Judgmentalism and moralism.

[Kimmler]

From my reading of Objectivism and from my knowledge of the life of Rand and her followers it does seem that there is something intrinsic in the philosophy, that encourages and obligates objectivists to pass moral judgment on everything and everyone. The attitude is never pass a chance to make a moral judgement and objectivists seem to take great pleasure in condemning others in no uncertain terms. But, is this a healthy attitude to have? Won't you end up alienating yourself from the rest of society? If you are constantly judging yourself too won't this lead to emotional damage? If you are constantly telling others and yourself how rotten they/you are, what good will ever come from that?

[Starbuckle]

See Nathaniel Branden's comments on this issue in Alec Mouhibian's interview with him:

"One of the mistakes that Rand makes is that after she condemns a belief or an action, she goes on to tell you the psychology of the person who did it, as if she knows. I focus my judgment on the action and not on the person. My primary interest is: do I admire or dislike this behavior? And there, judgment is important for me. People often attribute all kinds of things to another person, without ever knowing where that person’s coming from. Most of the time, I regard the judgment of people as a waste of time. I regard the judgment of behavior as imperative.

"Now, there are some people who are so clearly evil (e.g., Saddam Hussein) that we can’t imagine anything mitigating their horror. But even there, I’ve come to feel the following: if there is a mad animal running around, eating people, I may have to shoot him. I don’t think: 'Oh, you rotten bad dog, you.' There’s nothing you can do except shoot him.

"But the Saddams are only a small minority. Take the Middle East suicide bombers. God knows, if I had the opportunity, I’d kill them without any hesitation. But I also know, as a psychologist, that they were raised in a culture in a world I can’t even conceive of. They were propagandized about the glory of martyrdom since the age of five. Whereas Leonard Peikoff might be hell-bent on calling every one of them evil, I wouldn’t. They may or may not be. All I know is: in action, one kills them, rather than getting killed by them. Lots of times, we don’t know the ultimate truth about a person. And here’s the point: we don’t need to know.

"Everybody has to be responsible. That is why, if we were in a relationship, and you had a terrible father and grandfather, and I don’t like the way you deal with me, I might say, 'Alec, listen. I need for you to know that you’re turning me off. I need for you to know that when you do such and such, it really kills my interest in being a friend of yours. Am I mad at you? No. Am I condemning you as an immoral person? No. But if you feel the need to continue doing these things, there’s no place for us to go from here.'

"Now that’s the type of conversation that might terminate a relationship. But I wouldn’t feel a need to tell you that you’re immoral or that you have no integrity. That’s all pointless and destructive. It’s just to make me right and to make me superior. Unnecessary. I only have to know that I don’t like what you’re doing.

"I think that’s a very important clarification, especially when talking to an Objectivist. Because Rand always says, 'Never pass up an opportunity to pass moral judgment.' Well I say: 'Look for an opportunity to do something more useful instead.' Nobody was led to virtue by being told he was a scoundrel."

THis link is to a part of the interview that has the above passage and related comments. The interview in its entirety is also available online as a downloadable PDF.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Mouhibian/Nathaniel_Branden_Interview,_Pt_3.shtml

see also:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Hardin/Nathaniel_Branden_vs_Ayn_Rand_on_Morality.shtml

Edited December 7, 2010 by Starbuckle

[anthony]

Kimmler,

Good question, and honestly (unironically) put. Ha, a quick judgment from me to illustrate the point.

First, O'ists are self-trained judges, no doubt, but compared to who and what? I'd say that in comparison to general society, where the eternal zeitgeist is 'Do not judge', ie.,who gave you the authority to reason and speak out? - the Objectivists are the healthy ones. Today, tolerance has been corrupted from being a minor virtue, to unthinking acceptance of all wrongs.

However, do we make snap judgments too often? Do O'ists often not give time to totally comprehend a person or situation? Do we rush to speak out, when at times, we could keep it to ourselves until we see the entire picture? And do we not pay enough attention to self-doubt?

Well, yes.

Like freedom, independence and individualism carry with them extra responsibility, self-discipline, and, emphatically, increased good-will, I feel.

(Speaking for myself, over-judgmentalism is a trait I've tried to rein in from my earlier days.)

One comes to the realisation that one doesn't have the insightful brilliance of a Rand - and that even she made unjust errors, too.

Tony

[Kimmler]

Kimmler,

Good question, and honestly (unironically) put. Ha, a quick judgment from me to illustrate the point.

First, O'ists are self-trained judges, no doubt, but compared to who and what? I'd say that in comparison to general society, where the eternal zeitgeist is 'Do not judge', ie.,who gave you the authority to reason and speak out? - the Objectivists are the healthy ones. Today, tolerance has been corrupted from being a minor virtue, to unthinking acceptance of all wrongs.

See, this is what I don't like...dogmatic assertions like this and the implication that objectivists are better than the rest of us. It is total nonsense to be say that the rest of accept all wrongs without thinking. You say if I met a guy who said he was going to pour battery acid over the face of a child I'd try to stop him. Yet according to the statement in bold, me and ever other non-objectivist would do nothing to stop him or even condemn his actions. Not true, simply not true!

However, do we make snap judgments too often? Do O'ists often not give time to totally comprehend a person or situation? Do we rush to speak out, when at times, we could keep it to ourselves until we see the entire picture? And do we not pay enough attention to self-doubt?

Well, yes.

Like freedom, independence and individualism carry with them extra responsibility, self-discipline, and, emphatically, increased good-will, I feel.

(Speaking for myself, over-judgmentalism is a trait I've tried to rein in from my earlier days.)

One comes to the realisation that one doesn't have the insightful brilliance of a Rand - and that even she made unjust errors, too.

Tony

[anthony]

Kimmler,

You've caught yourself between two stools here.

Your first statement: "The attitude [by Objectivists] is never pass up a chance to make a moral judgment..."

Your next, that all non-O'ists will make the same judgments on wrongs. So by implication, "who do O'ists think they are; they are just the same as everyone else"?

Make up your mind - are you criticizing over-judgmentalism by O'ists; or, 'equal-judgmentalism', by both groups?

You can't have it both ways.

If, (as I gather) it is really all about our sense of superiority - or something,- then that's your problem of perception, and I can't help you, nor choose to.

Tony

Yuck :- Egalitarian-elitism.

[Rich Engle]

Kimmler,

You've caught yourself between two stools here.

Your first statement: "The attitude [by Objectivists] is never pass up a chance to make a moral judgment..."

Your next, that all non-O'ists will make the same judgments on wrongs. So by implication, "who do O'ists think they are; they are just the same as everyone else"?

Make up your mind - are you criticizing over-judgmentalism by O'ists; or, 'equal-judgmentalism', by both groups?

You can't have it both ways.

If, (as I gather) it is really all about our sense of superiority - or something,- then that's your problem of perception, and I can't help you, nor choose to.

Tony

Yuck :- Egalitarian-elitism.

The formula seems to be "Pick some bustingly obvious stereotypical negative behavior found within the O-world, amplify, bait, open discussion."

No one ever gets better by being told they are rotten, but this surely tempts me to make an exception.

This topic has been horsewhipped to death so many times in so many places. Geez. Yes, Kimmler, there are some very mean, silly Randian types who do that. Affirmative. Maybe someday they will stop, but in general, this is doubtful, at least the real fundie ones--it is how they cling to things. Why? I don't care. Call it a self-esteem problem. Anything else?

[anthony]

The formula seems to be "Pick some bustingly obvious stereotypical negative behavior found within the O-world, amplify, bait, open discussion."

You've got it right, Rich.

About time I stopped falling for it.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

From my reading of Objectivism and from my knowledge of the life of Rand and her followers it does seem that there is something intrinsic in the philosophy, that encourages and obligates objectivists to pass moral judgment on everything and everyone. The attitude is never pass a chance to make a moral judgement and objectivists seem to take great pleasure in condemning others in no uncertain terms.

Funny, I've noticed the same thing about socialists, especially Marxists.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

From my reading of Objectivism and from my knowledge of the life of Rand and her followers it does seem that there is something intrinsic in the philosophy, that encourages and obligates objectivists to pass moral judgment on everything and everyone. The attitude is never pass a chance to make a moral judgement and objectivists seem to take great pleasure in condemning others in no uncertain terms.

Funny, I've noticed the same thing about socialists, especially Marxists.

Ghs

I bet you have, Georgio~! <behold his Power, which he has truly Earned<c>

What with being intolerant of waterheadedZombie thangs, and so forth. . .

Creepy, ain't it?

rde

[kiaer.ts]

See Nathaniel Branden's comments on this issue in Alec Mouhibian's interview with him:

"One of the mistakes that Rand makes is that after she condemns a belief or an action, she goes on to tell you the psychology of the person who did it, as if she knows. I focus my judgment on the action and not on the person. My primary interest is: do I admire or dislike this behavior? And there, judgment is important for me. People often attribute all kinds of things to another person, without ever knowing where that person's coming from. Most of the time, I regard the judgment of people as a waste of time. I regard the judgment of behavior as imperative.

"Now, there are some people who are so clearly evil (e.g., Saddam Hussein) that we can't imagine anything mitigating their horror. But even there, I've come to feel the following: if there is a mad animal running around, eating people, I may have to shoot him. I don't think: 'Oh, you rotten bad dog, you.' There's nothing you can do except shoot him.

"But the Saddams are only a small minority. Take the Middle East suicide bombers. God knows, if I had the opportunity, I'd kill them without any hesitation. But I also know, as a psychologist, that they were raised in a culture in a world I can't even conceive of. They were propagandized about the glory of martyrdom since the age of five. Whereas Leonard Peikoff might be hell-bent on calling every one of them evil, I wouldn't. They may or may not be. All I know is: in action, one kills them, rather than getting killed by them. Lots of times, we don't know the ultimate truth about a person. And here's the point: we don't need to know.

"Everybody has to be responsible. That is why, if we were in a relationship, and you had a terrible father and grandfather, and I don't like the way you deal with me, I might say, 'Alec, listen. I need for you to know that you're turning me off. I need for you to know that when you do such and such, it really kills my interest in being a friend of yours. Am I mad at you? No. Am I condemning you as an immoral person? No. But if you feel the need to continue doing these things, there's no place for us to go from here.'

"Now that's the type of conversation that might terminate a relationship. But I wouldn't feel a need to tell you that you're immoral or that you have no integrity. That's all pointless and destructive. It's just to make me right and to make me superior. Unnecessary. I only have to know that I don't like what you're doing.

"I think that's a very important clarification, especially when talking to an Objectivist. Because Rand always says, 'Never pass up an opportunity to pass moral judgment.' Well I say: 'Look for an opportunity to do something more useful instead.' Nobody was led to virtue by being told he was a scoundrel."

THis link is to a part of the interview that has the above passage and related comments. The interview in its entirety is also available online as a downloadable PDF.

http://rebirthofreas...iew,_Pt_3.shtml

see also:

http://rebirthofreas..._Morality.shtml

Implicit in Branden's statements is the importance of that person's relationship with you. Those who pose a physical threat because of their actions should be dealt with in a practical and matter of fact manner like mad dogs. The other people he mentions are in such relationships such as family or business where there is some sort of interaction. But there is no need to go around passing judgment on people who pose no physical threat and with whom one has no relationship. It's a bad habit.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Rich Engle]

That's one thing I can agree with; that it is a bad habit.

And there is little that can be done about that, other than try to not make it too inviting for such attacks. . . And, if you are me, that is where

the trouble starts up because, well, I have some experience in the area of handling rabid, ignorant monkeys, so in the end it kind of just gets down to protocol.

rde

and if that doesn't work, I have the stick up by the front door.

[Starbuckle]

GHS wrote: "Funny, I've noticed the same thing [relentless moral condemnation of all and sundry] about socialists, especially Marxists."

Funny, I've noticed the same thing about Internet comments whether the topic of the article being commented on is politics at the New York Times or the latest gadget at CNET.

At NYT I've seen variations on the following (in response to an overview of Rep or Dem prospects, let's say) about a million times: "The problem with the GOP and Tea Party members is that they are all racist neo-Nazis who eat babies for breakfast and want to destroy the economy as quickly as possible (they may hide this from themselves). And Obama is supposed to compromise with such drooling monsters? He should not...."

BTW, Kimmler, I've noticed that some people who believe in productivity, reason and happiness and happy, rational, productive people. Is there anything we can do about this? Or are we stuck with this result?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Starbuckle