How -Not- to Pronounce Moral Judgement

This is all from Diana Hsieh's most recent NoodleFood post which contains major errors in morally judging individuals and groups.

> "The few honest people [associated with TOC] should read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."

1. You can't assess the wholesale honesty of people at a distance this way. You haven't met all of them, know absolutely nothing about most of them, don't know their widely varying levels of knowledge.

> "Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were not mere distant strangers, but intellectuals actively involved in an organization claiming to represent and promote Objectivism. So by supporting and promoting [The Objectivist Center], I was also indirectly supporting and promoting ... attacks upon Ayn Rand's philosophy and character."

2. That someone speaks regularly at a conference or writes for a publication doesn't mean he controls the organization, or represent its views on all or even a majority of subjects. Especially at an organization like TOC which invites many non-Objectivist speakers and a spectrum of views on debated issues and presents speakers arguing viewpoints *opposed* to those of the two people she mentions.

3. To air someone's ideas or opinions doesn't mean you view -every idea- he has as valid. It is especially true at TOC, which tries to focus on the ideas and not the personalities, that inviting someone to write or speak does not constitute any comment -whatsoever- on his views about Ayn Rand the person.

> "a self-described 'Objectivist' movement which welcomed the Brandens as friends"

4. To invite someone to speak or participate in a discussion over ideas is not to say that one agrees or even views him as a friend.

> "Every single person who still chooses to associate with TOC in any way...is guilty of the same injustice [toward Ayn Rand]."

5. Relating to the overall issue of whether one can judge people based on their stand on Ayn Rand's personal life: There is the stunningly obvious fact that not a lot of people have read...or taken the time to fully, objectively digest...the huge amount of source material (three books, all sorts of statements and personal recollections). And that eyewitnesses conflict on things that happened three decades ago or a half-century ago...or how to assess them.

Finally, it is a mistake to look past errors as fundamental as the ones listed here of Diana's methods when jumping to any errors of -detail- she (or those on the other side) make in assessing the written essays, monographs and books: Diana's type of mistakes of judgment are *very widespread* in every wing of Objectivism and *very destructive*. And they need to be rooted out!! They are not mistakes of dishonesty; they are mistakes of method and context. [t would be another post to explain why I think Diana's errors are honest, which is a side issue. I can perhaps do that once the points of this post are fully discussed.]

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/22, 4:31pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:32pm

How not to pronounce moral judgment? Hmm. Would you not pronounce it "more-all jug-meant" or "mor-ul judg-mint"? I think I know how to pronounce it, but I'm not sure how NOT to pronounce it. Okay, I give up!

- Bill ;-)

Post 2

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 5:55am

Too many people -- not just Objectivists -- make this necessary task of moral judgment harder than it really needs to be.

The only question I need to ask when assessing a person is:

Will relating to this person offer my life a net benefit or a net detriment over the course of my expected lifetime?

Assuming I have committed myself already to living by rational values, and am of reasonable intelligence, I should easily be able to assess the character of people and the benefits or detriments of transacting with them over time. I will allow for honest mistakes and even character flaws if my need to relate is very narrow and their flaws fall outside that context. I am far too egoistic to let such shortcomings cheat me of earning values through such transactions.

I wrote an article on this some time ago.

Post 3

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:44am

If, as the Objectivist inner circle has claimed for over 40 years, ideas were private property and the owners had veto power over who could talk about those ideas, nobody would be in worse trouble than that same inner circle. Rand, Peikoff, the prelapsarian Branden and the people around them have always been quite loose about calling people Kantians, Platonists, Aristotelians and the like, when neither the subject or the object of the attribution had any say in the matter.

The response might be that these philosophers were long dead and their writings in the public domain by the time Rand helped herself to their names. The answer to this in turn is that Russell, Carnap, Quine and Sartre were alive and active in her day, and, though Wittgenstein was dead, his writings were in the hands of a literary executor as Rand's are today. As far as I know, no Objectivist ever asked for permission to write about these people.

Peter

Post 4

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:58am

Peter,

Dayaamm!

I had to look that one up.

Prelapsarian: "of or relating to the period before the fall of Adam and Eve."

Michael

Post 5

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 6:54pm

This is all from Diana Hsieh

I looked her up and read it, and a whole ton of other stuff. This is exactly the kind of behavior that turns me off on a personal level. (On a cognitive/psych. level, it's fascinating to me). For those who wonder why I don't call myself Objectivist, this is a perfect example of the "why" behind my choice. :)

Post 6

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:38pm

No wonders, the ARI vs. IOS/TOC pissing match kept me from using the term for years.

Post 7

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:20pm

Look, from an "outsider"'s perspective, this is how this looks like:

"Every single person who still chooses to associate with TOC in any way...is guilty of the same injustice [toward Ayn Rand]."

reads the same to me as:

"Every single person who still chooses to associate with Satan in any way... is guilty of the same injustice [toward God]."

Definitely a heads-up warning, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Post 8

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 6:18am

"Moral values are the motive power of a man's actions. By pronouncing moral judgment, one protects the clarity of one's own perception and the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue" Ayn Rand, The Virtue Of Selfishness.

I applaud Diana for having the courage to pronounce the kind of judgement she writes about.

Why cant we all just be *nice* and *civil*??

Phil, I think you are in error, having picked out sentences from a larger piece in which Diana makes the very important point that *refraining* from moral judgement is a problem.

Diana has the courage, and exercises the pride, that many have yet to find in themselves.

John

Post 9

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 7:10am

Phil -- As you know I don't follow Diana's posts but if the one you post here suggests that the Branden's are somehow integral to the running of TOC/TAS, that's pure nonsense and takes away from anything sensible that Diana might say. Silly stuff like this is one reason why I stay out of online fights with her about everything (and with others about the Brandens and personal stuff that doesn't relate to Objectivism).

Yes, we are trying to run our organization as an open and tolerant forum. That is why, in addition to inviting the Brandens to the Summer Seminar, we also invited Linz, in spite of protests from some of our members, because we thought -- and I know! -- that he would have been an interesting, thoughtful and passionate speaker. The struggle for applications of Objectivism that don't break down into bitter personal battles and denunciations continues.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 3/24, 9:35am)

Post 10

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:53am

Phil, I've been re-reading your post in which you pick apart Dianas article on her moral judgement of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. I am puzzled by your seeming lack of rigor in criticizing what she actually wrote.

> "The few honest people [associated with TOC] should read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."

1. You can't assess the wholesale honesty of people at a distance this way. You haven't met all of them, know absolutely nothing about most of them, don't know their widely varying levels of knowledge.

Phil I don't see how the quote from Diana corresponds to your point #1. Given Dianas history with NB and TOC, why can't she assess an organization, based on the evidence she is aware of? If she cant't, does that mean we cannot assess *any* organization, as you say, "from a distance"?

> "Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were not mere distant strangers, but intellectuals actively involved in an organization claiming to represent and promote Objectivism. So by supporting and promoting [The Objectivist Center], I was also indirectly supporting and promoting ... attacks upon Ayn Rand's philosophy and character."

2. That someone speaks regularly at a conference or writes for a publication doesn't mean he controls the organization, or represent its views on all or even a majority of subjects. Especially at an organization like TOC which invites many non-Objectivist speakers and a spectrum of views on debated issues and presents speakers arguing viewpoints *opposed* to those of the two people she mentions.

Again Phil, Diana did not say in that quote, what you argue in your point #2. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Brandens are merely part of a spectrum of people holding non-objectivist views. Given their history, given the context of their attacks on Ayn Rand, and given their deliberate misrepresentation of Rand and the Philosophy she alone authored, to have them at the TOC in *any* capacity other than as members of the audience (and even that would be a generosity), is something of a travesty.

Your post goes on in this vein, to pull quotes from Diana, then critique what it *doesn't* say. I think you misread the entire article on noodlefood. Or perhaps you didn't.

My view means little in the grand scheme of things. However, though I may quibble with some small errors in her article, the thrust and the target are quite appropriate to the issue of moral judgement. I believe she has arrived at her conclusions carefully, and over the course of several years. The *exercise* of passing moral judgement is a task she has demonstrated well.

regards
John

Post 11

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:06am

> Diana [has] courage to pronounce...judgement...*refraining* from moral judgement is a problem.

John, my points were not questioning the idea that one should pronounce moral judgment nor about whether sometimes it takes courage or pride to do so, but about the logic and evidence behind some of her moral judgements.

As for the matter of Diana merely "assessing an organization", the quote itself shows she was doing more - questioning the honesty of everyone associated - which means attendees, financial supporters, etc. THOUSANDS of people.

You are forcing me to simply repeat myself which I find immensely irritating.

[Your other issue of "sanctioning [alleged] evil" I discussed in my thread entitled "Being in the Same Auditorium or Movement with Other Objectivists" and I don't believe in repeating the same point over and over.]

> Again Phil, Diana did not say in that quote, what you argue in your point #2...you critique what [her article] *doesn't* say

When you say this I'm "out" as far as debating with you is concerned.

*****

I would like to make a further point about thread and movement and discussion group debates: When a person makes a claim this strong on this simple to check a factual matter, you should (after double checking your accuracy and wording to make sure you weren't wrong) IMMEDIATELY STOP DEBATING SUCH A PERSON. (The person's thinking may have value in some other context, but not in this.)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/24, 12:44pm)

Post 12

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:52am

> I looked her up and read [Diana], and a whole ton of other stuff...I don't call myself Objectivist, this is a perfect example of the "why" behind my choice. :)

Jenna, the "food fight people" (a very sloppy metaphor, I admit) don't represent Objectivism. They are just loud and post a lot compared to the 'silent majority', who are too busy getting on with their lives and being productive. (Count up sometime how few people post or comment on NoodleFood and other websites...it's a small number of regulars.) Even if they were a majority (which I pretty much doubt), it wouldn't matter fundamentally. Objectivism is a *philosophy*. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, esthetics, philosophy of law, etc. are its branches. Ethics, for example, is a code that deals with how you should live. It doesn't tell you whether person A lives that way or is more moral than person B. For that you need lots of evidence and study - assuming you had cause to assess it. People's character analyses of other people are views which fall within the sphere of *psychology*, not philosophy.

Even Ayn Rand's views on women as presidents, whether Kant was most evil in history, whether Ronald Reagan was dishonest, whether rock and roll was good music are not part of Objectivism, any of them. They are her (and their) own views, sometimes accurate, sometimes not. [As a matter of fact, she was wrong on at least three of the four. And I am unfazed and unbothered by any of it, don't attribute importance to her errors of evaluation on these -- and most -definitely- call myself an Objectivist and an admirer of her character and personal morality.]

An Objectivist is someone who agrees with the philosophy, not someone who agrees with all the views in other fields of Ayn Rand. And certainly not minor commentators or students posting short bursts on websites such as Diana. I called myself an Objectivist the moment I had satisfied myself that all the objections to the philosophy were false and I agreed with all the principles.

Even if every other Objectivist in the world were to turn psychotic, it wouldn't change any of that. It would just mean I need to get busy and mass produce, at a much faster rate, copies of the Phil Coates mind-altering, good-premises-installing machine.

Post 13

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:56am

John,
I am a bit puzzled by what you are saying here about the Brandens. I remember a while back, you were pretty tight with Barbara and praised almost everything she wrote on SOLOHQ. What happened?

Post 14

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:58am

> [I] call myself an Objectivist and an admirer of her character and personal morality

Whoops: In my last post, I should have made it clear these are two separate positions. It just happens that both are true of me.

Post 15

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:29pm

I have come to the conclusion that most of the regular Branden haters - the ones who post and write regularly against the Brandens - are control freaks.

Want to see them get wound up? Tell them, "You don't control my thinking." But don't use those words, because then the hypocrisy becomes obvious. Say, "I strongly don't agree with you," and give your reasons.

Boom!

They got obnoxious, resort to profanity, call you a Rand-hater, twist logic all out of shape, try to bait other people to join in by gratuitously insulting them, and engage in a series of rhetorical measures that do anything but argue facts. Their small cliques chime in with, "Me too!"

Their lack of commitment to facts - and preference for rhetoric - is perfectly illustrated by how they behaved in judging the issue of Frank O'Connor's drinking as portrayed in The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden. I didn't count, but there were oodles and oodles of strongly-worded damnations of Barbara for not disclosing her sources for Frank's heavy drinking (and possible alcoholism, as claimed by one source). Many of these damnations are archived here on RoR from the SoloHQ days. This fact alone was heralded as the reason she should be discredited and she was called a plethora of names, including ones using gross profanity.

Well, Barbara finally published her sources and her reason for withholding their names on the Internet a full week ago. Why? Because somebody asked her nicely (John Dailey). Nobody ever did that before.

For the record, the sources who say they witnessed Frank's problems with drinking are:
Elayne Kalberman, member of the Collective, and
Barbara Weiss, Rand's secretary (both with taped interviews)
and
Rand's maid (who is not named by Barbara or her detractors) and
Don Ventura, a sculptor and one of Franks drinking buddies (both with signed statements).

What has been the reaction? It's been a full week and I know some of the people who offended Barbara in spades have read her statement by now. Have there been any retractions or apologies offered, as is normal with people of honor? People of pride? People of courage? Nope. Just more Branden-hating rhetoric, as if their opinions will alter facts.

I judge these people on their acts. Claiming things like courage, pride, honor, etc., and actually exercising them are two vastly different things. You can judge a person easily by seeing how he reacts when he is wrong. Monkeyshines don't cut it with me. I take words like courage, pride and honor seriously.

Fortunately, these people are a very small minority in the Objectivist world. In a highly over-generous analysis I made elsewhere, they represent less than 1% of the people who have read the works of Ayn Rand (including their readers). From the paltry numbers on public forums, I would say more like 0.0001%, considering that Rand's works have sold over 40,000,000 copies.

Hsieh is entitled to present her biography with the Brandens on her own site. Her reasoning method is clear and it appeals to those with a true-believer mentality. But I have my own history with the Brandens, too. And fortunately, from my own experience, I know that the Brandens are wonderful people. They are successful producers and have done much to spread Objectivism throughout the world.

And fortunately, TOC has decided to cater to that 98% plus of people who have read Rand, but are not fanatics. I wish TOC all the success in the world and I will do whatever is within my reach to help that organization.

And one further statement. The owner of RoR and I don't get along well, but I wish him all the success in the world for his presentation at the TOC summer seminar. I sincerely hope his endeavors and projects grow.

(To complete mentioning those on this thread, my well-wishing also extends to Phil Coates and Ed Hudgins for their participation in the TOC summer seminar.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/24, 2:36pm)

Post 16

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:52pm

Phil: "People's character analyses of other people are views which fall within the sphere of *psychology*, not philosophy."

No. Views about the character of others, and the reasons underlying such views, fall under the concept of justice, which is part of philosophy (and a crucial aspect of Objectivism).

(Edited by Jon Trager
on 3/24, 12:52pm)

Post 17

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:10pm

> Views about the character of others, and the reasons underlying such views, fall under the concept of justice

Jon, you are equivocating on the two different senses of what it means to "fall under" a concept. And trying to convert my sense into yours.

Please try to take the time to think through carefully what it means for an ethical concept (and how the concept is vital and why it is valid and necessary for life) to "fall under" or be part of a branch of philosophy, yet for its practical application in individual concrete instances to each particular issue or person, case by case, to be part of ("fall under") another area of knowledge.

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/24, 1:22pm)

Post 18

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:09pm

Jenna, the "food fight people" (a very sloppy metaphor, I admit) don't represent Objectivism. They are just loud and post a lot compared to the 'silent majority', who are too busy getting on with their lives and being productive.

They "say" they represent, but I prefer to represent myself :) I know all this: the difference between the philosophy itself and the philosophers that wield it like some sword. I just don't think that, if one were to "advance the cause", that it's a good idea to present this in such a all-Objectivist-all-the-time manner as depicted on her website. I realize that she's also reasonable at times too, but on the whole, unless she has a completely different website, I see definite hints of obsession. That's my opinion; and I have this opinion because I can step outside of the argument itself to look at the *way* it is written and *how much* she writes about it, not to mention the *types* of links she has, and the *words* she chooses. This is not an attack on her person, but on the *way* she chose to present her mind to millions of people.

From my many colorful experiences in life, the reality is is that life is not black and white all the time. Yes, she might have taken years to do this, but so what? She might have taken years to go through the logic to get to such statements as above, but so what? Where's the *life* in all of that? Maybe I've completely missed it but I would have loved to know what she thought of upon going to some foreign country-- like Japan, or Norway, or somewhere-- something that's LIFE oriented.

I did go through her site some, and it was sad because it seemed to me that Oism was a consuming matter. And when that happens... it's easy to lose track of reality. Yes, I've been there, in a fundamentalist cult true-believer way. You could say I'm very, very sensitive to how the path to true-believerism happens. This doesn't make me an authority, but outsiders to Objectivism aren't all lost sheep waiting to be found. Some of us have developed our minds and individuality beforehand.

People's character analyses of other people are views which fall within the sphere of *psychology*, not philosophy.

That's true-- and I have this psychology mindset b/c of my education. I can't *not* see the words anyone types, the tone they use, the way they carry themselves-- online or not. I can step into or out of an argument at will. It might make me seem to not care, but I know it's a choice. I chose to step into this one on one particular issue: true-believerism. As a physiologist/nutritionist/health care worker, you are attuned to others' physical health. As a cognitive/psych. neuroscience person, you are attuned to how people think, their behavior, why, and how it relates in terms of the individual and with reality.

I do know the accuracy/inaccuracy part of what Rand's works based on what I've read. I know how to take them now, as it is a process of learning contextual application in all ways; I have absolutely no problem dissecting vaguaries-- it's my job to do so. I do this on my own so I don't drive people here nuts; I prefer individual effort and attention in such personal matters. And this is where it gets telling: true-believerism cannot really handle people who *do* own their own minds. I'm not saying DH is a true-believer, but I see that her thought process *can* (not will) be a path to it. BUT I withhold ultimate judgement until for some reason, I meet her in person.

I called myself an Objectivist the moment I had satisfied myself that all the objections to the philosophy were false and I agreed with all the principles.

I don't know if I will ever call myself Oist. I think of Oism as one in a set of really good ideas competing for my attention. I see it as a marketplace, or a pool of research papers. If it's a great product (great research), it will stand. If parts of it doesn't stand, I can fix it so it works with reality, as always and foremost the two standards I hold are: reality and myself. If that's Oist, then I am. If not, I don't worry, it doesn't change the standards.

On the whole, I'm not really worried (personally or intellectually or emotionally) about this entire thing. I just wanted to let people know what it looks like from someone who thinks of herself as "outside looking in". I figured it would be nice to contribute to what *all* of this looks like, because for marketing aspects-- image, honesty, and first impression is what gets the customer. Why do I know this? I did Flash ads for two years in the tech industry and I used to come up with slogans for my job.

"When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give *all* [his emphasis] of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to one particular direction or another." - Richard P. Feynman

Post 19

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:45pm