The Courtroom of One's Mind

[anthony]

It was one of those many "oh yes" instances in my early exposure to Ayn Rand that I read those words. It seemed to fit everything I'd ever felt about the self-authority of Individualism, and the sobering self- responsibility that goes with it.

So it wasn't surprising to discover that "justice" is one of the Objectivist virtues.

It took some years to work out for my own use a descending order (under justice) of 'benevolence', 'goodwill', simple respect,'fairplay' and even courtesy, as Sub-virtues, to be applied to others -- of course with rational consideration.

However, I have been experiencing some startling 'premise-checks' lately on another forum that I've been frequenting; I am beginning to wonder if I have got this right.

I have not exactly had the most welcoming response on that forum, but have found it invaluable in filling the gaps in my knowledge about O'ism.

But that's all by the way: this is not a gripe.;<)

What has struck me is that many O'ists do not share my benevolent respect premise.(All the more essential from one O'ist to another, I believe).

In a debate just recently on "Lies", when the orthodox, and correct, option of not saying anything, rather than lie, was given, I responded with the situation where it must also be morally correct NOT to be silent.

This scenario is when you have information that could prevent a personal injustice (to reputation, for instance) being done to someone else.

Here, I think one's own refusal to evade reality, one's integrity, but especially, one's respect for justice, require that you speak up - even at some personal cost. Anything else imo, is a sanction of untruth, and injustice. I made it clear that this would not be a sacrifice, but in fact an act of rational self-interest.

Now, my position was hotly contested by a few advanced Objectivists there, who came close to calling me an altruist!

It suddenly occurred to me that one of us has got the concept of justice very wrong. Do they see it as 'Justice' (big J, as in the LEGAL,individual-rights sense)? Am I alone in always viewing it in the MORAL, personal, sense, as I thought Rand meant it - surely, this is so?

Furthermore, have I stretched Objectivism too far by subsuming benevolence beneath the virtue of justice?

Whatever is morally right, if there is confusion and misinterpretation on justice, could this be the basis of the O'ist mainstream's decided lack of "goodwill to all men"?

Tony

[jeffrey smith]

In The Objectivist Ethics, Rand makes "justice" a synonym for rational self-interest. See the five paragraphs starting with "The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships..."

I also remember reading a second passage in which she specifically defines "justice" as giving every person what is due them (that is, what they have earned) and accepting only what is due to oneself (that is, what has been earned)--but I can't locate the passage at the moment.

By either reading, "justice" is definitely an ethical principle, without reference to legalities, and one tied intimately to individual action, not anything social or communal.

Jeffrey S.

[Philip Coates]

> one's respect for justice, require that you speak up - even at some personal cost. Anything else imo, is a sanction of untruth, and injustice. I made it clear that this would not be a sacrifice, but in fact an act of rational self-interest.

Now, my position was hotly contested by a few advanced Objectivists there, who came close to calling me an altruist!

Tony, I don't know the details, but as a general principle one fights for justice, praises what is worthy of admiration, no matter how alone one is. And to not do so is to be altruistic because it is not being true to yourself and not affirming reality.

One word of warning: an "objectivist list" is no guarantee of anything. The woods are full of blowhards who have no more understanding of Objectivism than they do of brain surgery. But they sure can string together a lot of impressive sounding words.

[Selene]

Tony:

I think that specifics are required.

"...I responded with the situation where it must also be morally correct NOT to be silent." If I overhear persons planning to kidnap a child and I remain quiet, that is aiding and abetting an injustice to me, but I think you are suggesting making the silence decision on much more subtle issues.

Is that close to what you meant, or can you give a specific scenario.

Very interesting issue. Also, an issue that is not expressed well by dogmatic Objectivists which clashes in my semantic at so many levels is the one you are raising.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Furthermore, have I stretched Objectivism too far by subsuming benevolence beneath the virtue of justice?

Whatever is morally right, if there is confusion and misinterpretation on justice, could this be the basis of the O'ist mainstream's decided lack of "goodwill to all men"?

Tony

Do you believe good will is due to all men (i.e. all human beings) or just some?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

It suddenly occurred to me that one of us has got the concept of justice very wrong. Do they see it as 'Justice' (big J, as in the LEGAL,individual-rights sense)? Am I alone in always viewing it in the MORAL, personal, sense, as I thought Rand meant it - surely, this is so?

Furthermore, have I stretched Objectivism too far by subsuming benevolence beneath the virtue of justice?

Whatever is morally right, if there is confusion and misinterpretation on justice, could this be the basis of the O'ist mainstream's decided lack of "goodwill to all men"?

Tony

Tony -

You are thinking for yourself, independently. If you have a firm grasp on this, you have grasped one of the most important things, a thing many self-styled "advanced Objectivists" ceased to do long ago.

Nurture that flame. Don't let anybody blow it out or make you dim it.

Regards,

Bill P

[anthony]

I'm not going to get away with any guarded reply here, I see; so let me try to dig deeper.

Long pre-dating Rand, I had a sense of 'individualism' - in an unfocused way - that was still keenly aware of the separateness, or singularity, rightfully, of each human being.

At the same time, I developed a personal sense of a 'morality' which was based upon my independence. But then there was the matter of the damned empathy I felt for others - all those who had not developed as I had,(a touch of arrogance, perhaps?) whose vulnerability to pain and hurt was so obvious. Where to draw the line, was the burning question.

This bundle of contradictions then ran into the solidity of Ayn Rand. She rescued me from my subjectivism, and any duty I was beginning to feel for 'others'. She lent substance to my half-assed Individualism. She gave me licence to judge. And showed that morality is mine, for me alone. (And much more.)

Except... well, there was something not fully explained. Something I wished she'd spent mote time on, made more explicit. I'm old enough now,to understand where she 'was coming from', and more crucially, what she was up against - what she could so clearly see, that no one else could. And, geez, how much can even a genius accomplish in one lifetime?

Even then, there is the matter of other people; what do we do with them? Yes, I am fully aware now of what we can't and shouldn't do with them. This she spent a lot of time explaining. (In a way, I am grateful that she left space for one's own thinking here.)

But still, in Rand's absolute adherence to Reality, the fact remains that other people ARE Reality :- at times, "hell is other people", sometimes frustration and disappointment is other people, and occasionally, the greatest rewards and fullfilment, are other people, too.

Certainly, she voiced strong and definite views on Love, and on respect.

The majority of people seem to fall somewhere outside of, or at times between, those two concepts, however.And so much of the time, they are such a mixed bag of cotradictions.

All I was left with to cover this base, is that Ayn Rand considered 'justice', to be a virtue. By which, and by extension, I went on to a whole raft of things of my own : Judge others continually, but don't rush too eagerly to an unfavourable conclusion; conversely, speedily give credit where it's due; confront injustice and dishonesty,openly; apply a constant, basic level of respect and goodwill to all others - until I learn more, and can adjust it up, or down; "do unto others...",(and as a corollary, try to insist on being done by, as I would do);- and plenty more in this vein - all falling, I thought, under justice.

What can I say further, except that it works (for me).

So. I began by trying to supply some background, and ended up with an autobiography! Please pardon my self-indulgence. I have been known to run away with my thinking at times.

Jeffrey and Philip supplied some evidence from Rand, plus some personal observations, for which I am grateful.

Adam requested some specifics on the question of Silence/Lying and justice; definitely some context in this area is called for. But first, do you believe, Adam,is this rational,that a lie can be by commission, or by omission? Is witholding the truth as 'good' as lying? I don't know the O'ist position on this, but I've always thought so.

Now, if, as it seems to me, that the area of justice is the one part of Ayn Rand's philosophy that applies morality to other people, and on occasions,to the benefit of them - if this is so - then does it not follow that it should be rigorously upheld? UP TO the point of it constituting a personal sacrifice, only, and of course.

The examples are always around us. Often they aren't too dramatic, and isn't that life?!Roughly, I can break them in to three categories: A> standing up for a vulnerable person in the face of a bully of any sort B> defending the good for being the good in the face of irrational, uninformed, detractors, although silence may be the pragmatic option (e.g.,this could be promoting and upholding those so-called "traitors to O'ism" on other forums) C> Having information, and speaking up, that could prevent an injustice; say, a co-worker from being fired.

Well, goes to show guys, don't ask me any simple questions, or you'll get a mouthful in return!!

Thanks,

Tony

[9thdoctor]

the damned empathy I felt for others

Are you sure that's not just benevolence? The way you phrase it sounds like something the GQ reviewer would write.

a lie can be by commission, or by omission? Is witholding the truth as 'good' as lying? I don't know the O'ist position on this, but I've always thought so.

In the 1976 Peikoff course a similar question was asked, and Peikoff started to answer it, and Rand called out that he was wrong, and went up later and gave her answer. A memorable moment. Her example was a witness in a criminal trial not disclosing something exculpatory, I don’t remember Peikoff’s example, but his answer was fine given the context he applied it to. I don’t remember which lecture it was, its been a long time since I took that course.

[Selene]

Adam requested some specifics on the question of Silence/Lying and justice; definitely some context in this area is called for. But first, do you believe, Adam,is this rational,that a lie can be by commission, or by omission? Is withholding the truth as 'good' as lying?

I don't know the O'ist position on this

Now, if, as it seems to me, that the area of justice is the one part of Ayn Rand's philosophy that applies morality to other people, and on occasions,to the benefit of them - if this is so - then does it not follow that it should be rigorously upheld? UP TO the point of it constituting a personal sacrifice, only, and of course.

The examples are always around us. Often they aren't too dramatic, and isn't that life?!Roughly, I can break them in to three categories: A> standing up for a vulnerable person in the face of a bully of any sort B> defending the good for being the good in the face of irrational, uninformed, detractors, although silence may be the pragmatic option (e.g.,this could be promoting and upholding those so-called "traitors to O'ism" on other forums) C> Having information, and speaking up, that could prevent an injustice; say, a co-worker from being fired.

Well, goes to show guys, don't ask me any simple questions, or you'll get a mouthful in return!!

Thanks,

Tony

Tony: I think this is an excellent question/issue. Additionally, I have never spoken for the Oist position, nor would I choose too. My answer to your question is that yes a lie can be by omission.

You are an asset to this forum. Well stated post. More later.

Adam

[Christopher]

I like your approach to considerations of truth and the benevolence principle. This really comes down to values in the end.

Values are rather abstract representations of concretes: life, justice, honesty, etc. This is an important consideration. Concretes as values can be construed as situational (I am the value, not you) and are therefore less representational of universal values. Rand did not condone situational values/ethics.

Objectivism is founded on the premise that man's life is the utmost value, with one's own life as the primary responsibility to upholding that value. But one's own life is an expression of a value, it is not the value in Objectivism. Objectivism does not condone upholding one's life at the cost of others. In the same way, it would be inappropriate to uphold another's life at the cost of one's own.

I think that it is very logical to uphold human life by causing yourself some pain/discomfort to save another person (say, from kidnapping). This is not sacrifice since you are actively choosing to uphold human life. If you do not take action, you could not be said to be upholding human life. Perhaps you are upholding your own desire to avoid a little pain or gain a little pleasure, ... but this has nothing to do with universal values per se, this is merely situational ethics.

[anthony]

Thanks for your encouraging comments, gentlemen.

I pulled out my dusty, but valued copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which I should have done before winging it on memory and instinct alone), and found this:

'Since men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and morally, a RATIONAL man regards strangers as innocent until proven guilty, and grants them that initial good will in the name of their human potential...

If he finds them guilty of MAJOR evils, his good will is replaced by contempt and moral condemnation...

If he finds them to be virtuous, he grants them personal, individual value and appreciation, in proportion to their virtues.' [caps mine]

So in the unequivocal words of Ayn Rand, I firstly have to query the source of judgement

i.e., the 'level' of rationality of the judge (and undoubtedly mine is not in the same class or consistency as a Rand's (!), and I won't begin to speak for any other O'ist).

Secondly, and even more importantly, I have to query the object of my judgement, and how MAJOR his or her evil is.

Therefore, I will hold onto goodwill a little bit longer, every time.

To be both Judge and jury, in the courtroom of one's mind, is not a job for children, I believe.

Tony

[Selene]

Tony:

Very interesting quote. I had forgotten that she qualified the tabla rasa axiom with cognitive and morally. That is a very important qualification.

"...the 'level' of rationality of the judge (and undoubtedly mine is not in the same class or consistency as a Rand's...)". This is an unwarranted assumption.

Adam

[RightJungle]

I like your approach to considerations of truth and the benevolence principle. This really comes down to values in the end.

Values are rather abstract representations of concretes: life, justice, honesty, etc. This is an important consideration. Concretes as values can be construed as situational (I am the value, not you) and are therefore less representational of universal values. Rand did not condone situational values/ethics.

Objectivism is founded on the premise that man's life is the utmost value, with one's own life as the primary responsibility to upholding that value. But one's own life is an expression of a value, it is not the value in Objectivism. Objectivism does not condone upholding one's life at the cost of others. In the same way, it would be inappropriate to uphold another's life at the cost of one's own.

I think that it is very logical to uphold human life by causing yourself some pain/discomfort to save another person (say, from kidnapping). This is not sacrifice since you are actively choosing to uphold human life. If you do not take action, you could not be said to be upholding human life. Perhaps you are upholding your own desire to avoid a little pain or gain a little pleasure, ... but this has nothing to do with universal values per se, this is merely situational ethics.

Christopher, it goes like this. Man's life is the standard, your life is the value.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Mary Lee Harsha

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher, it goes like this. Man's life is the standard, your life is the value.

Mary,

That is very well said.

There are some issues I ponder a lot, like the parts missing in such a simple way of putting it, but there is great beauty in simplicity when it can capture the essence of Rand's philosophy (and mine, too) so clearly.

I like your statement a lot.

Michael

[Christopher]

Yes, that is a more accurate statement. With life as the standard of values, the rest of my assertions should still hold. Essentially, to undermine the life of another is to undermine the standard of value, which then undermines the foundation upon which one's own values remain justified.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Tony: "one's respect for justice, require that you speak up - even at some personal cost"

Jeffrey: "justice is definitely an ethical principle, without reference to legalities"

Philip: "as a general principle one fights for justice ... no matter how alone one is"

Mary Lee: "man's life is the standard"

Cristopher: "to undermine the life of another is to undermine the standard of value"

I took myself out for a drink last night. Sat at a lonely table, listened to the jukebox, drummed my fingers and waited to hear the truth of my life. It wasn't hard to find. Twenty years! (not counting 34 in preparation) -- twenty years of struggling to be heard and steadfastly, absolutely ignored.

Tony, I spoke up and did time for it. You haven't, so shut up.

Jeffrey, justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty.

Philip, verbal defense of liberty is not justice

Mary Lee, women and children first

Cristopher, when seconds count, police are only minutes away

Party on, people. Wolf DeVoon is dying.

I have no one to write my obituary, and it hurts in a way you cannot fathom.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

That sounds serious.

What's happening?

I care.

I mean it.

Michael

[Selene]

Wolf,

That sounds serious.

What's happening?

I care.

I mean it.

Michael

Wolf:

Two ears no waiting. I do not know you as well as Michael, but your statement concerned me.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Wolf,

That sounds serious.

What's happening?

I care.

I mean it.

Michael

Wolf:

Two ears no waiting. I do not know you as well as Michael, but your statement concerned me.

Adam

Wolf -

Seriously - what's happening?

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

This is nothing to joke about. Tell us what's the problem.

[Alfonso Jones]

Has anyone heard back from Wolf Devoon? I've messaged him, and received no response.

Worrisome.

Bill P

[jeffrey smith]

Party on, people. Wolf DeVoon is dying.

I have no one to write my obituary, and it hurts in a way you cannot fathom.

How do you know no one will? Keats thought his name was writ on water.

But if it concerns you, write it yourself.

In the end, the only person whose opinion of you matters is yourself.

But remember that you are among friends here, who are concerned for you, so speak up, man!

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

Could the person who sent me a message on this topic please resend? The first attempt got caught in the spam filter, and I only noticed that there was one message not trying to sell me Viagra when it was too late to recover the message

Apologies and TIA

Jeffrey S.

[Donovan A.]

the damned empathy I felt for others

Are you sure that's not just benevolence? The way you phrase it sounds like something the GQ reviewer would write.

a lie can be by commission, or by omission? Is witholding the truth as 'good' as lying? I don't know the O'ist position on this, but I've always thought so.

In the 1976 Peikoff course a similar question was asked, and Peikoff started to answer it, and Rand called out that he was wrong, and went up later and gave her answer. A memorable moment. Her example was a witness in a criminal trial not disclosing something exculpatory, I don’t remember Peikoff’s example, but his answer was fine given the context he applied it to. I don’t remember which lecture it was, its been a long time since I took that course.

We just recently listened to this Q&A, here in Dallas. I know it is in Vol. 2 of the CD set. I can try to find it if you like. Rand did eventually state that Peikoff was right, but that she had interpreted the question differently than he had. I recall Rand stating that a person is obligated to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth; but, I believe this was in a contexts pertaining to justice, such as a trial as opposed to snoopers, which is what I believe Peikoff was thinking. I would have to revisit the Q&A to be certain.