Moral Certainty

[dan2100]

George, after years on the Internet and interacting with people via email, snailmail, and face-to-face regarding Rand and Objectivism, I'm frankly not surprised when someone is unfamiliar with some fairly or even extremely obvious aspect of Rand's thought or of Objectivism. I'm also frankly not surprised when people don't read her works or other important works by Objectivists -- not to mention journal articles and more obscure tracts. It's seems the nature of most people -- and I'm not excluding myself here -- to hold strong opinions without doing the required reading or other research. (In fact, online, the usual tack critics of Rand and Objectivism take is that they were in some online forum with someone claiming to be an Objectivist. This is akin to claiming to be a Proust expert not because you actually read and studied Proust's work and some of the relevant scholarship around him, but because you got into a mud-slinging match with someone online who claimed to have read some Proust back in college.)

I understand your point. But one of Xray's favorite topics is the supposed inadequacy of Rand's approach to values. Xray's profile indicates that she has subscribed to OL for over a year, so I assume she has been voicing her objections to Rand's theory of value for most of that time.

Now, if I were to join a website devoted to Proust, I would make a point of educating myself about his writings and ideas. I certainly wouldn't spend a year harping on a single point about Proust without first making damned sure that I knew what I'm talking about.

Yes, that's you. That's not many other people. Many other people I've run into will make it a point to hold an opinion and argue about it without ever having done even a minimal search through source material -- much less the scholarly literature and other background material. This goes, too, for people who might subscribe to a site or group for years. One example here -- aside from one you're surprised about comes to mind. Think of someone, who won't be named, who seems to believe he knows all there is to know about anarchism and yet won't even bother -- in fact, seems adamantly against! -- reading actual works on anarchism by anarchists, such as Rothbard.

This is not just a hypothetical for me. Around 18 months ago, I joined the Yahoo site JazzWestCoast. This list has an impressive number of professional jazz critics and historians (many members have written books) and professional musicians (including arrangers and composers), some of whom have been active since the 1950s. Thus, although I had been a jazz buff since my high school days, I realized that I was a novice by JWC standards.

The knowledge that I was in the company of people who knew a lot more than I did generated an appropriate modesty. Although JWC has its share of arguments, for the first year I restricted myself pretty much to asking questions and seeking advice about what I should listen to and what I should read on the history of jazz. And I did a lot of reading during that year -- at least 25 books on jazz and its history.

Within the last six months I got a sense of confidence, based on the previous year of self-education, that motivated me to participate more actively in the debates. And now, when I do join in, I am treated with respect, even when more knowledgeable members disagree with me. And I earned that respect.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that an OL newbie should wait a year before actively participating in debates; jazz is a much broader subject than Objectivism, for one thing. But the basic principle applies in both cases. Xray's ignorance of Rand's distinction between intrinsic, subjective, and objective values is comparable to someone posting on JWC that he doesn't like the way Johnny Hodges played lead trumpet for Count Basie's Band, when in fact Hodges played alto sax for Duke Ellington's Band._

Ghs

You have very high expectations for the rest of your species. Also, this particular case you mention (I mean the subscriber here on this site) is notable for spewing basically ignorant remarks. Why do you expect this to change? If someone already starts out holding very strong opinions yet reveals an dogged ignorance of the topic at hand and has been resistant, over the course of months, why do you expect that person to suddenly change? Recall the passage from Revelation: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still..." I believe it applies here.

[George H. Smith]

Yes, that's you. That's not many other people. Many other people I've run into will make it a point to hold an opinion and argue about it without ever having done even a minimal search through source material -- much less the scholarly literature and other background material. This goes, too, for people who might subscribe to a site or group for years. One example here -- aside from one you're surprised about comes to mind. Think of someone, who won't be named, who seems to believe he knows all there is to know about anarchism and yet won't even bother -- in fact, seems adamantly against! -- reading actual works on anarchism by anarchists, such as Rothbard....

You have very high expectations for the rest of your species.

My expectations for most people are very low, but I do tend to have high expectations for people who express an interest in ideas. This probably has a lot to do with my personal background.

As I have mentioned before, my discovery of Rand during my high school years was a liberating experience for me. It broadened my interest in ideas, which had previously been confined to freethought literature, and started me on a philosophical quest.

The great thing about Rand's concise exposition of philosophical views (most of which I agreed with) was that it worked as a philosophical compass in the wilderness of philosophy, guiding me to other philosophers who were in basic agreement with her. In UA philosophy courses, I often wrote papers that quoted or cited Rand, and, unlike many horror stories I have heard, I never had a problem with any of them. No professor ever upbraided me for citing Rand, because I always included her in the company of other, more respectable philosophers who were arguing the same point, and I never placed undue emphasis on Rand over those others. I treated her as one among many philosophers, not as some philosophic savior, and I never got anything less than an A on any paper I wrote that mentioned her. Not even so much as one negative comment, not even in graduate classes.

Now flash forward to the early 1970s, while I was living in the same Hollywood apartment building (while writing ATCAG) as Roy Childs. Roy shared my attitude, and we spent countless hours in bookstores and libraries rummaging around for books on philosophy that presented ideas similar to Rand's. (I can't count the number of hours we spent in the Hoose Library at USC, one of the finest philosophy collections in the world. I vividly recall the time that Roy brought over a volume by Suarez, the 16th century Spanish Jesuit, and excitedly pointed to a passage that sounded like something Rand would say.)

Roy and I were not Randroids looking to vindicate Rand at all costs; far from it. But we both used Rand as a gateway to the writings of other philosophers, mainly Aristotelians and Thomists, that we otherwise might know nothing about. Indeed, Roy had a decent collection of Thomistic writings, including some excellent volumes from the Stonyhurst Philosophical Series (early 20th century), and I purchased many of those books from Roy when he was cutting back for a move to New York.

In other areas, I have done similar things with friends, such as the late Ken Gregg, so I tend to assume that this exploratory attitude is typical of people interested in ideas, including active posters on OL. For example, I will often begin a thread or argue a point into the ground because it stimulates my reading in a given area. I will almost never engage in a lengthy exchange on a substantial topic without doing a good deal of reading along the way. I have probably consulted 30 different books, for example, just for the debate on the Rand/Kant thread. I do this partly to avoid errors, but also because it gives me a motive (and an excuse) to reread parts of books that I haven't looked at in years.

My practice in this regard may account for my impatience when I feel that another person is throwing ideas off the top of his her or head, without investing any real mental labor. And it is certainly a mistake, if a habitual one, for me to assume that everyone else on an O'ist list takes ideas as seriously as I do.

Ghs

[dan2100]

Yes, that's you. That's not many other people. Many other people I've run into will make it a point to hold an opinion and argue about it without ever having done even a minimal search through source material -- much less the scholarly literature and other background material. This goes, too, for people who might subscribe to a site or group for years. One example here -- aside from one you're surprised about comes to mind. Think of someone, who won't be named, who seems to believe he knows all there is to know about anarchism and yet won't even bother -- in fact, seems adamantly against! -- reading actual works on anarchism by anarchists, such as Rothbard....

You have very high expectations for the rest of your species.

My expectations for most people are very low, but I do tend to have high expectations for people who express an interest in ideas. This probably has a lot to do with my personal background.

As I have mentioned before, my discovery of Rand during my high school years was a liberating experience for me. It broadened my interest in ideas, which had previously been confined to freethought literature, and started me on a philosophical quest.

The great thing about Rand's concise exposition of philosophical views (most of which I agreed with) was that it worked as a philosophical compass in the wilderness of philosophy, guiding me to other philosophers who were in basic agreement with her. In UA philosophy courses, I often wrote papers that quoted or cited Rand, and, unlike many horror stories I have heard, I never had a problem with any of them. No professor ever upbraided me for citing Rand, because I always included her in the company of other, more respectable philosophers who were arguing the same point, and I never placed undue emphasis on Rand over those others. I treated her as one among many philosophers, not as some philosophic savior, and I never got anything less than an A on any paper I wrote that mentioned her. Not even so much as one negative comment, not even in graduate classes.

Now flash forward to the early 1970s, while I was living in the same Hollywood apartment building (while writing ATCAG) as Roy Childs. Roy shared my attitude, and we spent countless hours in bookstores and libraries rummaging around for books on philosophy that presented ideas similar to Rand's. (I can't count the number of hours we spent in the Hoose Library at USC, one of the finest philosophy collections in the world. I vividly recall the time that Roy brought over a volume by Suarez, the 16th century Spanish Jesuit, and excitedly pointed to a passage that sounded like something Rand would say.)

Roy and I were not Randroids looking to vindicate Rand at all costs; far from it. But we both used Rand as a gateway to the writings of other philosophers, mainly Aristotelians and Thomists, that we otherwise might know nothing about. Indeed, Roy had a decent collection of Thomistic writings, including some excellent volumes from the Stonyhurst Philosophical Series (early 20th century), and I purchased many of those books from Roy when he was cutting back for a move to New York.

In other areas, I have done similar things with friends, such as the late Ken Gregg, so I tend to assume that this exploratory attitude is typical of people interested in ideas, including active posters on OL. For example, I will often begin a thread or argue a point into the ground because it stimulates my reading in a given area. I will almost never engage in a lengthy exchange on a substantial topic without doing a good deal of reading along the way. I have probably consulted 30 different books, for example, just for the debate on the Rand/Kant thread. I do this partly to avoid errors, but also because it gives me a motive (and an excuse) to reread parts of books that I haven't looked at in years.

My practice in this regard may account for my impatience when I feel that another person is throwing ideas off the top of his her or head, without investing any real mental labor. And it is certainly a mistake, if a habitual one, for me to assume that everyone else on an O'ist list takes ideas as seriously as I do.

Ghs

But you do recall the many others you've run into online -- e.g., EM -- who seem to be interested in ideas, but this interest doesn't get in the way of remaining basically ignorant of those very same ideas, no?

I think your last paragraph should perhaps reveal why many people don't seem to put much if any effort in here: the required investment of "real mental labor." Much easier to just spew an opinion off and be contrary without substance. For those with a bit more conscience, perhaps, there's the tiny amount of effort of quoting a favored point of view. (Recall a certain poster here who merely vomits up quotes on anarchism and other topics without any attempt at analysis.) Think of most areas of life. Almost everyone, it seems, wants the effect without the cause -- or the result without the work. Much easier to wear loose clothes than to work out at a gym and not skip dessert.

What's perhaps more interesting is why such people would want to get into discussions with those who actual do the work (again, I make no claims to be among the latter). After all, if I know I can't play violin like a virtuoso -- and this is quite easy to determine, at my level of skill, I think -- I don't try to get on stage at Carnegie to make a fool out of myself.

Then again, there have been many reports I've read about over the last decade that people who are incompetent are mostly blind to their incompetence. This is along the lines of people who think they're above average drivers, workers, golfers, and the like actually below average. I think the usual conclusion here is incompetents are not just bad at what they do, but bad at judging what they do. (This makes sense to me. If you actually were aware of the low quality of your ability at something, you might try to improve your skills.)

[Brant Gaede]

Then again, there have been many reports I've read about over the last decade that people who are incompetent are mostly blind to their incompetence. This is along the lines of people who think they're above average drivers, workers, golfers, and the like actually below average. I think the usual conclusion here is incompetents are not just bad at what they do, but bad at judging what they do. (This makes sense to me. If you actually were aware of the low quality of your ability at something, you might try to improve your skills.)

Well, I was an above average driver but not as good as I thought. While driving an 18-wheeler for 27 straight months (1999-2003) and 400,000 miles I realized my skills weren't all that great after all. Now I'm way above average and to take it to the next level I'd have to take some high speed and evasive driving courses. I have a 57 Ford Fairlane I want to drop a bad-ass V-8 into plus some other goodies to make it safe on a course (heh, heh--right--"on a course") at 140mph. This is the 2-dr sedan model Robt Mitchum drove in Thunder Road. What you couldn't see in the movie was the re-enforced front bumper and steel roll cage. The stunt driver actually rolled it when the rear tire hit a crack in the asphalt doing the 180 degree turn on a straight-away. He walked away. He was the one who had specced the roll cage. I used to own the very same look-a-like hardtop before I went to Vietnam. In 1965 I drove that sucker on a curving state highway north of San Antonio and got it up to 115 on the speedo still accelerating when I chickened out. I figured one of my bias tires would blow. It had a small V-8 and a four-holler. When you stomped down on the pedal at say 30 mph you could feel the two extra barrels kick in.

--Brant

one more run; then I'm done

Let me tell the story

Let me tell it all

About the mountain boy

Who ran illegal alcohol

With T-men on his tail-lights

And roadblocks up ahead

The mountain boy took roads

That even angels feared to tread

And there was thunder, thunder

Over Thunder Road

Thunder was his engine

And white lightning was his load

There was moonshine, moonshine

To quench the devil's thirst

The law they swore they'd get him

But the devil got him first!

Edited May 18, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

But you do recall the many others you've run into online -- e.g., EM -- who seem to be interested in ideas, but this interest doesn't get in the way of remaining basically ignorant of those very same ideas, no?

The late EM (on Old Atlantis) was a very interesting case. She had read a lot of Rand and was, I believe, writing a book or monograph about Rand's theory of knowledge, but she had the oddest interpretations I've ever seen. In support of her views, she would sometimes quote passages from ITOE that didn't support her interpretation at all, indeed, that sometimes said the exact opposite.

EM didn't strike me as an unintelligent person, but how she arrived at her eccentric interpretations of Rand, based on having actually read her first hand, still mystifies me. True, I've seen unusual interpretations of Rand from other people, but those were usually limited to one or two points.

With EM it was different; many of her interpretations were odd -- not odd in a manner unflattering to Rand, but odd in a way that you would never expect. It was as if EM had books written by a Bizarro version of Rand, or copies of Rand's books that had passed through another dimension before reaching her.

I sometimes wonder if EM's brain was hard-wired differently than "normal" people.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

one more run; then I'm done

Let me tell the story

Let me tell it all

About the mountain boy

Who ran illegal alcohol

With T-men on his tail-lights

And roadblocks up ahead

The mountain boy took roads

That even angels feared to tread

And there was thunder, thunder

Over Thunder Road

Thunder was his engine

And white lightning was his load

There was moonshine, moonshine

To quench the devil's thirst

The law they swore they'd get him

But the devil got him first!

This tune, "Black Denim Trousers and Motorcycle Boots" (The Cheers, 1955), is one of my favorites from the 1950s.

Ghs

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KU1y3fQnY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KU1y3fQnY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KU1y3fQnY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[dan2100]

But you do recall the many others you've run into online -- e.g., EM -- who seem to be interested in ideas, but this interest doesn't get in the way of remaining basically ignorant of those very same ideas, no?

The late EM (on Old Atlantis) was a very interesting case. She had read a lot of Rand and was, I believe, writing a book or monograph about Rand's theory of knowledge, but she had the oddest interpretations I've ever seen. In support of her views, she would sometimes quote passages from ITOE that didn't support her interpretation at all, indeed, that sometimes said the exact opposite.

EM didn't strike me as an unintelligent person, but how she arrived at her eccentric interpretations of Rand, based on having actually read her first hand, still mystifies me. True, I've seen unusual interpretations of Rand from other people, but those were usually limited to one or two points.

With EM it was different; many of her interpretations were odd -- not odd in a manner unflattering to Rand, but odd in a way that you would never expect. It was as if EM had books written by a Bizarro version of Rand, or copies of Rand's books that had passed through another dimension before reaching her.

I sometimes wonder if EM's brain was hard-wired differently than "normal" people.

Ghs

My problem with EM, though, was not her odd interpretations. After all, odd interpretations are often interesting -- even if they're, perhaps just as often, wrong. It was her intellectual dishonesty that bothered me. An example of this that I recall was her definition of "Man." She wouldn't admit that Rand's definition was "rational animal" -- even though Rand explicitly stated this and others and myself provided textual support for this.

[George H. Smith]

But you do recall the many others you've run into online -- e.g., EM -- who seem to be interested in ideas, but this interest doesn't get in the way of remaining basically ignorant of those very same ideas, no?

The late EM (on Old Atlantis) was a very interesting case. She had read a lot of Rand and was, I believe, writing a book or monograph about Rand's theory of knowledge, but she had the oddest interpretations I've ever seen. In support of her views, she would sometimes quote passages from ITOE that didn't support her interpretation at all, indeed, that sometimes said the exact opposite.

EM didn't strike me as an unintelligent person, but how she arrived at her eccentric interpretations of Rand, based on having actually read her first hand, still mystifies me. True, I've seen unusual interpretations of Rand from other people, but those were usually limited to one or two points.

With EM it was different; many of her interpretations were odd -- not odd in a manner unflattering to Rand, but odd in a way that you would never expect. It was as if EM had books written by a Bizarro version of Rand, or copies of Rand's books that had passed through another dimension before reaching her.

I sometimes wonder if EM's brain was hard-wired differently than "normal" people.

Ghs

My problem with EM, though, was not her odd interpretations. After all, odd interpretations are often interesting -- even if they're, perhaps just as often, wrong. It was her intellectual dishonesty that bothered me. An example of this that I recall was her definition of "Man." She wouldn't admit that Rand's definition was "rational animal" -- even though Rand explicitly stated this and others and myself provided textual support for this.

Yeah, EM never let a clear and explicit text stand in the way of her interpretations.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Who in Atlas "had the power of certainty"?

Anyone who used their minds were certain about their behavior in those areas where they used them. Guilt caused some people to stop their minds in certain situations though, like Reardan with his family

You mean certain within the limits of one's knowledge and ability to draw logical conclusions. As opposed to absolute certainty (good luck, finding that). I spend half my life making mistakes and the other half correcting them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Who in Atlas "had the power of certainty"?

Anyone who used their minds were certain about their behavior in those areas where they used them. Guilt caused some people to stop their minds in certain situations though, like Reardan with his family

You mean certain within the limits of one's knowledge and ability to draw logical conclusions. As opposed to absolute certainty (good luck, finding that). I spend half my life making mistakes and the other half correcting them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yup, know that feeling. Thing is, without something to aim for (like moral certainty), I'd really be in trouble!

Tony

[Xray]

Dan Ust: Also, this particular case you mention (I mean the subscriber here on this site) is notable for spewing basically ignorant remarks.

Since you make a claim here, the burden of proof falls on you. So unless you are able to provide specific quotes with subsequent analysis qualifying as evidence to conduct your proof, your claim remains an unsubstantiated belief, and your statement a mere - I'll modify a quote from GHS's book here: "report on the believer's state of mind" (see Why Atheism, p. 52).

Dan Ust: George, after years on the Internet and interacting with people via email, snailmail, and face-to-face regarding Rand and Objectivism, I'm frankly not surprised when someone is unfamiliar with some fairly or even extremely obvious aspect of Rand's thought or of Objectivism.

Have you, after years on the internet, never came across - especially in debates - a question asked not for the purpose of getting info already known be the inquirer, but to find out to what degree the discussion opponent is aware of contradictions in a thought system?

It was a non-sequitur on both you and GHS's part to believe I didn't know about the types of values in Rand's system. GHS forgot to add the fourth type btw - the so-called "automatic value", which is another example where Rand collapses her own definition of value implying choice by volitional individual.

I have a question to find out to what degree you accept Rand's opinions without questioning:

What do you think of Rand "definition" of subjective?

"The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional." “Art and Moral Treason,” The Romantic Manifesto, 150.

Is that your opinion as well?

The means needed to achieve the subjectively valued goal can be assessed as suitable/not suitable.

If you want to cook, heat is of value to you because of your goal. But this does not make heat per se an "objective value".

I don't believe in values "per se" -- and neither did Rand, for that matter. She specifically said that values are not "intrinsic," and I assume you meant something similar by "per se."

Xray: Yes.

Therefore if "Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem" are no intrinsic values, no values per se - then what are they?

GHS: An important feature of Rand' approach is her distinction between theories of intrinsic value, subjective value, and objective value. She rejects the first two theories and defends the third. (See, for example, her discussion in "What is Capitalism?" (in CUI, especially p. 20_.)

This is a well-known aspect of Rand's theory of value. I am frankly surprised that you are not familiar with it. Perhaps you should spend more time reading Rand before taking pot shots at her.

And I am frankly surprised that you seemed to believe I asked the question because I didn't know Rand's value categories.

A while ago, I commented on the intrinsic value - objective value issue here: # 42

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8229&st=40&p=90382entry90382

The question I asked was obviously done with the goal to get the verbatim answer "objective values" from you and the next step was to get you to explain the difference between intrinsic and objective value using the example of "self-esteem".

For imo this difference is by no means as clear as it seems.

Let's take it step by step and go along with Rand's claim that intrincis values don't exist. Which would mean that the "objective values" "Reason Purpose, Self-Esteem" have no intrinsic value - right?

"Right, because values are contextual", I hear you say. But if they are "contextual", where is their "objectivity"? The notion of contextual values goes in the direction of "value to whom and for what purpose", of value attibuted by an individual or group to a means deemed suitable to achieve a chosen goal.

I think we can agree that to equate objective values with mere "instrumental values" is not sufficient, given that an instrumental value is a value "suited to purpose", regardless of what the purpose is, which means that e. g. a killer's well-functioning gun or a dictator's well-functioning censorship would also be "objective" values if one equates "objective" value with a mere "instrumental" value.

Isn't it an either/or situation? Either no thing has value unless and until some volitional entity attributes value to it; or value is inherent in the thing itself.

Frankly, do you believe in any such thing as "objective morality"?

Edited May 20, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

Now, if I were to join a website devoted to Proust, I would make a point of educating myself about his writings and ideas. I certainly wouldn't spend a year harping on a single point about Proust without first making damned sure that I knew what I'm talking about.

The issue here is about checking the premises of an ideology. I think you will agree that this is something else than "harping on a single point" about an author.

This is not just a hypothetical for me. Around 18 months ago, I joined the Yahoo site JazzWestCoast. This list has an impressive number of professional jazz critics and historians (many members have written books) and professional musicians (including arrangers and composers), some of whom have been active since the 1950s. Thus, although I had been a jazz buff since my high school days, I realized that I was a novice by JWC standards.

The knowledge that I was in the company of people who knew a lot more than I did generated an appropriate modesty. Although JWC has its share of arguments, for the first year I restricted myself pretty much to asking questions and seeking advice about what I should listen to and what I should read on the history of jazz. And I did a lot of reading during that year -- at least 25 books on jazz and its history.

Question to you: what do you think requires more "technical" knowledge: posting on specialized music sites or on Objectivism?

Objectivism is basically very simple. The errors contained in it are of simple nature as well. Can you think of anything in Objectivism which is complicated?

Within the last six months I got a sense of confidence, based on the previous year of self-education, that motivated me to participate more actively in the debates. And now, when I do join in, I am treated with respect, even when more knowledgeable members disagree with me. And I earned that respect.

This comparison is inadequate, for you like jazz, that is, you share a common taste/value with your co-debaters. You don't criticize jazz as such.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that an OL newbie should wait a year before actively participating in debates; jazz is a much broader subject than Objectivism, for one thing. But the basic principle applies in both cases. Xray's ignorance of Rand's distinction between intrinsic, subjective, and objective values is comparable to someone posting on JWC that he doesn't like the way Johnny Hodges played lead trumpet for Count Basie's Band, when in fact Hodges played alto sax for Duke Ellington's Band._

Check my # 361 post where I addressed this. I know about the distinctions. You forgot a fourth value in your list btw: the so-called "automatic" value.

Ba'al Chatzaf: You mean certain within the limits of one's knowledge and ability to draw logical conclusions. As opposed to absolute certainty (good luck, finding that). I spend half my life making mistakes and the other half correcting them.

Rand's view on that is less differentiated: "The good is the objective", she says. ( “What is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 23).

"If one knows that the good is objective—i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man’s mind—one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value". (Rand)

So if a vegetarian argues that e. g. eating a steak requires physical force against the animal providing the meat, therefore eating the steak can be no good, Rand would have to agree by her very own argumentation outlined in the quote.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Xray