged).

I find these quotes relevant and interesting:

“Thinking according to Objectivism is the process of identification. So you simply make it a little more specific by saying well what does thinking consist of. And if you think about thinking you'll see all that you can do when you think is essentially ask what is something. If you ask why did something happen, your asking what is the cause, what is the identity of the cause. If you ask where did it happen, you are asking what is the place, what is the identity of of the place. If you ask when, what is the identity of the time. If you ask how, what is the identify of the means, etc. So there is really only one question you can ask in the process of thinking and that is the question: what is it? In other words, the process of grasping identity is what thinking consists of and that's why Objectivism specifies it by saying thinking is a process of identification.”

- Introduction to Logic - Lecture 1 Disc 3 Track 2 at 10:34 - Leonard Peikoff

"Abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes—and . . . without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed."

- Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concepts.html

“The principle here is: you condemn morally only that which is volitional (assuming that you've done it wrong). It is pointless to condemn the automatic results. The emotion in this case is simply the automatic result of the premise. The thing that you have to focus on in terms of moral condemnation is the evasion (if such it was), the evasion which led to it. It is absolutely meaningless to focus on the automatic emotional result and say how bad it is. You have no choice about the result in that respect, what your choice lay in, the mental process which produced that result and that is what you judge one way or the other. The other aspect which is directly volitional and open to your moral appraisal is what action you take in regard to your emotion. Suppose you have a bad emotion of envy or jealously or hatred of someone that is unjustified and you don't act on it. [You] Try to identify what the cause is and so on, and uproot it, but you deliberately say I will not act on this. You are not subject to moral condemnation, because you are not acting on it. Morality applies to what is open to your choice. And action as we see is open to your choice. On the other hand, if you rush out in a frenzy of hostility and punch the guy in the face, then you are subject to moral condemnation. But then it's not the inner antagonism or hatred which is the root and the source, the object of the condemnation, it's the action that you willfully took on it. So, emotion as such is not the issue, you do not judge yourself by emotions, you don't condemn emotions.”

- Leonard Peikoff - The Philosophy of ObjectivismL: Lecture 4 Disc 2 Track 4 at 9:18

[Donovan A.]

This seems like a reasonable way to link ideas to moral evaluation:

"We can evaluate an idea by its effects—the actions it leads people to take—as measured by the standard of human life. And we can evaluate an idea by the mental actions that produced it, as measured by the standard of rationality. In either case, the value significance of the idea is a derivative property, which depends not only on the content of the idea but on the nature of the relevant action. And in either case, as I said, “the concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them.” It applies only in a derivative way to the ideas themselves." - CLAR, Kelley, p.40

In this respect, ideas most certainly can be evaluated as evil or good and as a matter of fact, I don't see another way of doing so. Ideas are not concepts without reference to reality. Ayn Rand named all kinds of ideas and even questions as immoral or dishonest, how did she perform this connection?

Edited July 25, 2009 by Donovan A.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Donovan,

I had forgotten what a vast oversimplification the "evil idea" thing is in the midst of a bunch of blah blah blah..

If you ever want to see a cognitive-normative alphabet soup, this one is a great example.

I swear, our court system has a better standard of epistemology than all this double-speak. A person who commits a murder is judged on intent and motive as part of it. But the action has to be present for any evil to be punished.

Even with hate speech, incitement of others to perform acts of violence is an act.

Just for clarification, intent is a projected goal (an intended outcome) plus the value such outcome has to the perpetrator. That is intent. If you want to call that an idea, I agree that there are evil ideas. There certainly are evil intentions.

You don't punish evil intentions without action, but you do keep a cautious eye on folks who convey evil intentions.

But an idea as identification? It is only correct or incorrect. It merely corresponds to reality, it does not, or it partially does.

You just quoted Rand as saying "abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes..." (my bold). "Incalculable number" is a hell of a lot of concretes. So does this mean that if you err some of those concretes but not others, even if you had to be selective on purpose for lack of time or some other reason, the idea is evil?

Gimmee a break! Man, what an oversimplification...

One person can use a correct identification for an evil intent. Another can use an incorrect identification that has unintended disastrous consequences. Wanting those consequences is evil, not simply making an incorrect identification.

This is why the punishment for involuntary manslaughter is much lighter than first degree murder in our legal system. Like I said, our courts understand the epistemology of evil with far greater clarity than the philosophy that should be it's linchpin.

What a mess!

(Sorry, the rant is not aimed at you...)

Michael

[Donovan A.]

Thanks Michael, I realize your rant is not directed at me. However, I do think it is interesting how crazy and hostile some Objectivists or Students of Objectivism can get over debating the topics that divided Peikoff and Kelley. As a general rule, reason does not, nor should it fear religion. Religion has good cause to fear reason. I will let people read into my implication without me saying it directly.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Donovan A.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a general rule, reason does not, nor should it fear religion. Religion has good cause to fear reason.

Donovan,

You obviously mean the people who practice each, not the personification. I make the distinction to qualify my next statement.

You are wise beyond your years.

I suspect you drive some of the fundamentalists (both for and against Rand) crazy.

Michael

[Donovan A.]

As a general rule, reason does not, nor should it fear religion. Religion has good cause to fear reason.

Donovan,

You obviously mean the people who practice each, not the personification. I make the distinction to qualify my next statement.

You are wise beyond your years.

I suspect you drive some of the fundamentalists (both for and against Rand) crazy.

Michael

Michael, only a few of them get the pleasure of being driven "crazy" by me. I usually clash with fundamentalists so quickly, it would be improper to call the often brief encounters and exchanges I have had with dogmatic individuals as driving them crazy. I am repeatedly humored at how individuals who are often so far from perfection, stamp their fist with demands for intolerance (for people). If I were convinced that I should be intolerant to the point where not a crumb of irrationality should be tolerated, then I'd have to walk away from the person who is stamping his fist, and I usually do!

Edited July 26, 2009 by Donovan A.

[Chris Grieb]

It is worth mentioning that this lecture by Peikoff was given in response to George Reisman and Edith Packer being expelled from ARI because of Edith Packer's criticisms of Michael Berliner. Peikoff's expulsion of these two individuals lead to the end of the Thomas Jefferson School. One of the chief proponents of the expulsion was Peter Schwartz who ran the other Objectivist conference.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Donovan A.]

I found that it is interesting to compare these two quotes:

“A man with an evil idea is not thereby evil (you have to write that down). Now there is such a thing as an evil idea, not just a mistaken idea which is one [an idea] that doesn't correspond to reality. But an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good. And I'll give you three [examples] right here: socialism, God and non-objective art. Socialism as an idea, is the enslavement and destruction of the producer (which means of the mind). God is the assault on every human concept and therefore [is] a direct assault on the mind. Non-objective art is an assault on all art and therefore on all human values. Those ideas are not merely wrong they are evil, as against and I could give you a whole list of ideas which are wrong but not inherently evil: hedonism, naturalism in art, Aristotle's theory of the golden mean. Materialism the way the ancient Atomists held it, now if materialism the way that B.F. Skinner holds it, where he is out annihilate consciousness and will and he calls his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity that is evil, because of all that he is trying to destroy. So if somebody is coming up with ideas that you disagree with, the first thing you have to do is decide, besides these ideas being false are they evil? And then, does the person holding the idea know the meaning and consequences of the idea. And if you don't know whether he knows, whats the simplest way of finding out? Ask him! Not only does he know? But ought he to know? Given his position in life and the actions he has taken.”

Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff, Lecture 1, Disc 2, Track 1 at 00:22

---------------

Q: You have written that the concept of God is morally evil, why?

"Ayn Rand: I didn’t say it was morally evil, not in those words. I said that it’s false. I said it’s a fantasy, it doesn’t exist. I would say religion can be very dangerous psycho-epistemologically. In regard to the working of a man’s mind. Faith is dangerous, because a man who permits himself to exempt some aspect of reality from reason, and to believe in a God, even though he knows he has no reason to believe in a God, there is no evidence of a God’s existence, that is the danger psychologically, that man is not going to be rational."

Ayn Rand Speaks for Herself Video Interview with James Day 1974 at 9:45

(Bold emphasis added by me)

Edited January 21, 2010 by Randall

[Roger Bissell]

Donovan,

I had forgotten what a vast oversimplification the "evil idea" thing is in the midst of a bunch of blah blah blah..

If you ever want to see a cognitive-normative alphabet soup, this one is a great example.

I swear, our court system has a better standard of epistemology than all this double-speak. A person who commits a murder is judged on intent and motive as part of it. But the action has to be present for any evil to be punished.

Even with hate speech, incitement of others to perform acts of violence is an act.

Just for clarification, intent is a projected goal (an intended outcome) plus the value such outcome has to the perpetrator. That is intent. If you want to call that an idea, I agree that there are evil ideas. There certainly are evil intentions.

You don't punish evil intentions without action, but you do keep a cautious eye on folks who convey evil intentions.

But an idea as identification? It is only correct or incorrect. It merely corresponds to reality, it does not, or it partially does.

You just quoted Rand as saying "abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes..." (my bold). "Incalculable number" is a hell of a lot of concretes. So does this mean that if you err some of those concretes but not others, even if you had to be selective on purpose for lack of time or some other reason, the idea is evil?

Gimmee a break! Man, what an oversimplification...

One person can use a correct identification for an evil intent. Another can use an incorrect identification that has unintended disastrous consequences. Wanting those consequences is evil, not simply making an incorrect identification.

This is why the punishment for involuntary manslaughter is much lighter than first degree murder in our legal system. Like I said, our courts understand the epistemology of evil with far greater clarity than the philosophy that should be it's linchpin.

What a mess!

(Sorry, the rant is not aimed at you...)

Michael

Michael & Donovan -- I agree with Michael's comments here. I wrote some on this a few years back, and it seems clear to me that an idea is like any other human product. It simply ~is~, apart from any consideration of its ~actual use~, and the person who comes up with it simply ~is~, apart from any ~actual intent~ he has for the idea.

A hammer can be used to smash a priceless vase that belongs to someone else -- or it can be used to drive a nail in building a house. Evil use -- good use.

A nuclear bomb can be used to slaughter thousands of innocent, defenseless people -- or it can be used to dig a channel for a canal that connects two larger waterways. Evil use -- good use.

The idea of "socialism" can be used to indoctrinate young people to embrace altruist-collectivism -- or it can be used as an example in a lecture to enlighten people as to the harmfulness of altruist-collectivism. Evil use -- good use.

I would go so far as to say that there is NO SUCH THING as an inherently (intrinsically) good OR evil human creation. Anything man creates -- objects, ideas, etc. -- is always "good ~to whom~ and ~for what~"?

So, although I am loathe to sling around the terms with the same abandon as those in higher places, I would say that Peikoff's argument from "Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic" flirts a bit with intrinsicism.

That said, his lecture -- actually, it's ~two~ lectures -- is WELL WORTH listening to and thinking about carefully. I especially like the second lecture, where he discusses how to think through reason-emotion clashes and to clarify your values and feelings. All Objectivists should study this.

Best to all,

REB

[9thdoctor]

But an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good. And I'll give you three [examples] right here: socialism, God and non-objective art.

Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic, Leonard Peikoff, Lecture 1, Disc 2, Track 1 at 00:22

Q: You have written that the concept of God is morally evil, why?

"Ayn Rand: I didn’t say it was morally evil, not in those words. I said that it’s false.

We’re exploring Islam in depth on other threads, and these side by side quotes call to mind problems in reading the Koran, where in one place it calls for universal peace and another says “death to all pagans” and such. You need to understand that the nasty bits had a historical context, the pagans had broken a peace treaty etc. and that the earlier guidance is the right one. Usually. We hope.

Peikoff peace be not upon him is not a rightly guided Caliph, I dare say.

BTW I haven’t seen the Day interview in a really long time, but I do remember there was a place in there where she totally blew one of her formulations, but I don’t even remember what the subject was. Satanic Verses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_verses

[9thdoctor]

I would go so far as to say that there is NO SUCH THING as an inherently (intrinsically) good OR evil human creation. Anything man creates -- objects, ideas, etc. -- is always "good ~to whom~ and ~for what~"?

Three words: Nazi gas chambers.

[Roger Bissell]

I would go so far as to say that there is NO SUCH THING as an inherently (intrinsically) good OR evil human creation. Anything man creates -- objects, ideas, etc. -- is always "good ~to whom~ and ~for what~"?

Three words: Nazi gas chambers.

Sorry, I should have said "good or evil ~to whom~ and ~for what~."

Anyway, let's start out with ~gas chambers~ in general, APART FROM SOME SPECIFIC USE BY SOME SPECIFIC PERSON. Otherwise, you're begging the question.

What about poison gas? Iraqi-wielded poison gas, of course, ~was~ evil, since it was used against defenseless, innocent people (the Kurds). Had they used it against an invading aggressor, it would have been used for good (i.e., for national self-defense.

Now, a gas chamber can be used in a number of ways. It can be used to kill innocent people -- or ~guilty~ people. Unless you object to capital punishment for murderers, you wouldn't particularly object to gas chambers being used for that purpose, would you?

For that matter, I can use "Nazi gas chambers" as an illustration of extreme evil in a political science lecture, and (hopefully) in so doing impress upon a roomful of otherwise bored students just how ghastly and monstrous the total state can be.

Yes, it would be better if the Nazis had never adapted the basic invention of the gas chamber to such a horrific extent, but then they'd have used ~some other~ human invention in an over-the-top way to dispose of the people they hated. Would that have made ~that~ invention evil?

REB

[Brant Gaede]

I would go so far as to say that there is NO SUCH THING as an inherently (intrinsically) good OR evil human creation. Anything man creates -- objects, ideas, etc. -- is always "good ~to whom~ and ~for what~"?

Three words: Nazi gas chambers.

Not if you put Nazis in them.

--Brant

just to scare the shit out of them

[9thdoctor]

Sorry, I should have said "good or evil ~to whom~ and ~for what~."

Fair enough.

Now, a gas chamber can be used in a number of ways. It can be used to kill innocent people -- or ~guilty~ people. Unless you object to capital punishment for murderers, you wouldn't particularly object to gas chambers being used for that purpose, would you?

The idea is that Nazi gas chambers could only have been for an evil purpose. I thought a good comeback would have been delousing clothes or something like that. Dry cleaning. Now your suggesting that such a tool for killing lots of defenseless people at once can have a good application, I disagree. I can’t imagine genocide on an industrial scale not being evil; maybe if there was some epidemic like we’ve never seen before? And the infected need to be…you know, and fast. I’m pretty imaginative, but I can’t get a good hypothetical to work. Hmm, but I just thought of the old Clint movie Hang 'em High, where they had a scene with several people being hanged at once. Not a pro-capital punishment movie.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

The idea is kind, not degree.

The kind is poison gas in an enclosed chamber. The degree is the scale you mentioned.

It's like nuclear energy, which can be used as a bomb or to light up a city. In terms of the nuclear energy per se (not the technology around it), that's basically a matter of degree. The nuclear energy qua kind is the same in both cases.

Michael

[Xray]

I would go so far as to say that there is NO SUCH THING as an inherently (intrinsically) good OR evil human creation. Anything man creates -- objects, ideas, etc. -- is always "good ~to whom~ and ~for what~"?

Example: A bucket of water is poured on a small fire. If the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to pupose.

If the intent was too cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result.

Leaving good of bad to be determined in respect of subjectively chosen end desired.

You say essentially the same thing. What does this do to Rand's idea of "good or evil?"

Edited January 23, 2010 by Xray