Comments on Certainty VS. Uncertainty, GoldenMean VS. Ayn Rand

Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron - Add a comment - Go to Certainty VS. Uncertainty, GoldenMean VS. Ayn Rand

Very interesting work here...I will read the follow up!

posted by Ariala on March 22, 2005 at 5:56 AM | link to this | reply

Exactly so

posted by GoldenMean on March 17, 2005 at 5:08 AM | link to this | reply

Golden Mean,

You are right to point out that being kind to the powerless, the inconsequential, is rational from a predator's perspective because it does not threaten his power.

I had not thought of that, but it is quite right. 

In any case we should have no qualms about calling evil what it is and treating its doers accordingly. 

Some people get hung up on labels -- they don't like the feel, or something like that, of a sweeping condemnation of a person. 

I say, whatever -- call him a dandelion, a prince, a troubled soul if you like -- but if he threatens innocent people, you'd better support forcibly pacifying him. 

That is, you'd better be willing to judge his actions and do the right thing accordingly whether or not you like what we call him. 

That's one of the problems with language.  We get hung up on semantics and lose sight of the moral issue.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 15, 2005 at 6:44 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan

I suspect Rand was indeed hard to budge once she had made up her mind about someone, like her lover Nathaniel Brandon. Plus, she was a woman, and "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Sorry, that was uncalled for, though I have observed it personally from my wife, mother, daughter and female acquaintances. There is some truth to it.

Not only was Hitler nice to his mother, but he was noted to be very kind to children and animals--- things which did not threaten his power in any way. OF COURSE evil people are selectively kind to some people. It gives them a false sense of balance, and an illusion to gullible observers that perhaps they are really a "good person" at heart, just misguided. But such kindness is worth nothing when compared to the unjustified murder of one person, let alone the murder of millions, as Hitler was guilty of. If one good person could have found the courage to kill Hitler when he first began his murderous career, world history would have been very different.

posted by GoldenMean on March 13, 2005 at 10:26 PM | link to this | reply

Golden Mean,

this is an excellent exposition and critique, as I have grown used to seeing from you. 

Your remarks on Rand's "moral essence" make practical and logical sense.  Rand might have been -- I cannot tell with great accuracy just from what I have read about her, of course -- a bit rigid, one of those people who makes up his/her mind about a person and cannot necessarily be budged even by reason. 

After she broke up with Nathaniel Branden, with whom she had a long affair, as you will recall reading, it was as though he did not exist to her.  She wrote after their breakup something like: "Nathaniel Branden is no longer affiliated with me or my philosophy."  That was uncalled for.  Perhaps she changed her attitude later on, but in any case I think she was inclined toward absolute judgments of people's character when, as you point out, most people are not consistent enough in their behavior to warrant an absolute judgment. 

To use an extreme example suggested by psychologist Albert Ellis, even Hitler was probably very nice to his mother -- although of course that does not oblige us to label him anything short of terribly evil.  If there was a speck of goodness even in the consummate evildoer, then absolute character judgments are probably not warranted, especially considering, as you also argued, that people can change.  

posted by Dyl_Pickle on March 13, 2005 at 6:09 PM | link to this | reply