Check Your Premises

The Coming Intra-Party Wars - Megan McArdle

2011-08-03T07:18:00.000-04:00

Megan McArdle's The Coming Intra-Party Wars - The Atlantic posting on the debt limit battle contains two comments that caught my eye. The first one talks about the choices the Republican and Democrats will have to take.

The Democrats ... are going to face unprecedented conflicts between their constituencies in the decades to come. Fundamentally, we're bumping up against the willingness of the American public to pay more taxes, or accept spending cuts. Some constituencies are going to lose. Republicans are going to have to decide whether they'd rather have lower taxes, or a stronger military. And Democrats are going to have to decide who they care about more: old people, or poor people.

The other comment (which is the real reason I posted this) brilliantly captures the shell game we're playing on ourselves. I also agree with her comment on a single entitlement system. My very first post on this blog summarizes my approach to positive and negative rights.

Me, I'd like a single entitlement system that takes care of people who are actually destitute and unable to work, not this mad scheme whereby America's middle class is supposed to get rich by picking its own pockets.

Winning Body Language Review

2011-07-17T13:07:00.000-04:00

Posted a review of Winning Body Language at my Flourishing blog: http://scuoteguazza.blogspot.com/2011/07/winning-body-language-review.html. I mention it here because I don't see this subject discussed at all in the Objectivist world, probably because the predominant belief is that all meaningful communication takes place at the purely conscious, rational level. My reading on the subject leads me to conclude otherwise. See my review for a bit more information.

Reactions to Bin Laden's Demise

2011-05-14T10:57:00.000-04:00

Of all of the various posts I read on the Bin Laden assassination this one by the Maverick Philosopher comes closest to my reaction. While I don't agree with his introductory paragraph about God and mercy I lean towards his sentiment on how he feels about OBL's demise.

Anyone who doesn't see that capital punishment is precisely what justice demands in certain circumstances is morally obtuse. I agree with Prager on that. I also agree with his statement this morning that pacifism is "immoral" though I would withhold his "by definition." (I've got a nice post on the illicit use of 'by definition.') And of course I agree that terrorists need to be hunted down and killed. But there should be no joy at the killing of any human being no matter who he is. It would be better to feel sad that we live in a world in which such extreme measures are necessary.

The administration of justice ought to be a dispassionate affair.

I know Bin Laden's death carries symbolic weight because of his role as planner of the September 11 attacks. For that reason I'm pleased, even happy, that he met his just deserts. The best way I can describe how I reacted to this would be if the local animal control officer found a rabid dog in my neighborhood and put it to sleep. I can't say that I felt the need to dance in the streets as some chose to do. (And, like others, I noticed that those shown on TV cavorting in celebration were too young to even remember the 9/11 attacks. As one wag said, maybe they were celebrating that "their" President finally did something right. Related to this I've read several stories that the decision to attack came about due to intense pressure from military and intelligence experts who were urging the hit before OBL was warned of his impending doom. We'll probably never know if this truly was the case.)

For another interesting perspective check out Jonathan Haidt’s Why We Celebrate a Killing.

For the last 50 years, many evolutionary biologists have told us that we are little different from other primates — we’re selfish creatures, able to act altruistically only when it will benefit our kin or our future selves. But in the last few years there’s been a growing recognition that humans, far more than other primates, were shaped by natural selection acting at two different levels simultaneously. There’s the lower level at which individuals compete relentlessly with other individuals within their own groups. This competition rewards selfishness.

But there’s also a higher level at which groups compete with other groups. This competition favors groups that can best come together and act as one. Only a few species have found a way to do this. Bees, ants and termites are the best examples. Their brains and bodies are specialized for working as a team to accomplish nearly miraculous feats of cooperation like hive construction and group defense.

The Narratives That Guide Our Lives by Robert Jamaes Bidinotto

2011-03-26T23:50:00.006-04:00

Robert James Bidinotto has graciously given me permission to link to his post on Facebook about narratives.

The Narratives That Guide Our Lives

Most people of my philosophic persuasion believe that the power that moves individuals and cultures is, at root, philosophy. Specifically, that power lies in the "basic premises" which we accept about the world and ourselves: our beliefs about the nature of existence; about how we know things; about what constitutes good and bad; about how we should live together.

This view of the power of philosophic premises is true. However, those of my philosophic persuasion also make an additional assumption: that to change one's own life, or to "change the world," the most important and effective thing is to adopt and advocate the "right" systematic, abstract philosophy. In practice, this means: addressing thinkers and intellectuals, teaching students formal philosophy, planting "our" kind of professors in university chairs, and otherwise engaging in specifically abstract, philosophical pursuits. The tacit assumption here is that the basic philosophic premises that govern our lives are decisively communicated and absorbed in individuals and cultures by means of formal philosophical education.

That premise is mistaken.

We do not suddenly acquaint ourselves with our core worldviews in college courses, after we are already in our teens or twenties. By that time, our basic premises are usually already well-established and, in many cases, set in psychological cement.

So when, and in what form, do we really encounter and accept our foundational beliefs about ourselves and the world around us?

We do so early in life, and in the form of stories -- or what I call Narratives.

The myths that we learn in childhood, at Mother's knee, in church, in schools, in films and novels, represent primitive, fundamental interpretive stories about our world: how it works, what it means, what is right or wrong, who are the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

These Narratives are pre-philosophical; in fact, they are acquired in their germinal forms while we are still far too young to subject them to critical analysis. They thus actually tend to determine which abstract philosophies, ideologies, economic theories, and political policies we later find appealing. These latter "feel right" to us largely because they mesh with the myths, fairy tales, parables, and stories we already absorbed during childhood.

Moreover, the more deep-rooted the myth--either personally and/or culturally--the more desperately we cling to it. We cling to it even when it may sometimes be utterly false, and lead us over a cliff. We cling to it because to challenge or criticize it means to unravel a lifetime of investments in values, choices, relationships, careers, emotions, and money. And who wants to do that?

So, like sleepwalkers, most people continue to be directed by Narratives they have never consciously identified, let alone soberly considered. Here are just a few familiar ones:

"Untouched nature is paradise; human choices and actions only upset the natural balance." That's what the Garden of Eden myth declares. Its eventual philosophical fruit? Environmentalism.

"We should take from the rich and give to the poor." That's what the tale of Robin Hood (at least, contemporary versions of it) tells us. Its eventual political fruit? Communism, socialism, and their many "progressive" variants.

"David is morally superior to Goliath." That's what the Old Testament dramatized. Its eventual global fruit? Decades of disastrous U.S. foreign policy, blindly aimed at toppling powerful regimes in favor of the "little guy" in the streets of foreign nations--even if that little guy is a jihadist wearing a suicide vest, and is eager to slaughter us.

So how, exactly, do each of us arrive at our basic Narratives?

When we're infants, we perceive the world around us strictly perceptually, and we react to "good" and "bad" in terms of raw emotions. We either like the way something makes us feels, or we don't; we're comforted, or we're uncomfortable and fearful. As our ability to integrate our perceptions of things improves, we initially do so in the form of primitive concepts.

The next stage of interpretation, though, is at the level of story-telling and myth. We do not graduate from perceptions into concepts, then go directly into philosophy. Long before we ever arrive at the ability to tie all those concepts together into anything like a systematic, abstract philosophy (for those of us who even get to that stage of thinking), we interpret the world through the stories we are told. Those may be bible stories, Aesop's fables, messages in cartoons and picture books, tales told by our parents, good-guys-vs.-bad-guys TV shows.

These provide us with our foundational interpretive template for understanding the world around us. What binds every culture or subculture together are the value-laden messages conveyed by these tales. That's because Narratives work for a culture just as they do for an individual. Looking at the glory that was Greece, for example, it is instructive to note that Homer, that society's seminal poet and storyteller, preceded by hundreds of years Aristotle, who represented the apex of formal Greek philosophical thought. The former was the true father of Greek culture, while the latter lived during its waning days. If abstract, systematic philosophy were the true fountainhead of a culture--or its salvation--then the sequence of their appearances should have been reversed.

And this should tell us where the true "power of ideas" lies: not in concepts and philosophies per se, but in concepts and philosophies as embodied, enshrined, dramatized, and propagated by compelling Narratives. In other words, the narrative medium is just as necessary and potent as the philosophic message.

This explains the enduring power of religion. Religions communicate largely on the narrative level, utilizing the power of myth, parable, and storytelling. Ask yourself: How many people are attracted to a given religion because of the incisive, intellectually satisfying arguments of its clever theologians? By contrast, how many followers instead find themselves gripped, touched, inspired, and persuaded by the stories and parables that the religion offers?

Therefore, let me offer a word of advice to people who share my own secular philosophic outlook, Objectivism.

It's futile to complain about the intractable hold of "mysticism" on people's lives. Trying to argue people out of their reigning Narrative is almost always impossible, because we all need a reigning Narrative. Instead, you have to replace a person's (or culture's) reigning Narratives(s) with something better--something more persuasive, compelling, and inspiring.

You don't have to believe me; Ayn Rand reached the same conclusion. Why did she write fiction? Read closely her Romantic Manifesto, particularly her essay, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art." In writing about the power of "art," she is really talking about the vital role and indispensable power of Narrativesin our lives.

That is certainly the conclusion I have drawn. Rather than try hopelessly to deprive people of their existing Narratives, mystical or otherwise, I believe the only practical course is to create a rich, compelling, emotionally satisfying counter-Narrative. That is a task Rand began with her own fiction. But it is a task that should be continued by other artists--at least by those artists who wish not only to objectify their own values (which should be their primary focus), but who also would like to help create a better world.

So, a personal note of explanation: If you find less current-events commentary here lately, in part it's because I've found it to be increasingly pointless to argue philosophy, economics, and politics with most people. Why? Because we are talking past each other. You may prove a point with unassailable facts and irrefutable logic. However, the other person replies, "Yes, but . . ." Those words usually signal that you've reached the ultimate barrier to further reasoning and communication: You've challenged his Narrative. And in my experience, that is ground he'll rarely, if ever, concede.

The invisible forces directing the flow and outcomes of such debates, then, are rarely those issues under explicit discussion. Rather, they are the unidentified, unspoken, implicit Narratives that we carry with us, and which are constantly reinforced in the plots of popular novels, films, TV shows, and Sunday sermons. That is the enormous subtext of most arguments, and it poses a virtually insurmountable challenge. After all, it is very, very difficult to joust successfully and intellectually with someone when you are simultaneously fighting Adam, David, and Robin Hood.

That said, I'll return now to the personal pleasure of crafting my own counter-Narratives.

The McCaskey Mess

2010-11-27T16:17:00.011-05:00

Anyone who follows the Objectivist world probably has heard about John McCaskey’s resignation from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute over his Amazon review of David Harriman’s The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. I don’t have the time nor interest to rehash the gory details of this incident. Others have done an admirable job detailing and analyzing the tsunami of consequences that has washed across the shores of the Objectivist work. For anyone reading this who is not aware of these events here is a short and admittedly incomplete list. A list of links to other commentaries is provided at the end.

John McCaskey, who holds a doctorate from Stanford University in the history of science, who teaches at Stanford and who was a board member of ARI, wrote an Amazon review of David Harriman’s The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. (According to Wikipedia, McCaskey also “organized the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, which provides grants for scholarly work on Objectivism in academia.”) His review starts with this statement: “Readers of the book should be aware that the historical accounts presented here often differ from those given by academic researchers working on the history of science and often by the scientists themselves.” After explaining the reasons for this statement McCaskey concludes with: “The theory of induction proposed here is potentially seminal; a theory that grounds inductive inference in concept-formation is welcome indeed. But the theory is still inchoate. If it is to be widely adopted, it will need to be better reconciled with the historical record as the theory gets fleshed out and refined.”

McCaskey resigned from ARI after Peikoff wrote a letter in which he said: “When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me – I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism – is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go, and someone will go. It is your prerogative to decide whom.”

Leonard Peikoff issued a subsequent letter explaining his position. He notes: “Because some people have turned the dispute into a moral issue, I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual.” He also states: “An organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with ‘freedom’ for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology.”

Yaron Brook, speaking on behalf of ARI, posted a statement containing this: “The substantive issue that Dr. Peikoff raised—whether a person who does not support a central ARI project should sit on the Board—was itself a very serious one. In addition, the Board had the practical, moral, and fiduciary responsibility to avoid needlessly damaging our important relationship with Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff founded ARI, served as its first Board chairman, and has continued to provide ARI with moral, financial, and practical support over the 25 years of ARI’s existence. As Ayn Rand’s heir, he has been very generous in giving Ayn Rand’s materials to the ARI Archives, with much more planned for the future. In these and many other ways, Dr. Peikoff’s ongoing support is important to ARI; we are certainly interested in hearing his thoughts and analyses, and we give them due weight in our deliberations.” This could hint at stronger disagreements between McCaskey and ARI than was revealed publicly.

Craig Biddle, founder and editor of The Objective Standard, published a statement titled “Justice for John P. McCaskey”.

In turn ARI canceled a lecture series by Craig Biddle.

Biddle removed Yaron Brook’s name from the masthead of The Objective Standard.

In light of the above here are some observations.

I don’t see anywhere in Peikoff’s or Brook’s responses a direct challenge of McCaskey’s points about Harriman’s book.

I was not familiar with McCaskey before this controversy. After this story broke I visited his web site where a series of his publications, lectures and presentations are posted, most of which deal with the history of science or induction. As most people know Stanford has a strong reputation. It’s not like McCaskey is teaching at some no-name community college. If anyone among the ARI crew could test Harriman’s thesis it would appear that McCaskey has the qualifications.

When Peikoff states that McCaskey is an “obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual.” I don’t see an explanation how these traits, if true, are moral failings. Maybe Peikoff would argue that a person with these traits is lying to himself and others. I’ve met people who rubbed me the wrong way; I didn’t consider them to be immoral. Mistaken maybe. Or delusional. But not necessarily immoral.

As stated before McCaskey raised issues with the historical background in The Logical Leap, not with its thesis. Maybe he challenged the book’s thesis privately with his ARI colleagues. If McCaskey did harbor serious reservations at least he didn’t publicly broadcast it. Nonetheless, given his credentials and expertise of anyone in ARI I’d say McCaskey is qualified to question the book.

It’s also obvious to me that ARI is handcuffed because of Peikoff’s hold on Rand’s “materials.”

I’ve written before that ARI has done an admirable job representing Objectivism in various media outlets in a principled manner but without the extreme polemics that can alienate the general public. This affair will somewhat undermine those efforts and will provide additional ammunition to Rand’s detractors who feel Objectivism is a sham philosophy. I’m sure ARI will lose some supporters because of McCaskey’s treatment but I think it’s premature to predict ARI’s demise. They still will have the steady influx of new readers who will find references to ARI in Rand’s novels in addition to ARI’s distribution of 400,000 of Rand’s novels as part of their essay contest. (An advantage that The Atlas Society does not enjoy, not that this is the only reason for their struggles.)

I think this incident opened the eyes of some people who aligned themselves with ARI. They were caught by surprise by the reaction to McCaskey’s review and how he and others who took his side were treated. For others such an episode was not so surprising. It was just a matter of time.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R33YO57MMEDAJ7/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0451230051&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode

http://www.johnmccaskey.com/

http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html

http://www.peikoff.com/peikoff-vs-an-ari-board-member/

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=26109

http://craigbiddle.com/misc/mccaskey.htm

http://craigbiddle.com/misc/mccaskey-faq.htm

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1234

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2010/11/collision-course.html

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2010/09/mccaskey-objectischism.html

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/mccaskey-schism.html

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/search/label/McCaskey

http://blog.shealevy.com/

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/11/closing-thoughts-on-ari-peikoff-and.html

http://www.facebook.com/bidinotto/posts/128520173872227

Switch: How To Change Things When Change Is Hard - Review

2010-06-02T21:40:00.004-04:00

The Heath brothers did it again. Earlier I reviewed their book Made To Stick dealing with how to create memorable messages. It stuck with me, becoming one of my favorites because the Heaths have the ability to condense their massive research into easy-to-remember principles. In Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard they’ve aimed their same approach at change. Specifically, how do we change things in our lives? Almost all of us have tried to change something in our lives. Losing weight. Getting into better shape. Not procrastinating. But many of us even if we change we often slip back into our former habits. Why? Is there a way we can follow to increase the stickiness of change? The Heath brothers say there is.

The Heaths observe: “All change efforts have something in common: For anything to change, someone has to start acting differently. … successful changes share a common pattern.”

Before getting into the details of this common pattern Chip and Dan first tackle the nature of the key element of change: our brains. They rely on the work of Jonathan Haidt, author of The Happiness Hypothesis (reviewed here). Haidt’s research lead him to conclude that the emotional side of our brain is like an Elephant while our rational side is similar to a Rider who tries to rein in the elephant and seems to be the leader. However the Rider’s ability to control the elephant is tenuous because the Rider is so small relative to the Elephant. The roots of our emotional mechanism are deep in our ancestry while the rational part of our brain evolved only recently in terms of our total history.

This approach treads into largely uncharted territory for Objectivists. The elephant side of our nature gets very little billing in the Objectivist literature. We hear precious little about the second half of the definition of man as a rational animal. In fact our rational side is supposed to be able to dictate all of our behavior and totally control the subconscious and the brain’s subsystems.

I’ll admit that there is a potential weakness in Haidt’s research methods as well as others who come to similar conclusions. Objectivists could argue that the people being studied have accepted their moral premises by unthinking osmosis and therefore allow their Elephant to rule the Rider. However even if the Objectivists are right the fact remains that our rational cortex represents a thin, recently added layer on a brain with many other mechanisms rooted deeply in the dark earth of our animal ancestry. At the very least these facts should lead us to conclude that maintaining our objectivity represents a far stronger challenge than Objectivists acknowledge.

The Heaths go on to say the Elephant often wants a quick payoff with minimal effort while the Rider plans for the future. “When change efforts fail, it’s usually the Elephant’s fault, since the kinds of change we want typically involve short-term sacrifices for long-term payoffs.” This ties into their advice later in the book.

The Heaths’ reach three conclusions about trying to switch using sheer will power and self-control.

“Self-control is an exhaustible resource.” Meaning, our Elephant can wear out our limited supply of self-control.
“What looks like laziness is often exhaustion.” When we give up we might write it off as being just lazy when we’re really wearing ourselves out.
“What looks like resistance is often a lack of clarity.” If we don’t have a clearly defined and visualized end point we won’t know our ultimate goal.

These conclusions lead to their framework for change.

“Direct the Rider. What looks like resistance is often a lack of clarity. So provide crystal-clear direction.”
“Motivate the Elephant. What looks like laziness is often exhaustion. … So it’s critical that you engage people’s emotional side – get their Elephants on the path and cooperative.”
“Shape the Path. What looks like a people problem is often a situation problem. … When you shape the Path, you make change more likely, no matter what’s happening with the Rider and Elephant.”

For each of these parts of the framework Switch lays out advice on how to accomplish them. For instance, in directing the rider we can find the bright spots to help our motivation, script the critical moves to clearly define key steps and point to the destination. To motivate the elephant we find the feeling associated with our goals, find ways to shrink the change to make them less daunting and, for managers and leaders, help your people grow. (This ties into having a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset.) To shape the path we can tweak our environment, build habits and rally the herd.

Once we follow the path laid out by the Heaths they tell us how the “keep the switch going.” They point out that we use a positive approach instead of punishment, citing the results of animal trainers who “set a behavioral destination and then use ‘approximations,’ meaning that they reward each tiny step toward the destination. … We need to be looking for bright spots – however tiny! – and rewarding them.”

Ultimately Switch shows that there is a lot more to changing than sheer will power and repeating positive affirmations. Change requires a variety of tools and techniques that help the Rider chart a course and keep the Elephant reasonably in line.

Bottom line: I highly recommend Switch. Following it advice will help make change easier when change is hard.

Beyond The Happiness Hypothesis: The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

2009-11-29T19:38:00.005-05:00

In monitoring the hits this blog gets I’ve noticed that my review of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom has been getting the most visitors, particularly in the most recent couple of months. While I’m not sure why this is happening I’m glad that it is. I have found Haidt’s book interesting and thought-provoking. He is working on his next book: The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. It is scheduled to be published in 2011 by Pantheon Books.

To give you an idea of what it will cover here is a part of the book proposal.

This book will be a friendly slap in the face to liberals and atheists, delivered by a liberal atheist who desperately wants his peers to wise up, drop their self-righteousness, and understand the moralities of conservatives and of religious groups. The central idea of the book is simple but its implications are far-reaching:

Liberals and atheists generally do not understand the breadth of human morality. They think morality is about decreasing harm and increasing justice and autonomy. But for most of the world, morality is primarily about binding people into cohesive communities with strong institutions and collective goals.

The book is based upon my empirical research in moral psychology. I have discovered that there are five innate psychological systems upon which cultures build their moral systems. The first two are Harm/care (involving compassion and nurturance), and Fairness/reciprocity (involving concepts of justice, which generate rights and autonomy). These two psychological systems account for nearly all research in moral psychology, and they provide most of the psychology needed to explain the long history of liberal moral theory in which society is a human creation, a social contract entered into by individuals for their mutual benefit and protection.

But there are three other foundations of morality used by conservative and religious communities, foundations that liberals generally reject as causes of immorality. One is the Ingroup/loyalty foundation, which gives people the strong feeling that being a committed and trustworthy group member is more important than maximizing overall utility. When conservatives say “my country, right or wrong,” liberals say “dissent is patriotic.” Another is the Authority/respect foundation, which motivates conservatives to defend hierarchical social structures in which authorities (such as teachers, parents, and the police) have a duty to establish the order and stability that is necessary for everyone’s benefit. Liberals, in contrast, instinctively “question authority” and often equate it with oppression. The last of the five foundations is Purity/sanctity, which underlies religious conceptions of persons as having a divine soul housed in a body that is disturbingly animal-like. Moral systems built on this foundation urge people to cultivate their higher, spiritual nature and to shun carnal pleasures and petty concerns. Many Christians believe that their bodies are temples, on loan from God. But for secular liberals, people have full deed and title to their own bodies and can adorn them, pierce them, drug them, and stimulate them however they please. Most culture-war issues are really battles over the legitimacy of the Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations.

Objectivists probably would disagree with Haidt’s discussion of and homage to conservative moral foundations and would agree more with the liberal advocacy of autonomy. After all autonomy is at the individualist root of Objectivist philosophy. Nonetheless, I believe Objectivists would benefit by seriously considering Haidt’s thoughts on this. Personally, I’m looking forward to the release of his The Righteous Mind.

Signature in the Cell -- Comments

2009-11-28T22:48:00.010-05:00

Anyone familiar with Objectivism knows that Rand was an atheist. While Rand didn’t write specifically on intelligent design (ID) I’m sure she would have dismissed this argument because of its support for a supernatural being. Although I know it’s blasphemous (to use a religious term) to give any credence to the intelligent design argument I believe we need to test of our beliefs and principles by facing the best arguments of opposing viewpoints. Thus I recommend seriously reading books like Michael Behe’s Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, William Dembski’s The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory), Anthony Flew’s There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind and Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

Behe’s book started the current resurgence in the intelligent design argument by introducing the idea of irreducible complexity that is displayed in various components of living organisms. Behe contends that evolutionary processes as envisioned by Darwin cannot explain the development of this complexity. Dembski’s approach is more philosophical, offering a scheme for identifying the causes of events as the result of natural law, chance or design. Flew touches on a number of factors that lead him to abandon his life-long atheism.

While I won’t discuss Dembski’s or Flew’s approaches here I do want to take a second to discuss how Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate irreducible complexity. Even though it is a relatively simple device the mouse trap won’t work until its pieces are assembled in the right order and in the right configuration, making it irreducibly complex. Behe shows how many of life’s features such as the bacteria flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism or the chemistry of vision are much more complicated than a mouse trap. Behe contends that the development of these complex mechanisms could not have evolved by a step-by-step process because the components will not work until they are fully assembled.

Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design takes a different approach by focusing on the special characteristics of DNA. I have provided some key quotes below but I want to mention that I recently learned of philosopher Thomas Nagel’s pick of Meyer’s book as Book of the Year for Times On Line (The Times Literary Supplement). Nagel is primarily known as for his work in ethics and surely is not noted for being a mystic.

As Nagel says:

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

Here are selections from various parts of Meyer’s book which summarize his case.

The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause – that is, by the conscious choice of a rational agent – rather than by an undirected process. Either life arose as the result of purely undirected processes, or a guiding intelligence played a role. Advocates of intelligent design argue for the latter option based on the evidence from the natural world. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time or even common ancestry, but it does dispute the Darwinian idea that the cause of all biological change is wholly blind and undirected. Even so, the theory is not based on biblical doctrine. Intelligent design is an inference from scientific evidence, not deduction from religious authority.

The design inference defined here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an “inference to the best explanation” based upon our best available knowledge. … an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven – it’s known – causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes. … The inference to design, therefore, depends on present knowledge of the demonstrated causal powers of material entities and processes (inadequate) and intelligence (adequate). It no more constitutes an argument from ignorance than any other well-grounded inference in geology, archaeology or paleontology – where present knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships guides the inferences that scientists make about the causes of events in the past.

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.

Intelligent design constitutes the best explanation of a particular feature of life because of what we know about the cause-and-effect structure of the world – specifically, because of what we know about what it takes to produce large amounts of specified information.

I’ve provided these quotes to give a flavor of Meyer’s argument. It's impossible to do justice to his 624 page book here. Based on my reading of Meyer, Behe, Dembski and Flew I have concluded they are not whim worshippers or raging subjectivists. Yes, they are making an argument for a belief in God or at least some kind of unknown intelligence that is responsible for the design of life, a conclusion with which we might ultimately disagree. However, to be fair, these authors craft arguments, marshal facts to support them, anticipate objections, and try to address them. I’m not saying the ID argument is irrefutable. Unfortunately the “refutations” I’ve seen in books or on the ‘net are heavy on sarcasm and ad hominem but are light on true objective analysis.

My point is that Objectivists and others who summarily reject ID arguments do not do them justice but, more importantly, also lose an opportunity to truly check and test their own premises.

Ken Wilber’s All Quadrant All Levels, Spiral Dynamics and Objectivism

2009-06-23T17:24:00.005-04:00

As you'd expect by the title and nature of this blog I am influenced by Ayn Rand. However Ken Wilber has also influenced my thinking. If you're not familiar with Wilber the best way I can describe his thinking is systematic Buddhism. I'm sure Rand and her more ardent fans would dismiss Wilber as he is a self-described mystic and therefore is automatically not worth considering. I obviously disagree. Even if you don't accept his fundamental spiritual philosophy I believe we can benefit from the cornerstone of Wilber's thinking: his All Quadrants All Levels (AQAL) model.

The AQAL model does not tell us what to think but instead offers a template for interpreting the world. It's difficult to put the diagram into this blog so I'll try to describe it. Imagine a box broken into quadrants. The upper left quadrant represents our individual internal world, the world inside our consciousness. Corresponding to this upper left quadrant is the upper right: our external behavior, what people see that results from our thinking and feeling. The lower left quadrant represents our collective interior world of cultural aspects: the world of social mores, politics, and etc. The lower right quadrant covers our social world, how we relate to one another (friendships, family, work, etc.) (Note: Wilber and his colleagues probably would take issue with how I've described the quadrants. This is my take on the AQAL model.) The one word description of each quadrant, starting with the upper left, is intentional, behavioral, cultural and social.

Wilber proposes that each quadrant adheres to its own version of truth. For the interior individual truth is being truthful (or objective?): for the exterior individual, truth: for cultural, justness; and for social, functional fitness.

Wilber contends that most philosophies and ideologies latch onto one of these quadrants then claim their truth applies to everything. Hence, Marxism, which explains everything in terms of means of production and class warfare, expands a lower right quadrant conclusion to apply to the other three. Or, behaviorism which looks at consciousness from the outside ultimately says that the internal world of consciousness can be reduced merely to external behavior.

Wilber contends that each "ism" identifies a kernel of truth but makes the fatal mistake of saying their kernel is the whole cob! As Wilber likes to say no one is so brilliant that they're 100% wrong. Wilber calls his overall approach "integral" because the AQAL model integrates the four basic dimensions of human experience. Anyone in Wilber's camp are identified as Integral Thinkers.

Not being a static model AQAL incorporates the idea of evolution as well so that people and cultures can develop through these quadrants in an ascending spiral. In fact, Wilber eventually incorporated another model called Spiral Dynamics which uses colors to designate different stages of development in our consciousness. I figure some Objectivists blanch at this New Age sounding jargon but I believe both the AQAL and Spiral Dynamics (SD) models have some validity and explanatory power. I encourage anyone interested in exploring these ideas to check out these web sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics

http://www.spiraldynamics.com/

http://www.spiraldynamics.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

http://www.kenwilber.com/home/landing/index.html

If I may digress here is what I mean by explanatory power of SD. But first a little background. The SD model uses colors to describe each stage of evolutionary development. I want to focus on three of the most recent stages: Blue, Orange and Green. Or. as Stephen McIntosh another Integral author calls them, traditional, modern and postmodern. By traditional (or Blue) we refer to those who value law and order, the market as a governing and disciplining device, belief in God-given rights, religion providing moral order, etc. Blue represents the traditional Republican or conservative.

Orange applies to the Enlightenment mentality: individualism, achievement-oriented, free market as an expression of individuality, reason and science, order is inherent within nature, not imposed by God. Obviously, many libertarians and Objectivists fall into Orange.

Green describes the modern liberal with their belief in egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, freedom of expression and a concern with the have-nots.

As you can see Blue and Green are more collective oriented while Orange favors the individual. I think it also becomes clear why there is a constant tension in the alliance of traditional Blue conservatives and the modern Orange libertarians and Objectivists. What little common ground they share is constantly threatened by their fundamentally different worldviews. They share a common antipathy for the modern liberal.

You might balk at the idea that in the SD model Green liberals are deemed as more evolved in this scheme. I share this reservation to a degree but ultimately agree for reasons I won't cover now. Wilber too doesn't say that the Green stage is the be-all and end-all. In fact he refers to this level as the "mean Green meme" and wrote a novel titled "Boomeritis" (referring to the excesses of the Green stage) because, despite their kumbaya message, the Greens judge people in other levels just as harshly as conservatives and Objectivists, deny any validity of the earlier stages (thereby undercutting the foundation upon which their stage depends -- which postmodernism carried to the extreme) and suppress debate through political correctness. Worse, they prevent further development beyond Green to what Wilber calls the "second tier" of thinking that incorporates the healthiest parts of the previous levels while jettisoning the unhealthy. Just like every other stage, Green believes they are the most advanced stage of consciousness.

In any case there is a LOT more to AQAL and SD than I can cover or do justice to here. I encourage anyone interested in checking out Wilber's books and the related web sites. I feel I have benefited from their ideas and believe you would too.

From the same star: reflections on our common roots

2009-04-27T21:55:00.004-04:00

When I visited my mother recently she played an album, Vom selben Stern (From the same star), by a German group called Ich + Ich. While it has some catchy tunes, I especially like the title song for the thought behind it: that we’re all made from the same ashes of a former star, that we all share a common heritage going back much further than whether we evolved from apes. This idea has intrigued me for years. The chemicals that we are made of couldn’t have come from the cloud of gases that formed the Sun because the heavier elements like carbon, iron, oxygen, and etc. form only within stars that are much older. I’m sure I’m not doing this justice but stars go through cycles. Once they burn up most of their hydrogen the star collapses because the pressure exerted by the fusion reactions decreases, allowing the star’s gravity to temporarily win the battle. As the star collapses the pressure in the interior increases until it is high enough to start a self-sustaining fusion reaction of the heavier elements. This process continues until the star runs out of fuel. For smaller stars like ours it eventually turns into a cinder called a dwarf star. For a large star which generates larger gravitational pressure it can actually turn into a nova. The catastrophic increase in pressure tears the star asunder, spewing out the heavy elements that formed in its interior. Billions of years ago a star died, releasing it elements which were then captured by the Sun’s gravity to form the earth and the other planets. (See this entry on stellar evolution.)

This means we’re made of remnants of a star that died billions of years ago. In addition the earth is in a narrow band from the Sun in which the temperature is just right: much closer and the water would boil away, much further away and the water would freeze. (Some call this the Goldilocks Effect.)

I find this fascinating and amazing. Whether earth, life and consciousness are the result of design or of accidental clumping of chemicals the bottom line is the same: the staggering complexity of life and the formation of consciousness is a miracle.

I think if we kept this in mind we might look at life and our fellow humans a bit differently. I’m not saying that we’re a meaningless speck floating in the cosmos. On the contrary, we’re incredibly, marvelously complex creations with the capacity for self-reflection. I’m also not saying that we should accept people regardless of their beliefs and their actions. What I am saying is that we start with the premise that all of us are miracles and share this common incredible history.

When I see Objectivists smugly dismissing religious beliefs or arguments about Intelligent Design they take the easy cases: the fundamentalists who argue from pure faith. I believe Objectivists need to acknowledge that some religious people are driven by a deep dissatisfaction for the explanation of how stardust self-assembled into life. I’m sure some religious folks are motivated by whim worship, as Rand would have put it. However, from my own experience many have concluded there is a God based on what they believe is evidence, not blind faith. At the very least I feel we need to acknowledge -- and even have awe for -- the amazingly complexity of life.

Talent is Overrated Review

2009-04-16T20:36:00.005-04:00

This topic doesn't directly relate to Objectivism but I found it interesting nonetheless. Most of believe some people “have it” and some people don’t. What the people “have” is talent. Gobs and gobs of talent that allows them to be world class level competitors. People like Tiger Woods or Alex Rodriquez. CEOs like GE’s Jack Welch. Many of us believe that these people come into this world equipped with talent that allows them to beat the competition and that we who don’t have it will never be able to reach these lofty heights of achievement.

Geoff Colvin disputes this in Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else. He claims that the top performers in sports, business, the arts and other areas share something in common: the use of “deliberate practice.”

The gifts possessed by the best performers are not at all what we think they are.

Even the general abilities … are not what we think.

The factor that seems to explain the most about great performance is something the researchers call deliberate practice.
Most organizations are terrible at applying the principles of great performance.

What is deliberate practice? The elements are, as Colvin explains.

It is actively designed specifically to improve performance, often with a teacher’s help. Identify elements that need to be improved then work intently on them. It can be repeated a lot; feedback on results is continuously available; it’s highly demanding mentally; … and it isn’t much fun. … We insistently seek out what we’re not good at. Then we identify the painful, difficult activities that will make us better and do those things over and over.

Speaking personally, I heard about the concept of deliberate practice in my research on soccer coaching in which I stumbled upon an article on the subject. I applied the concept to tennis, my sport of choice. By working diligently on my weaknesses (primarily the serve) I have been able to transform my serve from a liability into a weapon.

Colvin also addresses another misconception. We’ve heard many times that we with repetition we’ll get to the point where we don’t have to think what we’re doing. While it is true we can automatize complicated movements to the point where we no longer have to consciously guiding these movements. In fact, we can thwart smooth performance by thinking too much. However Colvin shows that:

Great performers never allow themselves to reach the automatic, arrested development stage in their chose field. … Ultimately the performance is always conscious and controlled, not automatic.

In other words, top performers maintain a constant awareness of whether their actions are producing desired results. When these results don’t occur, they modify what they are doing to improve their results and use this input to refine the design of their deliberate practice.

In addition to being constantly aware of what they are doing, top performers perceive more. How?

They understand the significance of indicators that average performers don’t even notice.
They look further ahead.
They know more from seeing less.
They make finer discriminations than average performers.

And top performers “had more knowledge about their field.” They “have better organized and consolidated their knowledge, enabling them to approach problems in fundamentally different and more useful ways.”

In addition to explaining how top performers use deliberate practice to distance themselves from their competitors Colvin shows how we can use the same principles in our own lives.

They approach the job with more specific goals and strategies, since their previous experience was essentially a test of specific goals and strategies; and they’re more likely to believe in their own efficacy because their detailed analysis of their own performance is more effective than the vague, unfocused analysis of average performers. Thus their well-founded belief in their own effectiveness helps give them the crucial motivation to press on, powering a self-reinforcing cycle.

Finally, Colvin explores the role of two kinds of drive: intrinsic and extrinsic. According to his research creative people focus on the task (How can I solve this problem?) and not on themselves (What will solving this problem do for me?). This is an example of intrinsic motivation, being driven from within. Extrinsic motivation on the other hand depends on outside factors like rewards or penalties.

Does Colvin argue that extrinsic motivation plays no role? No.

Extrinsic motivators that reinforce intrinsic motivation could work quite effectively. Like what? Recognition that confirms competence turned out to be effective. … ‘constructive, nonthreatening, and work-focused rather than person-focused,’ in Amabile’s words. That is, feedback that helped a person do what he or she felt compelled to do was effective.”

Feedback from coaches and teachers focused on the task and doing it better.

Lastly Colvin reveals that the majority of childhood prodigies don’t grow up to be top performers and that top performers are rarely child prodigies. This gives us hope for improving how we perform. “[B]y understanding how a few become great, anyone can become better.”

The Success Trap

2009-03-14T09:11:00.007-04:00

The Happiness Trap: How to Stop Struggling and Start Living is one of my favorite "self-help" books. (Reviewed here on November 6, 2008.) After reading it I signed up for the newsletter issued by Russ Harris. The latest one contains some interesting comments on the "success trap."

The “Success” Trap
What does the word “success” mean to you? When you hear “She is very successful” or “He’s made a success of himself” what does that conjure up for you? Our society generally defines success in terms of achieving goals: fame, wealth, status, respect; a big house, a luxury car, a prestigious job, a huge salary. When people achieve these things, our society tends to label them as “successful”. But if we buy into this popular notion of success, we set ourselves up for a lot of unnecessary suffering.

How so? Well, this view of success inevitably pulls us into the goal-focused life - always striving to achieve the next goal: more money, larger house, better neighborhood, smarter clothes, slimmer body, bigger muscles, whiter teeth etc. And the illusion is, “When I achieve this, then I will finally be successful”. And of course, the corollary of that is “When I am successful, I will be happy.” The problem is: a) we may never achieve those goals, or they may be a long way off – which leads to chronic frustration and disappointment; and b) even if we do achieve them, they will not give us lasting happiness; usually they give us a brief moment of pleasure, satisfaction, joy – and then, we are focusing on the next goal.

Furthermore, if you buy into this notion of success, it will put you under tremendous pressure - because you have to keep on achieving and achieving to maintain it. As long as you keep achieving those goals, then you are successful - ‘a winner’, ‘a high-achiever’. But if you stop achieving, then you are no longer successful; you are a ‘has-been’, or ‘a failure’ or ‘a loser’. It is this popular notion of success that leads to the widespread issue of “fragile self-esteem”. Fragile self-esteem is very common in high-performing professionals. These high-achievers often develop a strong positive self-image based on their performance. So as long as they perform well, they have high self-esteem. But as soon as their performance drops, their self-esteem comes tumbling down: from ‘winner’ to ‘loser’, from ‘high-achiever’ to ‘failure’.

In The Happiness Trap, I suggested an alternative definition of success: success means living by your values. If we redefine success in this way, it makes life so much easier – because in any moment, we can act on our values – even though our goals may be a long way off. Suppose you want to change career and become a cardiac surgeon – well, you are looking at a minimum of ten years of your life before you can achieve this goal. That’s a long time. But suppose the core value underlying that goal is to help others. Well, you can act on that value over and over and over, all day, every day for the rest of your life – even if you never become a cardiac surgeon.

By the conventional notion of success, Martin Luther King was not successful: he did not achieve his goal of equal rights for people of all skin colors. And yet – we remember, admire and respect him. Why? Because he stood for something: he lived by his values! And when living by our values becomes the definition of success, it means we can be instantly successful right now. All we need to do is act on our values. From this perspective, the mother who gives up her career to act on her values around nurturing and supporting her children is far more successful than the CEO who earns millions but completely neglects his values around being there for his kids.

Albert Einstein put it this way: ‘Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.’

And Helen Keller put it like this: ‘I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish small tasks as if they were great and noble.’

So next time your mind is beating you up for not being successful enough, try saying ‘Thanks mind!’ And then ask yourself ‘What’s a tiny little thing I can do right now, that’s consistent with my values?’ Then go ahead, and do it. And therein lies the secret of ‘instant success’.

Clash of Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians: A Different View

2009-03-06T22:04:00.007-05:00

I’m mentioned Jonathan Haidt’s The Happiness Hypothesis as one of my favorite books. He has written a thought provoking artile titled Obama’s moral majority. Haidt, a self-avowed political liberal, does something you rarely see on either side of the fence: admit the other side has some merit. In his article Haidt offers Obama advice on bridging the divide between Left and Right. He makes the following point:

First idea: use all five moral senses. A scientific consensus is emerging that human moral psychology was shaped by multiple evolutionary forces and that our minds therefore detect many—sometimes conflicting—properties of social situations. The two best studied moral senses pertain to harm (including our capacities for sympathy and nurturing) and fairness (including anger at injustice). You can travel the world but you won't find a human culture that doesn't notice and care about harm and fairness.
Political conservatives in the US, Britain and many other nations value three additional sets of moral concerns. Like liberals, they care about harm and fairness, but they care more than liberals about loyalty to the in-group (which political party cares most about flags and borders?), authority (which side demands respect for parents and teachers?) and spiritual purity (which side most wants to restrict homosexuality and drug use?). It's as though conservatives can hear five octaves of music, but liberals respond to just two, within which they have become particularly discerning. (My research colleagues and I have not just plucked these "senses" from the air; they emerged from a review of both evolutionary and anthropological theory, and were tested in internet surveys, face-to-face interviews and even in the decoding of religious sermons.)

This hypothesis doesn't mean that liberals are wrong or defective, but it does mean that they often have more trouble understanding conservatives than vice versa. Liberals tend to relate most moral issues to potential harms and injustices. They therefore can't understand why anyone—including the majority of Americans—would oppose gay marriage, for example, because legalising gay marriage would hurt nobody and end an injustice. Arguments about the sanctity of marriage or the authority of tradition sound like empty words sent out to cover irrational homophobia. But the culture war is not primarily a disagreement about what's harmful or fair; it is better described as a battle between two visions of the ideal society, one that is designed to appeal to two moral senses, the other designed to appeal to five.

Personally, I believe Haidt (and others) project too much hope in Obama’s ability to transcend party political lines. Based on what I’ve seen he has abandoned his message of hope and has resorted to more traditional party line politics.

I also believe there is another plausible theroy to expplain the differences in how conservatives, liberals and libertarians look at the world ethically. In reading Ken Wilber I became aware of Spiral Dynamics, a model for classifying worldviews based on stages of mental and spiritual evolution. Just as humans as a species have evolved over time, individual humans evolve through stages as they mature. Spiral Dynamics stems from the research conducted by Clare W. Graves, a professor of psychology who originally developed a model based on his research. Don Beck and Chris Cowan expanded on Graves’ work and added colors as a shorthand way to identify the different stages of evolution, which is explained in their book, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change.

The Spiral Dynamics model has 8 colors divided into two “tiers” but I’d like to focus on three colors that are contiguous with each other: blue, orange and green. Blue (also called “Traditional” by Stephen McIntosh) feels there is a Higher Power (typically God) that punishes evil and rewards the good. Blue values stability and order which is accomplished by obeying higher authorities and their rules. Traditional Republicans and conservatives are Blue.

Orange (or “Modern”) emphasize the individual and feel succesful living consists of competing to achieve results. They believe the free market best rewards individuals for their efforts. Libertarians and Objectivists typify Orange. They often form an uneasy alliance with Blue Republicans who also support the free market, sometimes reluctantly because of its inherent appeal to self-interest. Traditionalists support the market because it disciplines businessmen and individuals to pursue not just their own personal interests but “the public interest”. While Blue cherish tradition Orange values individual achievement and freedom. (Ayn Rand is an archetypical Orange which probably partially explains her antipathy for traditional conservatives.)

Green (“Postmodern”) believe humans find love and purpose through affiliation and sharing. Green is more egalitarian, relativistic and collectivist. They also oppose the hierarchies, believing that there are no “higher” or “lower” levels. As a result Green look down on Blue and Orange as inferior. All three levels look at each other as if they’re from another world. In a sense they are: different worldviews each with its own value system. Wilber has written about the “Mean Green Meme” because it reduces morality to one dimension. Or as Haidt writes, they strip out two of the 5 moral dimensions and discard the rest. A healthy Green integrates the best aspects of Blue and Orange.

For more description of the various colors see http://www..spiraldynamics.org/resources_colors_sd.htm.

I know this system might sound a bit New Agey but as I have read and apply this model I believe it has some merit. I think it does help expplain why we see liberals, conservatives and libertarians constrantly talking past each other without making headway. As Ken Wilber would say, Green is not superior to Blue or Orange. A healthy Green honors and incorporates the healthy aspects of Blue (the objective need for rules such as law and order, traditions, etc.) and Orange (individualism, reason, self-interest). There is much more than I can cover here. I encourage anyone interested to the links provided above as well as the work of Ken Wilber. (See also Wilber’s original piece on his quadrants model, which I hope to discuss here in a future entry.)

Examples of thinking objectively

2009-01-15T19:34:00.001-05:00

I’ve provided suggestions in earlier posts about thinking objectively. Here are two more examples or resources. The first is a web page that features a series of debates on various topics in many different subjects, not politics. It is Intelligence Squared.

The other isn’t so much a resource as an example: Camille Paglia. She also writes a regular column on Salon.com. If you’re not familiar with Camille she is University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and a feisty author who, according to Wikipedia, “is an intellectual of many seeming contradictions: an atheist who respects religion and a classicist who champions art both high and low, with a view that human nature has an inherently dangerous Dionysian aspect, especially the wilder, darker sides of human sexuality. She favors a curriculum grounded in comparative religion, art history and the literary canon, with a greater emphasis on facts in the teaching of history. She came to public attention in 1990, with the publication of her first book, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson.”

To me the inability to pigeonhole Paglia into neat political or ideological cubbies suggests that she thinks independently and maybe objectively as well. I say this because Paglia is willing to give credit, where she thinks it is due, to those on the other side of the political fence from her rather than dismissing opposing viewpoints with a knee jerk reaction that is all too typical and prevalent on both sides. Even when I don’t agree with Paglia I nonetheless love reading her entertaining, vivid writing style. I wish I were half the writer she is. Check her out. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Folk Concept of Happiness

2009-01-11T19:13:00.001-05:00

Early in The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being, the author Daniel W. Haybron makes a comment about folk concepts of happiness.

For the most part, folk concepts gain currency and persist because they denote matters of broad and lasting concern. They have been vetted in the crucible of many people’s experience, and we use them because, in some sense, they work for us. One reason they work for us is that human beings are extraordinarily discerning intuitive distinction makers; on a continual basis, we instinctively and implicitly respond to a vast array of important distinctions, most of which we cannot even begin to make explicit. Consider how richly any normal person is attuned to the countless non-verbal cues offered by her conversational partners. Think of how often one person will sense something wrong or inappropriate with another’s behavior or demeanor without being able to say just what it is. And as any ethics instructor knows, people’s sensitivity to values far outstrips their ability to articulate them.

I quote this because I believe folk concepts get short shrift in Objectivist literature. (I think there also is a strong distrust for implicit distinctions.) While Haybron doesn’t elaborate on other folk concepts I think they would include common sense, fairness, and the importance of valuing family and friendships in addition to career goals.

This is not to say that all folk concepts and traditions are healthy or life affirming. While I’m no expert on the subject or on folk concepts in different cultures I’m sure we could find plenty of examples that thwart happiness and well-being. However this doesn’t mean we can chuck all folk concepts as worthless or harmful.

The Pursuit of Unhappiness

2009-01-11T16:58:00.004-05:00

A lot of my reading centers on well-being and living a good life. In this vein I just started reading The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being, by Daniel W. Haybron. He makes a distinction between the approach the ancient Greeks took toward happiness and well-being versus that of the Enlightenment that I have not encountered before. I feel it is worth highlighting this difference before finishing the book. I plan to write a review after reading it. Below are several key quotes from early in the book. (Note these quotes are not contiguous.)

The ancients apparently took it as a given that individuals are not, in general, authorities about their own welfare. Quite opposite: most ancient philosophers followed Socrates’ lead in distinguishing ‘the many’ and ‘the wise,’ with the former and much larger class being, basically dolts. Aristotle notoriously maintained that some of us are so ill-fitted for self-governance that we are better off enslaved, with masters to look after us.

The spirit of modernity is rather different. Inspired by Enlightenment optimism about the individual’s powers of reason and self-government, modern liberals tend to believe in one or another form of the sovereignty or authority of the individual in matters of personal welfare: by and large, people know what’s best for them, and tend to act rationally in the promotion of their interests.

But what if it turns out that people don’t have this kind of authority? What if they frequently and predictably make serious mistakes about what matters in life, act irrationally, or otherwise err in ways that undercut their prospects for well-being? What if, as a result, they tend to botch their lives at an alarmingly high rate, in many cases being unwitting pursuers of unhappiness?

The central thesis of this book is that people probably do not enjoy a high degree of authority or competence in matters of personal welfare.

I’m sure the rest of The Pursuit of Unhappiness will flesh out the empirical case for Haybron’s thesis. I’ve read other books that report results of various studies which reveal the inability of the average person to recognize the effects of genetics, temperament, and subjectivity on decision-making. To me these findings don’t prove it is impossible to be objective, just that it’s work. Sometimes it’s hard work!

In any case, I’ll write more on this interesting book when I’ve finished it. Wanted to throw out these quotes as thought provokers.

10 Favorite Philosophy Books

2008-12-06T23:15:00.003-05:00

The Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog recently asked readers for their ten most favorite philosophy books. I posted the list below.

1. Moral Tradition and Individuality, John Kekes

2. Moral Wisdom and Good Lives, Kekes

3. The Morality of Pluralism, Kekes

4. The Art of Politics, Kekes

5. The Art of Life, Kekes

6. Enjoyment: The Moral Significance of Styles of Life, Kekes (See a pattern?)

7. The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt

8. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality : The Spirit of Evolution, Ken Wilber

9. The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Wilber

10. Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism, David Norton

A couple of points. First, while I have been influenced by Ayn Rand (and continue to be) I find that her fiction influenced me more than her nonfiction. The one book of hers that I’d add to the above list is her The Virtue of Selfishness (although as I wrote in my paper Is Self-Interest Enough, I question whether her version of self-interest is complete.) Second, I have read essays or excerpts of certain classics in philosophy but my main interest has been in contemporary writers, particularly in the neo-Aristotelians. This is purely a personal preference; I would certainly not discourage anyone from reading the classics in philosophy.

The Dark Knight and No Country for Old Men: Postmodern villains vs. modern heroes

2008-11-29T19:53:00.003-05:00

Two of my favorite movies over the last year are The Dark Knight and No Country for Old Men. On the surface these movies are very different. The Dark Knight is set in a fictitious city, Gotham, with a cartoon-based hero. Meanwhile, No Country is set in West Texas in 1980. Dark Knight showcases spectacular special effects and stunts with an implausible plot while No County the feel of an Alfred Hitchcock movie with a deliberate pace and realistic action.

While all of this is true I also believe these two films share two things in common: a postmodern villain and a hero who represents a perplexed moral center. I plan to post more on postmodern relativism but in essence it is the belief that there is no objective truth because our inherent prejudices and conceptual shortcomings prevent us from establishing hard and fast principles. Someone who buys consistently buys into postmodern relativism believes they can do anything they want regardless of consequences. A person who believes this will act as if he is an end in themselves while treating others as means to their ends.

Hence you have someone like the Joker in the Dark Knight who sets up situations in which his victims are mere toys for his entertainment. The Joker wants to show that under the right conditions everyone will devolve to his level and kill each other without second thought. Similarly, Anton Chigurh routinely dispatches anyone who gets in his way and at times uses a coin flip, the ultimate in random decision making, to decide if someone will live or die. (A coin flip is also used in Dark Knight but by Harvey Dent, the hero who does succumb to the Joker’s arguments.)

To be fair, there does appear to be one key difference between the Joker and Chigurh: the Joker doesn’t show much interest in committing crimes in order to obtain money while Chigurh does pursue the $2,000,000 of drug money. If anything, the Joker represents a more “advanced” stage of devolution than Chigurh who still has the ultimate goal of getting the drug money.

Both movies also feature a hero who fights the evil of the villain without fully gasping why his nemesis acts the way he does. They represent the “modern” worldview (i.e., reflecting the Enlightenment) which holds there is objective truth and sound principles including respect for others. As a result they cannot truly grasp what motivates the Joker or Chigurh. Their confusion and dismay is more clearly expressed by Sheriff Ed Tom Bell in a couple of conversations where he decries the increasing violence and the deteriorating moral condition of the world. Both films share a similar apprehension over the evolution of villains from the petty criminal who steals or robs for personal gain but still plays within some “rules” to the postmodern villain who merely wants to destroy value for amusement or treats humans as mere nuisances in the way of their goals.

So why do I enjoy these movies given their dark center? Because I think they capture (even if inadvertently) the sign of the times without giving up hope that truth and justice are worth upholding.

Conscious Capitalism

2008-11-18T20:52:00.002-05:00

I recommend an interesting site named Flow Idealism for ideas on how businesses can evolve beyond the current model. (More on this below.) This web site was co-founded by John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market. The title FLOW is described in their About Us section.

The FLOW Vision is based on the principles of economic freedom, voluntary exchange, and individual initiative, combined with social and environmental consciousness, and embodies FLOW Principles, which include commitments to human flourishing, non-violence, and radical tolerance.

The name “FLOW” has two primary roots:

1. An optimal state of human experience in which individuals are fully engaged in creative endeavors, experiencing fulfillment, happiness, and well-being. This state is articulated by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.

2. The means by which increases in the free global flow of goods, services, capital, people, and information will accelerate human progress and well-being.

Csikszentmihalyi’s book continues to be one of my favorites. His research found that we achieve a “flow” state when we take on a task that is challenging but not too challenging. It needs to test our talents enough to prevent boredom but not so much that we feel overwhelmed and therefore become anxious.

The Flow Idealism web site also provides a copy of Mackey’s Conscious Capitalism, a 16 page free download that explains Mackey’s ideas on how the current business model needs to be updated to reflect the evolution that has occurred in our cultural in the last 200 hundred years.

Although economic theory has evolved since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, many economists continue using industrial and machine metaphors to explain how the economy works. Now that we are well into the post-industrial Information Age, these metaphors have become outdated and mislead our thinking about business.

…

The world has become much more complex since those simple machine metaphors were first developed. Unfortunately, current business thinking does not easily grasp systems interdependencies.

…

[H]appiness is a by-product of pursuing those other goals and I think that analogy applies to business as well. In my business experience, profits are best achieved by not making them the primary goal of the business. Rather, long-term profits are the result of having a deeper business purpose, great products, customer satisfaction, employee happiness, excellent suppliers, community and environmental responsibility – these are the keys to maximizing long-term profits. The paradox of profits is that, like happiness, they are best achieved by not aiming directly for them.

I encourage you to check out Mackey’s ideas.

On a different but somewhat related subject, I have concluded after having worked within the corporate world for 35 years that the bureaucracy and pecking order we see in the business (and in other hierarchical organizations like government) represent remnants of the feudal era (and probably earlier). Instead of obeying kings and princes we obey managers. Communication typically flows from the top down while the minions dutifully carry out their marching orders. I’m exagerrating a bit to make a point. I think Mackey’s ideas hold a promise for changing this model to something more individual-friendly.

The Happiness Trap Review

2008-11-06T16:56:00.004-05:00

I first starting reading “self-help” books way back in college when Maxwell Maltz wrote Psycho-Cybernetics. (I also got to meet Maltz and interview him for my college newspaper. During the talk he gave at my school he called me onto the stage to answer some of the questions from the students!) Anyway over the years I’ve read dozens of books by Dale Carnegie, Napoleon Hill, Tony Robbins, Dwayne Dyer, Stephen Covey and others. Almost all of these books offered some value to varying degrees. Steven Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is one of my all time favorites. Earlier this year I read The Happiness Trap: How to Stop Struggling and Start Living by Russ Harris which joined Covey’s book as one of my favorite self-help books. While the other books I’ve read were good almost all of them offer variations on one of several themes. Think positively. Repeat affirmations to counter negative thoughts. Bolster your self-esteem. All of them, according to Harris, share the same trap. “To find happiness, we try to avoid or get rid of bad feelings, but the harder we try, the more bad feelings we create.” This trap comes from the shared definition of happiness as feeling good. The Happiness Trap adheres to a different definition of happiness: living a rich and meaningful life.

Living such a life doesn’t automatically mean we’re feeling good all the time. We will still have negative feelings and challenges to overcome. The goal of The Happiness Trap then is to give us strategies to deal with negative feelings without denying them. Harris offers six core principles.

1. Defusion. Painful or unpleasant thoughts are defused by various techniques such as labeling them. When one notices such a thought instead of suppressing or denying it we create some distance by saying “I’m having the thought that …” In doing so we put some distance between the thought and us. In other words, we strive for objectivity.

2. Expansion: consists of making room for unpleasant thoughts and feelings.

3. Connection: being fully aware of your here and now.

4. Distinguishing between your thinking self and observing self. The various techniques in The Happiness Trap get us out of our thinking self and into our observing self.

5. Values: what kind of person are you and want to be? What is significant and meaningful to you? What do you stand for?

6. Committed action. All of this business about being objective and mindfulness must be followed by a commitment to action if we truly want to change.

These principles form the core of Action and Commitment Therapy (ACT), developed by Steven Hays. While Hays and others have published a number of books on ACT they were written for therapists applying ACT to different conditions. The Happiness Trap translates ACT’s principles for laymen interested in applying these principles. As Harris points out ACT also stands for something else:

A – Accepting your thoughts and feelings and being present in the moment,

C – Connect with your values, and

T – Take effective action.

The Happiness Trap holds a lot more insights and techniques than I can do justice to here. Overall I like several aspects of The Happiness Trap and ACT.

They don’t try to suppress or ignore emotions. The recommended methods aim at honoring these emotions while trying to get beyond them.
They emphasize mindfulness and objectivity.
The end goal is to get us to act, not just to idly analyze our feelings.
Values play a key role because ultimately this is what motivates us to action: what is important to us.

As I said at the beginning The Happiness Trap has joined the small group of my favorite books. It offers a realistic guide with a number of helpful activates to get us to move beyond self-limiting thoughts and emotions so we can obtain, express and enjoy our values.

Postscript:

Just recently I received the latest newsletter from the author which had an interesting observation.

[I]f we believe that happiness is the same as feeling good, we are constantly going to be struggling. Expecting to feel good all the time is like expecting a crocodile to be your best friend. You’re soon going to be disappointed. In ACT, we generally stay away from using the term “happiness”, as so many people think it means “feeling good”. Instead, we talk about “vitality”: a sense of being fully alive and embracing each moment of life, regardless of how you are feeling in that moment. If we were to define happiness in ACT terms, we would define it as living a rich, full and meaningful life in which you feel the full range of human emotions; or as the sense of vitality and wellbeing that comes from living by your values (something the ancient Greeks called “eudemonia”).

I like this idea of vitality and eudemonia (also referred to as “flourishing”). In fact, in the late 1980’s I wrote a paper titled Is Self-Interest Enough that was sold as an audio tape through Laissez Faire Books (and received a rave review in their catalog). My paper suggested how the Objectivist ethics could benefit from incorporating the Greek concept of eudemonia.

Edith Hamilton best summarized the eudaemonist approach in her The Greek Way as: “The exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope.”

The Atlas Society loses a key voice

2008-10-18T09:33:00.003-04:00

On March 8, 2008 I wrote a post titled “Kudos for the Ayn Rand Institute” on how the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) is doing a better job getting into the public spotlight than The Atlas Society (TAS). While ARI continues to get op eds published on the current financial crisis and other issues (as shown on their web site) it looks like TAS has just taken another step backward. Robert Bidinotto, editor of their The New Individualist, recently announced on his blog that he has left TAS and no longer edits TNI. Robert has done a terrific job in building the magazine in terms of content, number of pages, appealing, professional design and public visibility. As a result TNI even won the Folio award, a national and prestigious prize, for best editing - beating out 3,000 contestants in the process.

In the interests of full disclosure I should report that Robert and I have been good friends since my freshman year in college. At the time Robert was co-publishing a newsletter advocating Objectivism aimed at the students and professors. Being the true professional that he is Robert did not divulge to me what happened between him and TAS. It ultimately doesn’t matter to me why he left. The bottom line: Robert’s departure just further and drastically reduces what impact TAS has in the market of public opinion.

Where has Robert gone? Check out his new web site: www. RobertTheWriter.com.

Noodle Food has jumped on the vast stylistic differences between David Kelley and Yaron Brook in two video interviews held by the same organization. Noodle Fooders took Kelley’s lackluster and rambling reply to be proof that bad premises (i.e., his stance on Objectivism and toleration and other issues) have rotted his mind. While I agree Brook comes off much better I have as much issue with what he said as they did with Kelley. (My key disagreement with Brook is with his answer when asked to define capitalism. Instead of saying that it is an economic system in which individuals have rights to private property and to free exchange including starting their own businesses, he launches into telling us what capitalism isn’t. I’m drawing from memory so I don’t recall Brook’s reply verbatim. Anyone disagreeing with me show have a bit of tolerance, OK? Oops, I used a bad word!)

As much as I disagree with the wishful psychologizing behind the attack on Kelley (and by association the critics extend their argument to rest of the TAS staff including Robert), there is one inescapable fact: ARI knocks the snot out of TAS in public exposure – with a consistently strong message.

I must add that The Objective Standard also does a particularly good job of presenting Objectivist analyses of issues. Their articles are well researched, thoughtful and polemical without going over the top. I recognize that TOS is not an “official” ARI outlet but the connection between them is strong. Where is the TAS equivalent?

ARI has numerous op eds, frequent press releases, the essay contests, Q&A videos posted on You Tube, and so on. Where are the TAS equivalents?

You could argue that this just further supports the argument that TAS suffers from bad premises. In a way I agree, but not in terms of their understanding of Objectivism. I believe it comes down to a dismal lack of focus and an understanding of marketing principles. I don’t believe all differences in effectiveness come down to whether or not you “truly” understand Objectivism. There are plenty of other ways to go wrong. Allowing Robert Bidinotto’s departure is one of them.

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature review: Introduction

2008-10-12T14:03:00.007-04:00

Over the years several authors have written book-length critiques of Ayn Rand’s philosophy: With Charity Toward None by William F. O’Neil, Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology by Scott Ryan, Answer to Ayn Rand: a critique of the philosophy of Objectivism by John Robbins and The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker. After reading these books I felt that the authors either misrepresented Rand’s ideas in order to set up easily refuted straw men or they just offered specious counter-arguments. I also felt that all of these books did not start out neutrally with a “let’s see where our analysis takes us” approach but had a case to prove. These books also drip with disdain for Rand.

Greg Nyquist’s Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature (henceforth referred to as ARCHN) also takes Rand to task and at times harshly criticizes her. To be fair Nyquist admits in the preface that “there is quite a bit of truth in Objectivism.” The following sentence best captures Nyquist’s attitude towards Rand: “Despite my low opinion of Rand’s philosophical expertise, I nevertheless regard Rand as an important and perhaps even a great thinker.” Nonetheless, after a constant litany of Rand’s alleged errors by the end of the book I wondered what was left of Objectivism! While I don’t agree with all of Nyquist’s arguments I also believe some of his criticisms merit serious consideration. If Rand’s admirers approach this book with a truly open mind I think they’re likely to learn some important lessons even if they ultimately don’t change any of their beliefs.

A common theme runs through ARCHN: the lack of empirical data to support many of Rand’s claims.

My goal is to cover the main points of each chapter in installments, to lay out Nyquist’s key points and to indicate where I agree or disagree with him. I’ll probably resort to using bulleted lists to capture Nyquist’s key points. It also will take less time for me to write each installment. I ask anyone who visits this blog to be patient. The pressure of work and other commitments affects how often I can write posts. ;-)

The next post will start with ARCHN’s first chapter on Rand’s theory of human nature.

Are McCain and Obama preaching self-sacrifice?

2008-09-04T13:05:00.003-04:00

Before I proceed I encourage visitors to check out Robert Bidinotto's posts on Sarah Palin at http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/. I posted something there that I'd like to put here as well.

I know we cringe when we hear Republicans like Giuliani and McCain make negative comments about self-interest. But I think we make the mistake of assuming that they have the same concept in mind as we do. We need to ask whether McCain and the others have ever read Rand and, if they have, do they really understand what she is saying? (The same question can be asked about some of her admirers.) I am just starting to read McCain’s Worth Fighting For to get a better feel. In the opening pages he makes a brief reference to individualism versus egotism without explaining the distinction he is making. Furthermore, if McCain and his colleagues were completely dead set again self-interest why do they appeal to ours? By that I mean their proposed programs and policies are aimed at our needs.

We ultimately will have a choice between McCain who believes we should serve our country in order to protect and improve it versus Obama who wants us to sacrifice ourselves to everyone else, both foreign and domestic. On the surface it appears there is no fundamental difference between the two. McCain asks us to serve our country while Obama wants us to serve others in general. I think buried in this is a key distinction. McCain is not denying that we have a right to be happy or to pursue happiness. (At least I haven’t found any quotes to that affect.) I think he believes we need to put the interests of the U.S. first because protecting this framework will ensure our freedom and our ability to pursue our values. I’ll admit that maybe this is wishful thinking and might be too generous but I think his voting record supports what I’m saying.

On the other hand I’m confident that deep down Obama does indeed want to change us … into another more consistent welfare-state with a heavily government regulated market that is more in line with the “enlightened” European-model where we can’t drive our SUVs, have to turn down our thermostats and can’t eat as much. (This is paraphrasing a quote from him.) Kind of intrusive, isn’t it? I think he is ultimately uncomfortable with and ashamed of the self-interest that drives us. It doesn’t take much digging to find the collectivist intellectual influences in Obama’s life that would explain his antipathy to self-interest.

McCain's V.P. Choice

2008-08-31T21:40:00.004-04:00

In response to John McCain’s announcement of his choosing Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate Robert Bidinotto posted his as-usual excellent analysis. My apathy mixed with antipathy for the candidates on both sides prepared me to expect the worst and to be unimpressed with McCain's choice. However I heartily agree with Bidinotto’s assessment of Palin's demeanor and message. I think this is a clever choice on a number of fronts. It does hamper McCain's early criticisms on Obama's lack of experience but I don't think it's a fatal error. As Bidinotto said, Palin has the most experience actually running a government than any of the other candidates.

Below I have provided some snippets from Robert’s excellent analysis. I particularly agree with his comment on Obama as a self-proclaimed agent of “change.” When I read Obama’s Blueprint for Change there is precious little deviation from the traditional liberal mantra that the government is the cure-all for all ills.

Politically, this is a brilliant move. Absolutely brilliant. I say that with the caveat of my abiding philosophical disagreements with both McCain and Palin on certain issues. But the overarching issues of this campaign for me are national security and energy policy, and on these, the GOP wins over the Dems, hands down.
…
If a candidate for president is trying to brand himself as a force for political "change," he shouldn't pick as his running mate an aging liberal fossil who's sat in the Senate for 36 years -- an old-boy-network Washington insider. That completely undercuts his "change" message, communicating instead a desire to pander to the Establishment and a clinging to "business as usual." It informs voters that the "change" message is utterly phony.
By contrast, if you are campaigning as an independent-minded maverick, you'd lose credibility by selecting a standard old-school politician as your running mate. You'd want somebody who underscores your outsider, maverick image and message. And if you select such a person, it communicates to voters: I'm the real deal; I mean what I say; you can trust that my actions will match my words.
Ask yourself, strictly from a branding and marketing standpoint, which candidate now comes across as the authentic and genuine agent of "change" -- McCain or Obama.
…
Obama is increasingly coming across as an empty suit, an ambitious phony with a dubious background; Biden is just another stock liberal. By contrast, McCain is showing independence and daring; his biography backs it up; and so does his running mate.

I’d say McCain’s choice was courageous. We’ll see if it was a brilliant decision after the election.

Objectivity

2008-08-20T22:33:00.001-04:00

We’re confronted daily with competing demands and claims of people from opposite points of view. Conservatives rail against liberals and vice versa. Creationists fight Darwinists. Pro-life wrestle with pro-choice advocates. How do we decide? There isn’t a foolproof method that ensures everyone will come to the same conclusion. A lot of factors affect our ability to be objective. Since the theme of this blog is about thinking objectively I thought I’d share some ideas on how I try to practice what I preach. In essence I recommend taking the effort to check both sides. (In some cases there are more than two prominent positions.)

How do they argue? Do they confront the opposition’s positions head on or do they skirt the issues?
Do they fairly represent the arguments of the other side or do they “refute” these arguments by setting up easily-refuted straw men?
Do they try to build a cogent argument based on empirical data or do they simply state their final conclusions?

For example, if you’re considering whether global warming is caused by humans or by other causes (assuming there is warming), you could go to a site such as http://climatedebatedaily.com/ which provides links to global warming advocates and skeptics.

Let’s say you want sort out the creationism-evolution debate. This web page at Cal State Fullerton - http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/#1.%20INTRODUCTION - provides links to various sites on both sides of the issue.

On general political issues, check publications such as National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/) for conservative viewpoints, The New Republic (http://www.thenewrepublic.com/) for the left and maybe Reason magazine (http://reason.com/) for the libertarian perspective. For detailed analysis of policy issues you can go to The Cato Institute [http://www.cato.org/] (libertarian), The Brookings Institution [http://www.brookings.edu/] (liberal), the American Enterprise Institute [http://www.aei.org/] (conservative), or The Atlas Society [http://www.objectivistcenter.org/] (Objectivist).

A relatively new site and promising has popped up, http://www.opposingviews.com/, which offers debates on a wide variety of issues: politics, society, health, money and religion.

Another good source of information is www.wikipedia.com. The main articles usually refer to other sources on both sides of an issue and provide links to articles in the media and links to related web sites. Be sure to click on the “discussion” tab to see the dialog among the various contributors to the wiki entry. However, you need to be careful with controversial subjects. For instance, an ardent Gore supporter fanatically guards entries on global warming and pounces on any added text that challenges or contradicts the Gore-thodoxy (that global warming is man-made).

As I said at the beginning, checking these sources won’t automatically spoon feed you with answers. What I have found, however, is that people who honestly and fairly look at more than one viewpoint before settling on their own tend to be more reasonable than those who only look at sources with which they already agree. If we are confident in our ability to think critically and objectively we won’t be threatened by exposing ourselves to opinions that might differ from ours. At the very least going through this exercise will better prepare you for counter-arguments.

My main point, which is a theme running through this blog, is that maintaining objectivity isn’t easy! It involves hard work and resisting the temptation to latch onto conclusions. If you work through issues like health care, global warming, abortion, and intelligent design by carefully evaluating the different viewpoints, by comparing the facts each side musters for their case and by looking at how they argue, you stand a better chance of reaching a sound conclusion. Who knows? You might even end up changing your mind? THAT, I believe, is the threat of checking your premises: the possibility of abandoning a position and even disagreeing with friends who share your overall beliefs. Another drawback is that objectivity doesn’t carry the sex appeal of being an ardent advocate of [insert your favorite “ism” here]. It might even sound boring and dispassionate. Yet the overall purpose of being objective is to get you closer to the truth which ultimately can improve the quality of your life. And, if you have done the hard work to sift and digest the facts and arguments you can be justifiably certain of your position. To me that’s the exciting part of trying to be objective!

Noninstrumental Virtues

2008-08-01T17:29:00.006-04:00

As readers of this blog know, Ayn Rand derived virtues from reason as our tool for survival. These virtues - productiveness, independence, integrity, honesty, rationality and pride - help us survive. Rand's focus in developing these virtues was on our metaphysical independence. That is, each of us is equipped with the tools needed to survive (at least those of us born with normal faculties). Just as no one can digest our food for us, neither can they (nor should they) think our thoughts.

I don't believe these virtues exhaust the possibilities and think there are additional, supplemental virtues that arise from the fact that many of our values can be obtained only with the participation of others. This participation can be in the form of collaboration, as in working with our professional associates on a joint project, or as competition as in sports. When you look at it, we rarely obtain values with no social interaction. The virtues I want to discuss help us achieve our goals in a social setting.

Another reason why I believe we can add to the list of virtues stems from the concept of being human. Although our defining characteristic is our faculty of reason, there are other aspects of our nature which can affect how we gain and/or keep values. We have a physical body, a psychological nature, a social side, etc., each with its own needs and capacities. Being rational means we ought to recognize these aspects of our overall nature, work to understand these aspects and, where appropriate, satisfy them. The values we gain may fill the needs of several parts of our self. Competitive and team sports, for instance, can strengthen muscle tone, improve mental clarity (through better circulation) and stamina, and test our mental resolve while also involving our social nature.

For this discussion I'll be working with Edmund Pincoffs's Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism in Ethics in which he proposes a list of virtues touching on these issues. The list is too long to include here so I shall limit my discussion to the more important ones. Pincoffs classifies virtues into two broad classes: instrumental and non-instrumental. Instrumental virtues directly help us gain and/or keep values. Non-instrumental virtues, therefore, are concerned with how or how well we pursue our values. They assume instrumental virtues exist and address how we execute them. Most of them apply to our actions in dealing with others.

The overall structure of his virtues is as follows. I have selected several sample virtues for each category.

INSTRUMENTAL:

AGENT
GROUP

NON-INSTRUMENTAL:

MELIORATING (Mediating, Temperamental, Formal)
MORAL (Mandatory, Non-mandatory)
AESTHETIC (Noble, Charming)

Pincoffs subdivides instrumental virtues into agent and group. The virtues under agent correlate loosely to Rand's although some of them obviously are more specific than hers: persistence, courage, alertness, prudence, energy, resourcefulness and determination. Group instrumental virtues apply to projects in which we need the cooperation of others and include cooperativeness, "practical wisdom, and the virtues of leaders and followers” (upon which Pincoffs does not elaborate).

Pincoffs breaks the non-instrumental virtues into three classes: meliorating, aesthetic and moral. I include them here not because I agree entirely with his choices of virtues in each class, but I do think Pincoffs's general approach addresses aspects of our nature that contribute to our self-realization.

Meliorating virtues helps us live with others by making our common life with them more tolerable. Indeed, the word meliorate means "to make better". Mediating virtues, one of the three subdivisions, helps settle differences of opinions between people. Tolerance, reasonableness and tactfulness help us in negotiating and persuading others to recognize and respect our point of view. Civility, politeness and decency, several of the formal virtues, set the basis for public behavior. They recognize the "moral space" (as they would say in California) and the respect each of us is entitled to because of our metaphysical independence. We all benefit by agreeing to some common ground rules for treating each other. Each of us should be treated as innocent unless proven guilty of being unworthy of civil treatment. Temperamental virtues, like gentleness, humorousness and cheerfulness, reflect our emotional make-up and our style of presenting ourselves.

According to Pincoffs, being noble and charming, categories of aesthetic virtues, "are appreciated for what they are, for the vision of themselves; we are grateful for their presence; they are exemplars of what humans can be‑ their absence is regretted because it impoverishes life." Noble virtues include dignity, magnanimity and nobility; gracefulness, wittiness and liveliness represent several examples of being charming.

Mandatory moral virtues include honesty, sincerity, truthfulness and loyalty. Non-mandatory moral virtues include benevolence, sensitivity and forgiveness. Note that in labeling this category as moral, Pincoffs uses the conventional sense of moral as having regard for others.

I saved this category for the last because these virtues have generated considerable discussion among Objectivists with the primary focus on how to justify them as being in our rational self‑interest. Some critics of egoism question how can people motivated out of self‑gain practice these virtues. If our aim is to obtain values for our own purposes, why should we be honest, sincere and truthful with others? Why shouldn't we just do what we can get away with?

A number of answers have been offered by Objectivists, including Peikoff in his "Understanding Objectivism" course. Instead of revisiting them here, I want to offer some additional comments. First, if we are metaphysically independent. We would be inconsistent to demand others to respect our independence while we trample on theirs. Second, we seek to obtain our values through work and by exchanging value for value, not by fraud. In general, our life should be better if we treat others with mutual respect.

Many of the non-instrumental virtues appear to reflect a social metaphysical (to use Rand’s term) concern with how others perceive us. Although it is certainly possible to practice these virtues for this reason, it is also possible to do so because they help create the kind of life we want. These virtues express our personal vision of how a worthy life should be lived. These virtues also affect how well we relate to others, which is important given that most of our values are obtained by interacting with others. Furthermore, we should be happy with how we relate to the world, both the physical and social sides. Lastly, if we value our relationships with friends and family, we would also value how they perceive us.

Although non-instrumental virtues may not directly help us achieve our goals, they certainly can make it easier. We should not conclude that when these virtues are unnecessary. They can reduce the strife and stress we have with others, without sacrificing our principles. People tend to be more cooperative, helpful and respectful if we treat them with respect, if we are reasonable in our dealings and if it is a pleasure to work with us. If we create unnecessary conflict, we could waste energy trying to overcome their resistance. In essence these virtues reflect the answer to two questions we need to ask: what kind of life do I want to live, and as I move through life what kind of wake do I want to I leave behind? How we apply the non-instrumental virtues adds flavor to our life. And I should add, there is one big potential benefit of acting this way which should not be dismissed: goodwill.

To illustrate their importance I liken non-instrumental virtues to the aerodynamics and suspension of a car. We can get from point A to B in a car having the aerodynamics of a brick, the chassis of a stagecoach and an engine. We will enjoy the journey more and will burn less gas if we drive a sleek vehicle that slices through the air and filters out the bumps. We arrive at our destination refreshed. The first car also gets to its destination but it is accompanied with the howl of air being ripped by a blunt body, the scream of the engine trying to overcome the drag and the pounding of the suspension.

Some have defended virtues such as benevolence by trying to show they have survival value. I believe this is a mistake. Being non-instrumental, these virtues don't necessarily guarantee our survival (unless we really go out of our way to antagonize people!). These virtues shape the kind of life we lead. They don't determine whether or not we will live.

Still, this discussion seems too calculating, as though the only reason we should treat people well is for what we can gain from them or for their survival value. Empathy is part of the reason why I believe it's appropriate to be concerned with how we interact with people. If I want to be psychologically visible, to be perceived as a unique person, I do no want to be treated as a mere object, even by strangers. Most people I have met feel this way. Even causal encounters with waitresses, store clerks and people on the street leave a wake in each other's life. Some of the most emotionally distressing confrontations occur between customers and those providing service. In general, if people are reasonable, they deserve to be treated fairly as fellow metaphysically independent rational beings with the psychological need to be visible and recognized as having worth.

I know some Objectivists may object to this view because they believe most people are raving altruists. My experience in the nearly six several decades (!) of living and working has lead me to conclude many people want essentially the same thing I do: a fulfilled life consisting of a rewarding career, a harmonious home life and fun recreations. They deserve the same respect that I desire.

To illustrate the importance non-instrumental virtues can play in life, let's consider two Objectivists possessing vastly different styles. One exhibits the virtues we just discussed; the other is rational and applies the agent instrumental virtues but is cold, humorless (except to laugh at the irrationality of others), unsympathetic, and dispenses harsh moral condemnations at the slightest provocation. In the long run (and even in the short run) who will be happier?

The life of the judgmental Objectivist is one string of constant disagreements and diatribes. Many of these start with his denunciations of the alleged irrationality or immorality of those around him. Consequently, he gets the reputation for being uncooperative, even a "kook". People avoid working with him; some might even actively oppose him, thereby preventing him from achieving some goals. Or, he gravitates toward occupations requiring minimal contact with people.

The other person acknowledges most people have never heard of Ayn Rand. He knows most people have accepted their beliefs through cultural osmosis and that many have never been trained how to think critically (something many Objectivists haven’t learned either). From this he knows most people will advocate ideas he disagrees with. Yet, he knows that judging people is not simply a matter of judging their expressed beliefs. He does not shun moral judgment nor is he motivated to seek the favor of others at any cost. He knows people ought to he treated as innocent unless their actions suggest they are guilty of malicious intent or conscious irrationality. Moreover, he knows he has but one life to live and he should make the most of it.

As a result, his projects tend to go smoothly. Disagreements usually don't escalate into thermonuclear verbal war. He enjoys friendships with his work associates, neighbors and relatives. He skis or plays tennis with some of them. He may disagree with their stated beliefs, but as long as they act reasonably, he keeps his moral saber sheathed. Since most people want to be treated with respect, he knows that abusing them will not convince them of the correctness of his ideas.

At root he recognizes everyone is metaphysically independent and responsible for their own life and happiness. He respects this and gages his attempts to share his perspective with them. Even when he disagrees with someone on philosophy, he does not automatically write that person off.

As I have said, non-instrumental virtues can be important elements in a good life. They can help smooth the way for us and save us energy and emotional wear and tear. More importantly, they comprise the facets of a mosaic that is the ultimate work of art - our life.

Responding to Terrorism: what is appropriate?

2008-07-25T20:10:00.012-04:00

Daniel Barnes posted an entry on Leonard Peikoff's appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show shortly after 9/11. The post is titled The Madness of King Leonard. An interesting discussion ensued. I weighed in with the following.

I think Peikoff's main point is sound: that we have the right to defend ourselves. However, I disagree with his conclusion that we are therefore justified in bombing an entire country into oblivion, including the many people who have no voice in what their government does or condones. Peikoff and other Objectivists including Rand herself seem to believe that people who are born in countries like Iran deserve what they get because they don’t emigrate to another, freer country. While I agree with the need for decisive, forceful action I don’t think we can objectively defend blanket destruction. While I acknowledge that we used the atomic bomb in Japan to break the will of the Japanese government I doubt if the same approach would work in Iraq, primarily because we’ll dealing with pockets of resistance, not a central government that is fighting us.

I would hope our police never adopt Peikoff’s policy. If they did I’d never want to be a hostage in a bank robbery!

Fortunately our military tried to minimize civilian casualties while targeting appropriate key facilities. Our mistake was in not committing enough troops to flesh out and crush the insurgents. I also read somewhere that the local leaders who could help us initially laid low because they were afraid of being left high and dry by the U.S., thus exposing themselves to terrorists in their midst. Within the last year these leaders started to help our troops ferret out the opposition.

Peikoff’s position reveals a simplistic either-or approach that typifies some Objectivist “thinking”. They take a fundamentally sound premise then apply it without acknowledging context or conditions that would modify one’s conclusion or actions.

Peikoff indeed was borderline apoplectic which certainly doesn’t improve his chances of getting his message heard. Once again this is a symptom of someone who feels that the certainty of their position can speak for itself and needs no “spin,” concern with presentation or with consequences.

Nyquist's Comments on Anthony Flew's "Conversion"

2008-06-16T23:12:00.003-04:00

I recommend reading Greg Nyquist's latest post titled, Objectivism and Religion Part 13, Deism on Anthony Flew's book, There is A God. Here is a key quote.

Whether this argument advances the case for theism, even of the minimal, deist sort, is open to question. But even if it doesn't advance the cause of theism, it does manage to provide a strong case against any version of militant atheism. Confronted with arguments such as this one, I cannot see how any Objectivist can continue to regard belief in God as patently irrational. Indeed, if you compare the claims of atheism with those of rational theism, it's not easy to determine which view is more rational. The rational theist argues that, because it's grossly implausible to assume that a coded chemistry could have emerged spontaneously from inorganic matter (see this article for greater explication of the point), it is not unreasonable to assume that life has its origin in some sort of intelligence or understanding that is beyond human comprehension. The atheist, on the other hand, argues that life emerges out of matter spontaneously, by "chance," as it were—that in other words, we all evolved from rocks. Is this really the more plausible view?

I posted this in reponse.

Greg, I’m glad someone has finally raised the issue of Flew’s “defection” and broached the subject of intelligent design. It’s something I want to write about on my blog one of these days. (Actually, I did post something a while ago comparing Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution to Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful.) I’ve read several books by Dembski, Behe and others. I don’t find them to be whim-worshipping mystics who refuse to face the facts. If anything it’s the supposed defenders of reason (Dawkins, Carroll and others) who resort to sarcasm, sneering and ad hominem arguments to defend their position and to deride the opposition. Dembski makes an interesting case for his position in The Design Inference while Behe is famous for his coining “irreducible complexity.” Yes, their agenda is to build a case a designer (i.e., God). Flew claims he followed where the evidence lead him.

Dembski and others also claims that Darwinists have not addressed how the incredible complexity of life all the way down to the cellular level can be explained by chemicals bumping into one another.

I believe they make good points even if you ultimately might not accept their solution hook line and sinker. I also believe we need to face the facts without prejudice. If the facts seem to indicate the possibility of some kind of intelligence so be it. It still is a big jump from saying there are signs of intelligence in the structure of life or in the conditions that exist in the universe that make life possible to the traditional religious concept of God as an omniscient, omnipotent designer and creator of everything. At the very least Dembski and crew have pointed out chinks in the Darwinian armor that should be acknowledged and addressed instead of using faulty arguments to spackle the holes in their arguments.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful meets The Edge of Evolution

2008-04-23T10:29:00.003-04:00

In 1996 Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box was published, setting off a debate that rages even today. Behe, a biochemist, argued for Intelligent Design (ID) based on a concept he introduced: irreducible complexity. Because this is a key cog in Behe’s argument I’ll provide his definition. “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.)”

To explain this concept he used the simple mousetrap as an example. A typical mousetrap is made of 4 or 5 parts that have to be assembled in a particular arrangement in the proper sequence for it to work. If the pieces aren’t assembled correctly or if a piece is missing the trap doesn’t work.

Behe shows that in the biochemical world there are many examples of irreducibly complex structures and processes. The blood clotting mechanism and vision are examples of irreducibly complex processes which Behe devotes some time to explaining. However, he spends a good portion of the book on the cilium, the whip like tail that bacteria use for propulsion. Behe shows that the cilium is made like a motor complete with gears, bearings, mounts, etc. He claims that chemicals bumping into one another could not assemble this “machine”. It had to be designed, according to Behe.

Darwin’s Black Box created a cottage industry of books for and against intelligent design. Just recently I read one from each side of the debate: Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful and Behe’s sequel The Edge of Evolution. Carroll’s book relies on recent developments in genetics to explain the diversity of living organisms while Behe extends, expands, defends and refines his earlier work. In The Edge of Evolution Behe revisits the flagellum to report that recent findings reveal even more complexities than were known in 1996. Behe explains the finely tuned, automated repair mechanism that transports materials from the main organism out to the end of the flagellum. Behe also spends a lot of pages discussing how the malaria

Endless Forms provides interesting and enlightening insights from the latest developments and discoveries in genetics. While Carroll’s book nicely captures how variations can occur within a species he doesn’t really address how the original forms, such as something “simple” like the cilium, emerged out of its original chemicals. Carroll’s book explains how we can change the color of the paint on a Boeing 777 but doesn’t explain how the plane itself came to be. His book is on a different level than Behe’s, a level that Behe readily admits in Endless Forms where Darwinism can work.

Like other ID critiques that I have read, Carroll’s arguments do not address Behe’s points head on. Towards the end of his book in a few paragraphs Carroll dismisses Behe’s case as “empty” without elaborating. After making this unsupported declaration he moves on to quote various creationists who impugn the motives of Darwinists. Well, as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. In addition, Carroll fails to distinguish that not all advocates of ID are creationists. The reverse might be true: all creationists are advocates of ID but arguing for ID doesn’t automatically make someone a creationist. In my case, I’ve been an atheist for decades. However, I feel the Darwinians have not come up with good counter-arguments. In many cases the Darwinists would rather use ad hominem than objective thinking.

On the other hand I believe ID advocates erroneously jump from pointing out possible evidence of intelligence built into life to the conclusion that there is a God in form of the Christian model. There could be other reasons for the incredibly organized complexity of life, from a principle of non-conscious organization inherent in the universe to a Buddhist-like spirit from which everything emmanates. In either case I believe we should pay attention to the evidence ID proponents offer even if we don’t buy the entire package they’re selling.

Ideology as a template or sieve

2008-04-22T21:19:00.001-04:00

Living in New England with a largely liberal population I see certain patterns of choice over and over. Volvos sitting in the driveway. TV tuned to PBS. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth sitting prominently on the coffee table. Organically grown groceries from Bread and Circus. And so on. And, if you happen to disagree on a hallowed position, like being skeptical of global warming being caused by humans driving their Volvos, you are automatically labeled as a Bush lackey.

To be fair, I’m sure there are areas elsewhere in the country where your advocacy of a liberal position will be met with an equally knee jerk pigeonholing. It shows me that unthinking acceptance of belief systems make life easier. It serves as a template that the user slaps onto reality to squeeze out the “truth” while trimming off the annoying counter-facts.

It also brings me back to a recurring theme, particularly for Objectivists: that being objective is hard work. It requires not sweeping away facts that contradict our previously accepted premises and conclusions but facing them head on. Does this mean we can never be certain and always withhold judgment? No. I am just saying that we should not be too quick to discount inconvenient facts. Maybe these pesky facts are signals trying to tell us to dig a little deeper.

Smarter than Rand? You didn't hear it from me!

2008-03-29T14:35:00.005-04:00

I received a comment recently from someone who claimed I'm just like a bunch of other Rand critics who think they're smarter than Rand. I chose to reject the comment because the person who sent it really didn't get into specifics and I felt that the accusation was unfounded. Perhaps I was too hasty.

I certainly am not claiming to be smarter than Rand nor do I claim to have answers to questions that are posed here. It's not an issue of intelligence. It's an issue of intellectual honesty and objectivity. I'm encouraging people to think critically about the philosophy they're advocating. For years I accepted what I read because it sounded true and was in line with general conclusions I had come to on my own or was predisposed to accepting. I'm sure there are lots of you out there in the same boat. That's fine.

My reading of various philosophers who are generally influenced by Aristotle (and some who aren't) plus my own research and life experience spurred me to take a harder look at Objectivism. Right now I have more questions than answers. If I were so smart, as the commenter claims, I'd have all of the answers!

Introductory Thoughts (continued)

2008-03-29T14:29:00.004-04:00

Just realized that I missed one key component: epistemology.

Rand held that our senses can be trusted to accurately perceive reality and that we can form concepts tied to reality. Truth describes the relationship of our knowledge to reality. While I agree in broad terms with this there are still some thorny questions.

Here is one. Given that the emotional mechanism of our brain, the limbic system, predates the development of the neo-cortex, considered the seat of rational thinking, how do we ensure that our emotions do not adversely affect our objectivity?

I know Rand named her philosophy on the idea that the universe exists independently of our hopes, fears and wishes. I think the term “objectivism” should also apply to our frame of mind: that it behooves us to strive to be objective when coming to conclusions. As Daniel Goleman explains in Emotional Intelligence, our rational faculty developed only recently compared to the emotional centers of our brain with their roots stretching back to the beginning of our evolutionary development. Reason, the newcomer, tries to bridle an ancient, powerful emotional mechanism. “There was an emotional brain long before there was a rational one.” Most of the time, reason and emotion can successfully work together. Occasionally, however, our emotions can “hijack’ our nervous system.

The prime culprit in these hijackings is the amygdala, a center in the limbic system. The amygdala occupies a unique position: it receives the same sensory signals as the neocortex but does so before the neocortex. In addition, the amygdala constantly scans incoming data for threats. If it senses a threat, “the amygdala reacts instantaneously, like a neural tripwire, telegraphing a message of crisis to all parts of the brain.” The amygdala leaps into action before the neocortex can analyze and assess the situation, making it difficult to corral the emotions.

Unfortunately, some people have amygdalas wired with a hair trigger. Furthermore, traumatic events can indelibly imprint the amygdala so deeply that years later it can be triggered by sensory input bearing just a passing resemblance to the original event. These people have to contend with this imprinting for the rest of their lives.

The basic conclusion is that being objective is much tougher and involves more work than we might realize.

Introductory Thoughts

2008-03-17T12:51:00.002-04:00

As the title of this blog indicates I intend to take a critical look at Objectivism from a friendly point of view. I’m not a Rand basher; I believe Rand offered some important ideas. The core concepts are:

that an objective reality exists (metaphysics),
that we have the right to live our own lives and pursue values for our benefit (egoism),
and that the free market operating within the framework of a limited government that protects our rights is needed to give us the freedom and opportunity to pursue our happiness (politics and economics).

Over time I plan to raise questions and offer suggested answers for some of them. I’ll admit up front that there are some subjects for which I definitely don’t have answers, such as resolving quantum mechanics with Objectivism. I’m hoping someone out there might have some input.

I believe Rand and many of her fans make the same mistake of other “isms.” They latch onto a kernel (or kernels) of truth then claim these kernels represent the whole truth. Ken Wilber, one of my favorite writers, likes to say that no one is so brilliant that they’re 100% wrong. I like to reverse it and say no one is so brilliant that they’re 100% right. In Rand’s case I think she didn’t have the patience or temperament to think through the nuances, implications and potential weaknesses of her positions. I like to describe my position as Objective-BUT-ism, meaning I agree with a certain premise or conclusion BUT with a caveat or a modification.

In essence, I feel reality is much more complicated than Rand acknowledged and therefore her philosophy needs to be more nuanced. The final result of addressing these nuances might end up with conclusions that Rand and her followers would not label “Objectivism.” So be it. I prefer to take the approach Anthony Flew recommends: follow where the evidence leads. It’s more important to me if a given conclusion is true than if it is deemed “Objectivist.” (This also gets us into the debate whether Objectivism is an open or a closed philosophy. Obviously, I’m in the “open” camp.)

Below are some brief examples which I hope to explore as this blog develops.

Metaphysics

How does quantum mechanics and relativity theory square with Rand’s positions?
Intelligent design. Is ID merely the ranting of whim worshipping mystics or do they ask questions worth investigating?
How does Objectivism deal with the Big Bang theory?

Ethics

Do ALL acts have to serve one’s self-interest?
Are there appropriate acts which don’t necessarily threaten your survival that benefit someone else?
How does an ethic of self-interest help us decide between two choices, neither one of which threatens our survival? What criteria do we use? (This was the subject of my paper Is Self-Interest Enough?)
Exactly how does parenthood further my survival?

Politics

Do we observe the rights of others strictly because it’s in our self-interest? Can there be another legitimate reason?
Do rights come with responsibilities?
Should the government NEVER help people? What about those who simply do not have the means to support themselves thanks to the lottery of birth such as those born with severe defects?
Speaking of birth, are ALL abortions OK? Even late in the third trimester? What about partial birth abortions?
Is altruism the only or even the primary reason why politics in the U.S. is constantly drifting to the Left?

This gives a taste of the kind of issues this blog will discuss. I don’t claim to have answers to all (or even most) of the questions. My goal is to spark thought and discussion.

Kudos for the Ayn Rand Institute

2008-03-08T14:52:00.007-05:00

Anyone who happens to find this blog would probably know that I harbor some criticisms of Objectivism which would automatically disqualify me from being associated with ARI. To modify something Woody Allen said, I won’t belong to an organization that won’t have me. In any case, my first exposure to Ayn Rand was in 1968 as a freshman entering college, the year of the Rand-Branden split. Two of the people I hung out with in college who had been studying Objectivism for about a year originally sided with Rand. (One of them is a staff member of The Atlas Society but I won’t divulge the name in case this person objects.) Years later when Barbara Branden published The Passion of Ayn Rand I had come to the conclusion that there was more to the story about the Branden excommunication than the official version. I also concluded that Branden’s biography probably was a reasonably accurate depiction of Rand’s personality and its affects on the “Inner Circle” as well as those on the periphery.

Over the years my reading expanded beyond the usual Objectivist-approved books to include modern Aristotelians such as John Kekes and David Norton. (Norton’s Personal Destinies is still one of my favorite books.) Within the last 10 years I happened to also read Ken Wilber’s works after Nathaniel Branden referred to Wilber in a Full Context interview. (By the way, I used to write for Full Context.)

In the meantime I’ve subscribed to TAS's The New Individualist but not to any of the ARI-friendly mailing groups because I cannot in good conscience sign their loyalty oath. (Nor, as I said above, do I think they'd accept me.)

Why all of this personal information? To set the context for this post. Diana Hsieh posted a link to a video of ARI’s president Yaron Brook in which he discusses why he is optimistic about the future. He explained how ARI has placed about 1 million of Ayn Rand’s novels into the hands of teachers since 2002. Brook estimates that as many as 5 million kids could be exposed to her novels over the next several years. Visiting the ARI web site I also noticed they have developed lesson plans for teachers to use.

I think this is a clever and potentially successful strategy. Rand often said the route to cultural change was through the universities where kids are exposed to ideas at a time when they’re forming their own views on politics and life in general. The ARI approach of catching ‘em when they’re young and before kids enter college could help build a grassroots movement. Speaking from experience in raising twin girls I know they’re exposed to (politically) liberal, anti-free market ideas in high school but the intensity of this exposure seems to increase in college.

I think ARI folks realize that some percentage of these kids will be influenced enough to pursue Rand’s non-fiction and get heavily into the philosophy. Some percentage will read the books and move on. Others won’t dig into the philosophy but will like her approach. I’ve met several people through work and just recently in my tennis group who are confident and somewhat politically conservative. When they see me carrying a book related to Rand they’d say that they loved her novels. I’m sure over time this affect will spread as Brook predicts. If so, we should give ARI some credit for their role in this.

The Happiness Hypothesis

2008-03-02T22:07:00.004-05:00

After reading The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom by Jonathan Haidt last year I've struggled with how to review it on this blog. It is one of the most interesting, wide-ranging and thought-provoking books I've read in a while. But I wanted to say more than just what the previous sentence does. I debated whether to break the review into pieces to cover the major themes or try to cover the book in one post. So time passed by with me getting no closer to posting something. Recently I came across a web page called The Edge in which Haidt does a nice job summarizing his book. Even so, this summary is 10 pages long! The link is provided here so you can read it yourself.

His essay comments on a group he calls the New Atheists: David Sloan Wilson, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and others. They responded to Haidt's essay with Haidt getting the final word at the end.

Why do I have a post on Haidt's book? Because I believe Objectivists would benefit from his observations even if you ultimately disagree with him. The Objectivist literature is quiet on how our evolution as a species affects how we think and feel. Rand did say we are rational animals but I believe the animal part of this formulation was shed and/or buried in the emphasis on reason. Our brains evolved over millions of years with the rational portion being a fairly late development. Our emotional mechanism was in place long before our reasoning capabilities emerged. I believe we need to address this in our philosophy.

Below are a few selected quotes from Haidt's Edge essay. I'll have more on this subject in the weeks ahead.

morality, and rationality itself, were crucially dependent on the proper functioning of emotional circuits in the prefrontal cortex.

If the building blocks of morality were shaped by natural selection long before language arose, and if those evolved structures work largely by giving us feelings that shape our behavior automatically, then why should we be focusing on the verbal reasons that people give to explain their judgments in hypothetical moral dilemmas?

Studies of everyday reasoning show that we usually use reason to search for evidence to support our initial judgment, which was made in milliseconds.

we did not evolve language and reasoning because they helped us to find truth; we evolved these skills because they were useful to their bearers, and among their greatest benefits were reputation management and manipulation.

The Failure -- and Success -- of Liberal “Solutions”

2008-02-15T21:25:00.002-05:00

Maybe this isn’t an original observation but I don’t recall seeing it in my readings. Over the years the Left offers solutions for poverty, unemployment and health care. Generally these solutions fall into three categories: increase government spending (and taxes), add new regulations to “fix” problems with the market or a combination of the two. And yet these problems don’t go away nor do they seem to get significantly better despite pouring billions and billions of dollars into them. So why doesn’t the Left admit that their answers don’t work and try something else? Or to put it another way, what problem has the Left said: “We fixed it! We’re done! Let’s move on to the next challenge.” Nope. We are constantly asked to do more of the same, even if it doesn’t ultimately work.

What is the alternative? Lower taxes? Fewer regulations? Less government involvement? But that would make them Republicans!

Yet the irony is that in each election we see Republicans competing to see who can come up with watered down versions of what the Left proposes while also paying lip service to the free market and limited government. As an example, witness Mitt Romney’s push to provide universal health insurance in Massachusetts that involves penalties if people don’t sign up, an approach similar to Hilary Clinton’s plan which includes garnishing wages of those who don’t comply with her wisdom. (!) A recent study by Cato Institute shows that many people still haven’t signed up for RomneyCare, the estimated cost is going to be much higher than predicted and the bureaucracy involved in health care has increased.

So why does the Right inexorably drift Leftward? Rand would have said that it because the Right shares the same altruist beliefs as the Left so that they don’t have a principled difference to resist the constant demand for the government to do more. While I don’t dispute this it doesn’t explain why voters reward the politicians with their votes. Unfortunately, many people believe it’s OK to receive government largess. I’m sure there are a number of reasons. Perhaps it’s the feeling that the funds are coming from taxing the rich or big business and therefore it’s the common man’s way for getting back at “the man.” Some probably don’t think through the fact that the money they’re receiving had to come from somewhere, like from their own taxes and their neighbors. Or it could be the desire to get “something for nothing.” Some think they’re “entitled” or it's their “right” to receive assistance.

In any case, I believe it’s the shortsighted interest of the electorate to benefit at the expense of others that fuels the engines of politicians to compete with each other to come up with more inventive ways to redistribute income. This shows the need for a better understanding of what rational self-interest and objectivity truly entail. The electorate’s desire for the unearned at the expense of others feeds the politicians desire to appease … and to be elected.

Politicians love to campaign under the banner of “change.” However, we’ll see true change only when both altruism and the desire for the unearned are successfully challenged.

How to say NO?

2007-12-31T14:50:00.000-05:00

How do we say No? Why is it so hard to say for many of us? Is there a way of saying no that respects our interests while respecting those of others? Many of us feel uncomfortable telling people no so we take several ways of doing it. Probably the most common way is to avoid saying no by giving in, thus making us feel bad about doing so and begrudging the person who put us into that spot. As one who tests as an Amiable in Social Styles I know it’s hard for me.

On the other hand we all know people who have no trouble saying no and seem to relish in it with the sensitivity of brass knuckles. (Fortunately, this group seems to be a minority.)

Are these the only ways of handling saying no? No! (There, I said it!) William Ury, who has written a number of books on getting to yes [Getting Past No and Getting to Yes] and directs the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University, tackles the flip side in The Power Of A Positive No.

His book lays out a three-step process consisting of 9 sub-steps. In essence his three steps are yes-no-yes. By that I mean:

Prepare by expressing your interests,
Deliver your no
Follow through by offering a yes that stays true to your interests while acknowledging theirs.

Throughout the book Ury also offers tips on how to word your no. “I won’t be serving on the committee. Thank you for thinking of me.” “I’m saying No now. Thank you.” As for offering an alternative yes, Ury suggests making a proposal that gives the other person a chance to say no to you. The idea behind this is “As Churchill realized, showing respect comes not from weakness and insecurity, but rather from strength and confidence. Respect for the other flows directly from respect for self. You give respect to others not so much because of who they are but because of who you are. Respect is an expression of your self and your values.”

This last step – offering a counter-proposal - might seem to be controversial to many objectivists but to me it ultimately makes sense especially for on-going relationships. This proposal might be as simple as saying, “Thanks for the offer to work on this project but my plate is full. Maybe next time?”

There is much more to The Power Of A Positive No than I can cover here. Truth be told, I don’t have the 9 complete steps memorized. Maybe if I took a course on the subject all 9 steps would stick. But I can attest to the effectiveness of packaging my no’s in the yes (to my interests)/no (declining to agree)/yes? (offering an alternative) has worked for me. Plus, Ury’s approach is based on maintaining your objectivity, which appeals to me. By doing so you can clearly express your interests while respecting the other party. Being a proponent of passionate objectivity, Ury’s approach to saying no gets a big yes.

Review of David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism

2007-12-14T20:47:00.000-05:00

Unrugged Individualism by David Kelley

Review orginally published in June 1996 “Full Context”

I remember attending a Leonard Peikoff speech at Ford Hall Forum some years ago and I overheard one person saying to the other: “Isn’t this hall filled with benevolence?” I was dumbfounded by that statement, especially since it came from someone who vehemently condemned anyone who read the then just published The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden. If I were asked to search for a word to describe the prevalent atmosphere in the hall "benevolent" would certainly not have been one of my choices. It is unfortunate that many of the advocates of Objectivism -- a philosophy whose founder described as life affirming and who proclaimed the importance of seeking values -- have not exhibited much benevolence towards the “outside” world nor, sadly, even to each other. In fact over the years I have seen friendships severed with breathtaking swiftness over disagreements that would not have ended “normal” friendships. One would think if there was any benevolence in Objectivism it would be exhibited at least amongst its advocates.

I believe a constellation of factors come into play here: moral perfectionism (as it is defined), cultural pessimism and the tendency to seek the one and only right approach to life. But, even if these factors were eliminated one issue would still bedevil us. The benevolence Rand depicted in her novels appears primarily between her heroes and heroines who occupy in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead a world purposely designed to show the extremes of individualism and collectivism, of egoism and altruism worked out in conflict. The issue of benevolence as it applies to our day-to-day dealings with people receives little attention in the Objectivist corpus.

The real world, however, is a bit more complicated. Many people espouse ideas contrary to Objectivism. If we take them at face value we have cause to be both hostile to people and cynical about the future. However, if you look at how people actually live the picture is less stark and less bleak (although still challenging). Many people strive to live what they think is a good life, a life consisting of a rewarding and interesting job, a caring and supportive home life and stimulating recreation and social life. It would seem appropriate then that a reasonable and benevolent approach to dealing with these people and to promulgating our philosophy is to support these life supporting and enhancing activities while using the appropriate opportunities to show where their conscious convictions contradict their commitments.

Unfortunately, benevolence of this sort has not received much attention among Objectivists, until recently. David Kelley has shot the opening volley in his much anticipated monograph Unrugged Individualism. It seems that this book has struck a nerve considering how much pre-publication attention it received, and deservedly so. Kelley makes the first concerted effort to show how benevolence can be grounded in an ethics of self-interest. Kelley has said the first word but not the last. For the handful of you who might not have read Kelley’s book yet, I’ll summarize it here. For those of you who have read the book, I offer some additional thoughts.

Kelley starts by challenging the long-standing connection between benevolence and altruism. Contemporary moral philosophy upholds the virtue of benevolence as altruistic because it typifies “other-regarding” virtue. That is, we show our regard for others by being benevolent, by putting their interests ahead of ours. Therefore, if altruism is true, then benevolence is a major virtue. Kelley counters with: “Insofar as benevolence means commitment to behaving peacefully toward others, respecting their rights and giving them what is due, it is an issue of justice, which is a selfish virtue, not an act of altruism.”

This depiction of benevolence is not Kelley’s full rendition, as we’ll see. He goes on to expand his concept. To establish whether or not benevolence is a major or minor virtue, Kelley moves on to discuss how to analyze virtues.

As we all know, Rand defined value as that which we act to gain and/or keep; virtues are the acts by which we gain and/or keep values. Kelley suggests we should look to what values a virtue aims to tell us if it is a legitimate virtue and, secondly, whether it is a major or minor virtue.

The values at which benevolence aims are visibility, communication and economic exchange. By visibility Kelley refers to two forms: sharing a value that is part of my identity such as an interest in music with another person and affirming my identity by interacting with another person. Visibility lets us see a part of ourselves realized in the world. (By the way, I would add under economic exchange the benefit of synergy from working in teams. Much of modern business involves working in and through teams.) Underlying these values are the values of wealth, knowledge and self-affirmation, which in turn point to the cardinal values of productive purpose, reason and self-esteem. While working benevolently with others does not substitute for these cardinal values, the nature of living successfully in a modern civilization means we have to work with others in varying degrees. For this reason, Kelley ranks benevolence as next to the most important virtues of productivity, rationality and pride. “Values derivable from others ... are at the penultimate level. They are next to cardinal in importance.” (This is a position similar to the one I took in my article, “Noninstrumental Virtues.”) Kelley makes a key point here, one worth highlighting. “In order to obtain the benefits of living with others in society, we cannot function solely as judges, we must also function as entrepreneurs.” Benevolence then inclines us to explore relationships which could flourish into profitable ones. This approach also suggests we should act and not just sit passively around judging others.

Kelley then considers the facts upon which benevolence is based. These are fundamental facts we need to recognize as a part of being objective. We need to recognize people’s humanity, which includes observing or celebrating certain universal events which point to universal values: marriage, death, birth, etc. We also respect the independence of others, and their right to live as an end in themselves, just as we claim the right for ourselves. We also recognize each person’s individuality, the discovery of which requires us to be sensitive. And finally, we need to recognize the harmony of interests. “When I treat others benevolently, I convey to them that I do not see them as threats or as prey.”

Thus, integrating all of the above, Kelley arrives at the following definition: “Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence, and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours.”

Kelley argues that benevolence is inextricably tied to productiveness, in which we ask ourselves “What if? versus the “It is” statement of rationality. Benevolence inclines us to look for opportunities to trade with others. Kelley also touches on civility, sensitivity and generosity, specific expressions of benevolence. He claims giving aid in an emergency, for instance, is self-interested “because of the value to ourselves of a society in which such aid is available when we need it for ourselves and those we care for.” In fact, Kelley goes so far to say such assistance, while not being something a person in need can demand as a right, is something we are obliged to offer (non-sacrificially, of course). He uses the (in)famous case of Kitty Genovese in which the people who could have helped her simply by calling the police (anonymously) but instead did nothing. These people did something wrong according to Kelly (I agree). Of course we can get into stickier cases where someone might expose themselves to significant risk to save another person’s life such as diving into a river to save someone from drowning or hurling themselves at a person standing in the path of an oncoming truck. In those cases too, the rescuer estimates they have a reasonable chance of succeeding. You don’t hear such rescuers on the 11:00 news saying “Yeah, I saved his life and I’m surprised I didn’t end up as road kill.”

Kelley’s point is important: such assistance, whether it is an emergency or just more normal acts of generosity, means “one’s life is improved in a world with better, happier, more fully realized people in it.” Creating values motivates us.

Objectivism’s value focus makes it a unique philosophy, not just in emphasizing obtaining and consuming values but in creating them. This is an aspect that even Objectivists tend to forget. The tendency is towards consuming values versus creating them. But I would add at least two other actions we can take towards values which can affect how we look at benevolence. Before exploring these and other issues, let me say we should be thankful to David Kelley for his invaluable contribution. His book should be required reading for all those interested in expanding Objectivism. It could be the equivalent of the shot heard around the Objectivist world. Unrugged Individualism isn’t the last word that should be said on the subject but it is an invaluable first word. If the message sticks perhaps it’ll help us more effectively show others the benefits of Objectivism. We need to show Objectivism as a key to consistent happiness.

I’d like to take this opportunity to offer a few additional thoughts of my own. As I mentioned above, we can act in at least two other ways regarding values: honoring and expressing them. We honor values by acting true to them, as examples of a vision of how we think humans should live and should live together. By honoring our values and principles, such as objectivity, living rationally, living sociably, etc., we commemorate their importance, we put our values where our mouth is. It is awfully easy to espouse how much we value the world, reason, and our life but these are just empty words unless we act on these values.

In so doing, we also express the importance of these values. Like a lighthouse which casts it light into the darkness as a beacon, our actions can speak louder than words. This is true especially in dealing with people who can’t return the favor and could never be potential trading partners. Examples would be people with severe handicaps (who might even be a family member). I’m also referring to people with whom we have only a passing encounter. For instance, when I travel for business in the U.S. or internationally, I deal with numerous people from cab drivers to people on the street. I treat all of them the same, as causal acquaintances. In being civil, considerate, even friendly we implicitly recognize and express the equivalent of this thought: “Isn’t it great to be alive? Isn’t life great when we treat each others as ends? Is this the way life should be?”

As I said before, many if not most of the people I encounter implicitly (or explicitly) strive to create and enjoy values, despite whatever their espoused moral beliefs. Hell, even priests golf!

Let me close with a list of brief additional points.

1. Benevolence as selected by human evolution. Although we don’t hear too much about evolution in Objectivist thought it is a fact we are the product of thousands if not millions of year of evolution. Darwin’s work has been expanded recently with the focus on how our behavior has been shaped by our evolutionary heritage. (Two fascinating books on the subject are Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal and Ellen Dissanake’s Homo Aestheticus.)

As Wright says: “Friendship, affection, trust -- these are things that, long before people signed contracts, long before they wrote down laws, held human societies together. Even today, these forces are one reason human societies vastly surpass ant colonies in size and complexity even though the degree of kinship among cooperatively interacting people is usually near zero.” Later, quoting an anthropologist: “an individual who maximizes his friendships and minimizes his antagonisms will have an evolutionary advantage, and selection should favor those characteristics that promote the optimization of personal relationships.” And as Ellen Dissanake writes: “because humans are absolutely dependent on their long-term survival on living in a viable social group, we can speak of individual human behaviors that contribute to group cohesion and survival as being selectively beneficial to individuals.”

In other words, we are metaphysically independent and we are socially interdependent. Among our basic needs as humans are autonomy and visibility, two potentially conflicting needs. The key then depends on looking at relationships not as “me versus you” but as “me and you”. A civil, benevolent, considerate relationship works to our mutual benefit as well as helping to sustain the glue holding our civilization together.

2. Benevolence as well-wishing. From the above discussion I would then add a component to Kelley’s definition: benevolence as well-wishing (which is the Latin meaning of the word) for the sake of the other person. The degree of well-wishing varies depending on how close we are to the other person. The degree of closeness will vary by the degree to which we share values. It is not altruistic to wish another person well, to take interest in them for their sake because they are important to us. Well-wishing is a no cost or low cost activity consisting of our psychic investment in another person. We are saying: “As one end-in-itself to another I hope you do well.”

Well-wishing or benevolence consists in encouraging people we see struggling to get ahead because it’s in their best interest. Whether or not their actions ever directly or indirectly benefit us we still honor the principle of rational self-interest and having a productive purpose in life as being life-supporting and civilizing principles.

For those with whom we have a close relationship, their ends will differ from ours. We wish them well for their own sake. This is not altruism. Unfortunately, regard for others is equated with altruism. Altruism dictates that we sacrifice our interests and values to others, that we have no right to live our lives as we want. Having and expressing regard for others means we can even do something for another person to help them with no expectation of payback. This appears to violate the Objectivist premise of all actions having to benefit us. Kelley modifies this somewhat by saying we should help others only “when their good is a means to his own, or an ingredient in it (a constitutive means), as in a close personal relationship.” I hold that such assistance even to strangers, as long as it isn’t self-sacrificial, can be justified if it involves honoring or expressing values that are important to us (such as contributing to make the world more like we think it should and can be). I keep returning to raising children as a prime example of a decision that has major, life-changing impact. Ultimately, raising children often requires putting the interests of the child ahead of ours. We do it because we they are important to us, not because we secretly hope our offspring will one day wipe the drool from our elderly faces and feed us when we can’t. We do it (or should) because we are have chosen to create another life and have accepted the responsibilities that go with it. Some of these responsibilities requires us to, say, defer vacations and other purchases in order to save for their college. In so doing we give our children a guiding hand until they can live on their own, just as we ran along side their bike with a steadying hand until they can balance the bike themselves.

3. Benevolence as an expression of optimism. Many objectivists talk about the benevolent universe premise (on which Kelley has some interesting comments) yet, culturally, they are profound pessimists primarily due to the prevalent belief that all people are scum and civilization is inexorably hurtling toward barbarism. Whether or not we accept the benevolent universe premise, we would could still choose to adopt a generally benevolent attitude. (Probably one of the most significant testaments to a hopeful future is the decision to have children.)

As I have said before, many of the people I deal with consciously or subconsciously live to enjoy values. They might adhere to ideas contrary to their day-to-day operating premises but they still live to find happiness. This alone should give us some cause for optimism and grounds for benevolence. Strategically, our ideas will find better acceptance if we approach people assuming they are interested in being happier and we work to influence their beliefs than if we bombard them with sarcasm and cynicism.

4. Benevolence as self-payment. The concept of acting so that we benefit creates the mistaken impression we need to see some payback whether it’s in terms of tangible values, returned love, or undefined, unpredictable benefits in the future.

I hold that in self-realization, in obtaining, creating, expressing, and honoring values we don’t always need to expect payment in kind from others. The satisfaction of these activities can be its own payment. Please note: I am not saying virtue is its own reward but the creation of values can be. The reward is the emotion of fulfillment which we experience when we exercise our vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope. Benevolence entails facing the world optimistically without expecting to be paid. Sometimes others pay us; sometimes we pay ourselves.

5. Benevolence as treating others as ends. It is an irony of life that you don’t obtain happiness by pursuing it. You find happiness when you achieve values. Likewise, you don’t necessarily get payment from others if you face them with the thought of “I’ll do this for you so that I get something in return.” People tend to withdraw or become reserved, even in strictly business relationships, if they sense you look at them as a cash register to be opened by hitting the right buttons. I have seen this in action in business even though it is acknowledged the basis of business relationships is “I’ll deal with you because you can give me what I want.” Even in business much time and money is spent cultivating friendships, obviously in the interests of establishing a long-term financial relationship. But I believe this also reveals the basic human need to connect with others.

6. Benevolence as an expression of thankfulness. If you think about it, it’s a miracle we’re here and we have progressed so far from our humble beginnings. I’m referring to us being here as a human race, as individuals, and even to the creation of life itself. I’m not advocating divine creation of life nor for a malevolent universe which could wipe us out at any moment. But, looking at it from a broader perspective, it is utterly amazing to think of how a complex organism like us developed, the incredibly fortuitous combination of conditions that allowed the Earth to develop and support life, the complex, painstaking process of evolution and then our individual growth from a fertilized egg.

Much of the talk about life as the ultimate value and as the standard of value tends to be in abstract, dry terms. It is worth stopping to ponder exactly what that means. To do so is to respond with awe and wonder at the magnificence of life in general, humans as a species and us an individuals. Then add in the fruits of living in our civilization. It brings a new meaning to Rand’s term “man worship.”

What does this have to do with benevolence? The perspective I have just described engenders a sense of community with others and with other living things. It entails keeping this perspective in mind as thankfulness to be here and to share our lives with others. This can also translate into generosity, the desire to share or give values. I’m not advocating giving away value promiscuously but it means a lessened focus on quid pro quo.

It does not mean we should tolerate those with narrow vision, who are irrational or who treat others as mere objects. Justice dictates we give them their due and let them know their actions will have consequences. If what I have said is true, that many if not most people live to pursue values, then our standard operating attitude should be more positively than neutrally. It does mean however to greet fellow humans -- until proven otherwise -- as potential friends or at least as fellow travelers in our journey into the future.

Allow me to offer a somewhat different description of benevolence which does not have the rigor of Kelley’s and which does not necessarily contradict his. This description tries to capture the essence of my approach. Benevolence is well-wishing directed to other people viewed as ends, as an evolutionary outcome of social interactions and as an expression of thankfulness for being able to obtain, create, honor and express values we have and for just being alive.

Review of David Kelley's A Life of One's Own

2007-12-14T20:24:00.000-05:00

A Life of One's Own
Individual Rights and the Welfare State By David Kelley

(Originally published in Ernie Ross's The Objective American)

The welfare state is a major part of our culture and plays a central part in our ongoing political debate. While liberals look for ways to expand the scope of the welfare state and conservatives strive to stymie this growth, neither side challenges the right for people to receive welfare. David Kelley, executive director of the Institute for Objectivist Studies, on the other hand, does question whether people have the right to be taken care of in his book, A Life of One's Own.

Before answering this question, Kelley explains how the welfare state was born and grew into the present day sacred cow. The welfare state and the concept of rights that support it are fairly new inventions. The first notion of welfare rights arose during the 1880's in the Otto von Bismarck regime of Germany who initiated the idea of "social insurance." Oddly enough, Bismarck created this idea as an attempt to out maneuver socialist reformers. Once the idea sprouted, it established roots and grew with the backing of anti-Enlightenment forces which fought the individualism spawned by the Enlightenment.

Kelley uncovers a cluster of ideas that played a role in this development. Among the factors are the belief in economic determinism and the appropriateness of coercion backed by the moral impetus of altruism, the belief that we have no right to exist for our own sake. Kelley points out how the personal terms "the poor" and "the unemployed" eventually changed to the impersonal terms of "poverty" and "unemployment." Citing Gertrude Himmelfarb, "The emphasis thus shifted from the personal characteristics of the poor to the impersonal causes of poverty." As Kelley states: "The link between determinism and the expanded concept of coercion is thus clear. If human beings lack the inner resources to form their own values and convictions, if they are vulnerable to all the social influences acting upon them, then every such influence is in effect a compulsion, and there is no difference in kind between the literal use of force and the `forces' that were said to keep people from acting responsibly."

The core rationale for welfare rights is the belief that "without the enjoyment of certain goods, it is argued, individuals cannot achieve the ends that freedom is for." Kelley bases his counter-argument on our right to life. Living requires our ability to act which in turn depends on our freedom to choose. "Freedom is the condition in which we can act independently, and the essence of independence is the power to act on the basis of our own deliberate judgment." Welfare rights contradict our right to life because it prevents us from fully choosing how to enjoy the fruits of our labor.

In addition to the moral questions, Kelley also addresses the practical implications of welfare policy and shows how it often leads to unintended consequences. For instance, offering aid to mothers with dependent children has attracted a cadre of women who purposely get pregnant in order to increase their relief check. Medicare and Medicaid were formed to help the elderly afford health care but the government-imposed price controls shifted the costs to other patients.

Kelley presents the various collectivist arguments in favor of welfare rights fairly and with a minimum of polemics. Kelley's writing displays his normal lucid style, although his civility towards his opponents and lack of polemics leads to a rather dispassionate tone (perhaps intentionally). Kelley, as usual, makes a number of nice distinctions yet falls prey to several false alternatives that, in the long run, hurt his case.

According to Kelley, the case for welfare rights fails because there is "no universal and nonarbitrary standard for distinguishing need from luxury." He also asks, "where do the weak get the right to be carried by the strong?" Thus, when welfare advocates cry that government support is not enough, Kelley points out that "enough" is a normative term which implies a standard, a standard he believes does not exist.

The alternatives Kelley offers is need versus luxury and the weak pitted against the strong. In other words, he accepts the key choices prevalent in the current welfare debate. He loses an opportunity to redefine the basic argument over welfare rights. His denial of a universal standard by which to judge such issues is odd given Kelley's adherence to a key premise of the Objectivist ethics: Man's life as the standard of value which in turn rests on the fundamental choice we all face, existence or non-existence.

Instead of choosing between need and luxury, we ultimately confront the choice of survival or death. Instead of the weak living of the strong, we can use a different concept - metaphysical independence. Normal adult are born with the minimum necessary equipment needed to survive on their own. We eat for ourselves, breathe for ourselves and (hopefully) think for ourselves. We therefore have the ability to create the values we need to live. Unfortunately some people have such severe limitations that they cannot support themselves. This includes mental retardation, physical handicaps, and incapacitating injury. Implicit in Kelley's argument is the conclusion that people will die if they do not receive voluntary aid. Yet these people had no responsibility for their fate, just as we had nothing to do with being born normal.

The concept of metaphysical independence can lead to a different conclusion. Rights protect those who are born with metaphysical independence to choose and act in their quest to live. For those who absolutely cannot survive on their own, rights strive to ensure they have the bare minimum to live. One could argue that supporting those few people who do not have metaphysical independence does not threaten those who do have it. At the very least, one could argue for government policing the treatment of these people by their voluntary supporters. Metaphysical independence can provide a nonarbitrary and universal standard for limited welfare rights: does the person possess the ability to live on their own and, if not, are they responsible for not having this ability.

Thus, because Kelley accepts the false alternatives discussed above, he does not address head-on those who are truly unable to support themselves. Instead Kelley shifts to the easy to dismiss cases such as the welfare queens who demand help yet have the ability to support themselves.

Despite these concerns, A Life of One's Own deserves to be read widely. It represents the Objectivist/libertarian case in a reasonable manner and in a style accessible to everyone.

Thinking about rights

2007-12-02T20:20:00.001-05:00

Here is a basic issue that libertarians and Objectivists gloss over or ignore completely: if someone is unable to support their own life due to severe handicaps, do they die unless someone voluntarily intervenes? Or, do they deserve some kind of protection? Tara Smith comes the closest to recognizing this issue in her Moral Rights and Political Freedom in footnote 1 of Chapter 1, What Rights Are, where she says: “I am leaving aside questions concerning the rights of exceptional groups of people such as the mentally retarded, insane, senile and children.” These groups are not addressed elsewhere in her otherwise fine book. I’m not aware of this issue being addressed elsewhere in the Objectivist literature.

Our right to life depends on our ability to choose and to act on our choices. Having these abilities presumes we were born with the basic equipment necessary in order to live on our own. I recall a lecture course Leonard Peikoff gave years ago in which he made a point about humans having metaphysical independence. Metaphysical independence means that we are born with the equipment we need to live on our own. Just as no one can eat or breath for us, nor should any one else think for us. Unfortunately, this concept has not seen much if any use in all of the discussions of rights because I think it leads to some interesting implications.

The Objectivist literture is silent on one key point related to metaphysical independence. We play no role in whether we were born with the proper equipment or not. Therefore, the Objectivist and libertarian position amounts to saying, "Those who were born with the necessary equipment will be have their rights protected. Those who do not have this capability are on your own." Yet being on their own is precisely what they cannot do through no fault of their own!

We talk about how life is the foundation and source of values. Yet, we say essentially, "If you are born without the ability to act you will not live unless someone chooses to help you." While we are responsible for how we employ our abilities we ultimately had nothing to do with the hand we were dealt when we were born. For those who are unfortunate, their existence should not be based on the whims of those around them who were more fortunate.

Thus I see two roles for government. One role is to protect the metaphysical independence of those who possess it. The second role is for government to ensure a minimum level of existence for those who do not have the minimum necessary conditions for metaphysical independence. It’s the least we can do out of benevolence and out of recognition for what we have. The kind of support I envision does not threaten the metaphysical independence of those who have it.

I am not talking about supporting anybody who happens to have the challenges. (Who doesn't have challenges?) Unfortunately, liberals have expanded the concept of handicap to apply to anyone with a hangnail. Using the concept of independence we end up dealing with a limited number of cases: severe birth defects, mental retardation, mental illness (such as those homeless who used to live in mental hospitals) and incapacitating injury. While one could argue that voluntary charities should take care of this limited number, the government would still play a role in policing this support for minimum physical levels and humane treatment.

Objectivists and libertarians are understandably leery of accepting even this minimal level of assistance for fear that it undercuts their moral opposition to welfare. I am concerned that we lose credibility if it is perceived that we prefer to sacrifice people at the expense of principles. I know that is not the intent but that is how it comes across. But, more important, is the Objectivist position on this subject right? I think a case can be made for modifying the Objectivist approach to rights.