As I'm sure most of you know, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is speaking in several forums today in NYC. He is scheduled to speak before the UN as they debate another round of economic sanctions against Iran for its developing nuclear (shh...weapons...shh) program. That sort of nonsense is to be expected from the UN, which is well known for ingenious moves such as having Iran and Syria head the UN commission on human rights.
What I find incredibly appalling is that Columbia University invited Ahmadinejad to come speak on politics and international relations. He has been invited as a "respected" world leader who can teach much about foreign policy to Columbia students. Outrage has been rampant over this appearance, and I'd like to join the fray. The President of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, has said that he will not cancel the appearance in the name of free speech and academic freedom. In fact, he has said that given the chance, he would invite Adolf Hitler to speak at the university!
Bollinger speaks almost as if he is fulfilling his "duty" to free speech by inviting Ahmadinejad and promising to have invited Hitler. This represents a complete misunderstanding of what free speech really means. There is a profound difference between the right of free speech and the exercise of said right. Recognizing the right of free speech entails that the government not forbid private individuals from speaking their mind when other individuals voluntarily agree to hear what is being said. Notice, this is solely a political idea. The right of free speech does not entail the obligation to provide a platform and microphone to anyone who wants to speak his mind.
In other words, there are ethical standards upon which to exercise the right of free speech properly. When you agree to provide a platform for a man's ideas, you sanction those ideas in a sense. This sanction is not necessarily agreement, but rather, the statement that the person's ideas are at least worthy of debate. Now, imagine if you agreed to give a platform to a man who explicitly advocates your murder. No matter what the outcome of the speech, this implies that there is legitimate debate over whether you should be murdered or not. Who really benefits from this arrangement and who is harmed?
By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, they are giving this indirect sanction to ideas like holocaust denial, the genocide of Israel, the destruction of the United States, and the ascendancy of Islam to world power. That is, these ideas are worthy of being debated. Are they?! We are talking about a man who not only openly calls for our destruction, but who also has a hand in the killing of our soldiers in Iraq, and who is a leader in a government that is the #1 worldwide sponsor of terrorism. This evil is to be given an open forum?
This grants him a legitimacy that he most certainly does not deserve. The appalling nature of his ideas are now masked by a veneer of respectfulness and wisdom. His appearance anywhere in New York City is a mockery of morality and justice. Calling for the destruction of Israel and our country, he should absolutely be taken at his word and arrested the second he sets foot on American soil.
I emphatically condemn Columbia University for this travesty and I applaud the New Yorkers out protesting today. Hopefully, Ahmadinejad will be at the receiving end of justice soon enough.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Best Night of My Life
Since I have the urge to share this with absolutely everyone I know, I figured it would be easiest to write a blog post about my experiences yesterday in New York City.
The day started off on a great note when I watched the last hour of Independence Day while working out on my elliptical machine. Not only is that movie incredibly heroic, but the victorious experience of watching that movie is enhanced by the adrenaline of exercise.
After this I continued my reading of Atlas Shrugged. Coincidentally, I had reached a section in which the heroic characters are featured prominently at their best. Given the nice weather, I decided it would be perfect to leave for my New York Philharmonic concert early and spend the afternoon in Bryant Park, under several skyscrapers, reading Atlas Shrugged. I also thought it quite fitting to read it on a train! (Yes, I am that much of a dork).
So, after hours of walking through the city and reading Atlas Shrugged in the park, I made my triumphant return to Avery Fisher hall and prepared myself for what I knew would be an amazing experience: John Williams conducting the New York Philharmonic. Additionally, I had an amazing seat: front and center, where the acoustics are absolutely perfect. But to boot, I would in a few minutes be only 50 feet away from John Williams!
The crowd erupted in applause as he came out on stage. I have never witnessed a crowd so thrilled to see another human being in my life. The first song, "Sound the Bells!" was commissioned for a wedding in Japan in the early 90's. True to form, it was a heroic march and the crowd went wild after its conclusion. The Philharmonic sounded incredible. I do not know if it was the acoustics, the increased presence of the brass typical of Williams' music, or both; but it was phenomenal. It was so powerful that I saw the second violinist fighting back tears, already, after just the first piece!
The next several pieces were all commissioned for the film projects of Hook, Jane Eyre, and the Harry Potter films. Needless to say, they were quite enjoyable! Every moment of it I was captivated and awestruck.
To close out the first half of the performance, they performed a Williams arrangement of music from Fiddler on a Roof. I was skeptical of it going in, but I figured it would at least be pleasant. I was quite wrong. What followed was an eruption of glorious music that rivaled anything I had heard that night. Prominently, the principal violinist was featured with a prolonged solo that brought the house down upon its climax. The end of that piece brought the first of many standing ovations for the evening.
The second half of the concert featured five arranged pieces based on very famous movies of the 40's and 50's, particularly those with elaborate dance numbers featuring actors like Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. Again, I figured this portion of the concert would be mildly pleasant. What I was really looking forward to was the last two pieces which returned to Williams' own music. Boy, was I in for a surprise. And, so were the rest of us, as a matter of fact.
The first piece to open the second half was a Williams arrangement titled "Hooray for Hollywood!" It was an incredible medley of widely known themes associated with Hollywood, and it was a fantastic surprise.
The next five pieces all came from movies directed by legendary filmmaker, Stanley Donen. For example, he was the director of Singin' in the Rain. Before Williams was to conduct the first piece, he got on the microphone and gave us a little background of what we would be seeing. A film projector was lowered, and we were to be privileged to see how an orchestra records a soundtrack to a movie! I could even see the video screen that Williams used to perfectly time the music! I felt like I was witnessing the re-creation of incredible music history!
But the biggest surprise came when Williams invited a special guest to come out to help him set the stage for the scenes we were about to witness. It was Stanley Donen himself! The crowd, which consisted of mostly people in the generation living at the prime of Donen's career, went absolutely bonkers. We were privileged to hear the detailed background of how Donen set up these incredibly elaborate dance scenes, and then watch them be performed on screen with a live orchestra! I cannot describe how cool that was.
The first scene he described consisted of Fred Astaire "dancing around the room." Literally, in the film shot, you see Astaire dancing on the walls and ceiling as he is singing about his love interest. It's an amazing sight! Donen explained that in order to get the shot, they spent months setting up an elaborate system. They constructed a huge turning wheel, then constructed a square set inside of it. Everything on the set was bolted down, including the camera, to preserve the illusion. The only thing left was months of rehearsal so that they could make Astaire dance perfectly within that set. Can you imagine how hard that must of been? Apparently that alone took months. But when we saw the final product, it was astounding. There was no way to tell that the ENTIRE set was spinning for Astaire to dance on the walls and ceiling. Add a great live soundtrack to that, and it was quite the spectacle.
The presentation of the other four dance numbers proceeded in the same manner, and all four were a delight to watch. The second involved an elaborate "dance fight" between seven brothers and a group of townspeople. They were competing for the love interest of seven girls in the town, so the progressively try to out-do each other with crazy dancing stunts. There is one scene in particular in which they leap onto a thin beam of wood and progressively attempt crazier stunts upon it. That scene alone was one of the coolest things I have ever seen!
Next, we got to see a dance number by Gene Kelly done entirely on rollerskates! He is in love (seems to be a pretty common theme in Donen's movies, hehe) and is dancing through the streets of New York City proclaiming his joy. Being an awful skater myself, it was astounding to see someone have such incredible control in skates. I could literally hear people seething in anticipation of pain as though Gene Kelly were about to have a disastrous fall. That is how impressive the dancing was.
The fourth dance number some of you may be familiar with, since Family Guy did a little parody of it. If you have seen Stewie in a dance number with a live action man in the middle of an episode, you saw Gene Kelly in one of Donen's films. That scene, in fact, was the first film scene between a cartoon character and live action human. It was so much fun. And finally, there was the scene from Singin' in the Rain, which I am sure just about everyone is familiar with.
In their own right, each of these dance numbers, and Donen's explanation of what went into creating them, were very exciting. But with the live music on top of them, particularly to see Williams time the music masterfully to the film scene, was just plain incredible. Upon the conclusion of the last dance number, the crowd jumped to their feet and gave Donen and Williams a huge standing ovation. At that moment I was witnessing the culmination of a lifetime's ambition in filmmaking. I cannot fully describe how inspiring that was.
For the "final" two pieces of the evening, the program returned to original Williams music. We were treated to Sayuri's theme from Memoirs of a Geisha, featuring a heart-wrenching solo by the principle cellist of the New York Philharmonic. It is interesting to note that this piece did not really seem to fit with anything else in the program. Everything else, especially the five pieces from Donen's films, were filled with such overwhelming optimism and heroism. The crowd responded so positively to this affirmation of optimism throughout the concert, but gave only mild applause to the one work that featured suffering. Very interesting indeed...
And then, the piece that absolutely everyone was dying to hear: "A Tribute to George Lucas and Steven Spielberg." To our utter delight, the audience was treated to a film montage of the films featured in the music as they were being played. Williams lifts his arms, we see a shark fin appear on screen, and the opening notes of the brilliant Jaws theme. The crowd went absolutely nuts. The music builds and builds, hitting its climax, it's about to musically resolve, and then trumpet fanfare! Star Wars! Again, the place went absolutely insane with delight. The themes from the Indiana Jones Trilogy followed next, with "The Flying Theme" from E.T. rounding off the medley. For those of you familiar with the ending of The Flying Theme, you can imagine how unbelievably amazing the whole thing was. I have never witnessed a more heroic and triumphant spectacle in all my life. A quote from Atlas Shrugged is very appropriate to express what it was like:
After several minutes of applause, Williams got on the microphone, thanking us, and asking us to sit. We were then treated to an encore featuring the principal flautist (who also did an amazing job with a solo in the music from Jane Eyre). The piece was his theme from the movie Sugarland Express. It was enjoyable, but not how I expected the concert to end. Indeed, I had thought to myself, I was disappointed that nothing from his Olympic music had been performed.
As I was thinking this, alas, he announces that they will now perform one of his Olypmic themes with a film montage of the best highlights from the 1988 Summer Olympics in the background! We watched countless athletes achieve victorious moments after years of brutal training and preparation, all to the sounds of one of Williams' most heroic themes! My smile and utter joy could not be contained at this sight. Again, at the conclusion of the piece, the crowd erupted in joy, launching to their feet the moment it was possible. That was the third massive standing ovation by that point.
So after several minutes of this, Williams comes out on stage, makes a funny face at the audience, and quietly reaches over to a podium and picks up another score! Triple encore! He gets on the microphone and tells us that they are now going to play his commissioned music for the NBC Nightly News theme. He jokes that what he conceived of as a 6-minute symphonic work, was being used by NBC for 15 seconds. They told him that if they ever had a slow news day, they would play the entire thing at the end of the broadcast. He said that he's been waiting a long time for that day, but it has not come yet! Surprisingly, the expanded version of the theme was incredibly good, and true to form, quite heroic. At its conclusion the crowd gave what must have been the fourth standing ovation of the evening. After several minutes, Williams finally left the stage for good and the orchestra packed up. By this time, the concert had lasted almost 3 hours!
I walked out of that concert hall in a total daze, into the most inspiring city on Earth. I must have looked a little insane, walking through the streets at a very fast pace, with a huge smile on my face. The experience left me feeling like I was in another world, one in which pessimism and suffering had absolutely no place. That is why that night was most certainly the best in my entire life. Nothing else that I have ever experienced compares in form and intensity!
The day started off on a great note when I watched the last hour of Independence Day while working out on my elliptical machine. Not only is that movie incredibly heroic, but the victorious experience of watching that movie is enhanced by the adrenaline of exercise.
After this I continued my reading of Atlas Shrugged. Coincidentally, I had reached a section in which the heroic characters are featured prominently at their best. Given the nice weather, I decided it would be perfect to leave for my New York Philharmonic concert early and spend the afternoon in Bryant Park, under several skyscrapers, reading Atlas Shrugged. I also thought it quite fitting to read it on a train! (Yes, I am that much of a dork).
So, after hours of walking through the city and reading Atlas Shrugged in the park, I made my triumphant return to Avery Fisher hall and prepared myself for what I knew would be an amazing experience: John Williams conducting the New York Philharmonic. Additionally, I had an amazing seat: front and center, where the acoustics are absolutely perfect. But to boot, I would in a few minutes be only 50 feet away from John Williams!
The crowd erupted in applause as he came out on stage. I have never witnessed a crowd so thrilled to see another human being in my life. The first song, "Sound the Bells!" was commissioned for a wedding in Japan in the early 90's. True to form, it was a heroic march and the crowd went wild after its conclusion. The Philharmonic sounded incredible. I do not know if it was the acoustics, the increased presence of the brass typical of Williams' music, or both; but it was phenomenal. It was so powerful that I saw the second violinist fighting back tears, already, after just the first piece!
The next several pieces were all commissioned for the film projects of Hook, Jane Eyre, and the Harry Potter films. Needless to say, they were quite enjoyable! Every moment of it I was captivated and awestruck.
To close out the first half of the performance, they performed a Williams arrangement of music from Fiddler on a Roof. I was skeptical of it going in, but I figured it would at least be pleasant. I was quite wrong. What followed was an eruption of glorious music that rivaled anything I had heard that night. Prominently, the principal violinist was featured with a prolonged solo that brought the house down upon its climax. The end of that piece brought the first of many standing ovations for the evening.
The second half of the concert featured five arranged pieces based on very famous movies of the 40's and 50's, particularly those with elaborate dance numbers featuring actors like Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. Again, I figured this portion of the concert would be mildly pleasant. What I was really looking forward to was the last two pieces which returned to Williams' own music. Boy, was I in for a surprise. And, so were the rest of us, as a matter of fact.
The first piece to open the second half was a Williams arrangement titled "Hooray for Hollywood!" It was an incredible medley of widely known themes associated with Hollywood, and it was a fantastic surprise.
The next five pieces all came from movies directed by legendary filmmaker, Stanley Donen. For example, he was the director of Singin' in the Rain. Before Williams was to conduct the first piece, he got on the microphone and gave us a little background of what we would be seeing. A film projector was lowered, and we were to be privileged to see how an orchestra records a soundtrack to a movie! I could even see the video screen that Williams used to perfectly time the music! I felt like I was witnessing the re-creation of incredible music history!
But the biggest surprise came when Williams invited a special guest to come out to help him set the stage for the scenes we were about to witness. It was Stanley Donen himself! The crowd, which consisted of mostly people in the generation living at the prime of Donen's career, went absolutely bonkers. We were privileged to hear the detailed background of how Donen set up these incredibly elaborate dance scenes, and then watch them be performed on screen with a live orchestra! I cannot describe how cool that was.
The first scene he described consisted of Fred Astaire "dancing around the room." Literally, in the film shot, you see Astaire dancing on the walls and ceiling as he is singing about his love interest. It's an amazing sight! Donen explained that in order to get the shot, they spent months setting up an elaborate system. They constructed a huge turning wheel, then constructed a square set inside of it. Everything on the set was bolted down, including the camera, to preserve the illusion. The only thing left was months of rehearsal so that they could make Astaire dance perfectly within that set. Can you imagine how hard that must of been? Apparently that alone took months. But when we saw the final product, it was astounding. There was no way to tell that the ENTIRE set was spinning for Astaire to dance on the walls and ceiling. Add a great live soundtrack to that, and it was quite the spectacle.
The presentation of the other four dance numbers proceeded in the same manner, and all four were a delight to watch. The second involved an elaborate "dance fight" between seven brothers and a group of townspeople. They were competing for the love interest of seven girls in the town, so the progressively try to out-do each other with crazy dancing stunts. There is one scene in particular in which they leap onto a thin beam of wood and progressively attempt crazier stunts upon it. That scene alone was one of the coolest things I have ever seen!
Next, we got to see a dance number by Gene Kelly done entirely on rollerskates! He is in love (seems to be a pretty common theme in Donen's movies, hehe) and is dancing through the streets of New York City proclaiming his joy. Being an awful skater myself, it was astounding to see someone have such incredible control in skates. I could literally hear people seething in anticipation of pain as though Gene Kelly were about to have a disastrous fall. That is how impressive the dancing was.
The fourth dance number some of you may be familiar with, since Family Guy did a little parody of it. If you have seen Stewie in a dance number with a live action man in the middle of an episode, you saw Gene Kelly in one of Donen's films. That scene, in fact, was the first film scene between a cartoon character and live action human. It was so much fun. And finally, there was the scene from Singin' in the Rain, which I am sure just about everyone is familiar with.
In their own right, each of these dance numbers, and Donen's explanation of what went into creating them, were very exciting. But with the live music on top of them, particularly to see Williams time the music masterfully to the film scene, was just plain incredible. Upon the conclusion of the last dance number, the crowd jumped to their feet and gave Donen and Williams a huge standing ovation. At that moment I was witnessing the culmination of a lifetime's ambition in filmmaking. I cannot fully describe how inspiring that was.
For the "final" two pieces of the evening, the program returned to original Williams music. We were treated to Sayuri's theme from Memoirs of a Geisha, featuring a heart-wrenching solo by the principle cellist of the New York Philharmonic. It is interesting to note that this piece did not really seem to fit with anything else in the program. Everything else, especially the five pieces from Donen's films, were filled with such overwhelming optimism and heroism. The crowd responded so positively to this affirmation of optimism throughout the concert, but gave only mild applause to the one work that featured suffering. Very interesting indeed...
And then, the piece that absolutely everyone was dying to hear: "A Tribute to George Lucas and Steven Spielberg." To our utter delight, the audience was treated to a film montage of the films featured in the music as they were being played. Williams lifts his arms, we see a shark fin appear on screen, and the opening notes of the brilliant Jaws theme. The crowd went absolutely nuts. The music builds and builds, hitting its climax, it's about to musically resolve, and then trumpet fanfare! Star Wars! Again, the place went absolutely insane with delight. The themes from the Indiana Jones Trilogy followed next, with "The Flying Theme" from E.T. rounding off the medley. For those of you familiar with the ending of The Flying Theme, you can imagine how unbelievably amazing the whole thing was. I have never witnessed a more heroic and triumphant spectacle in all my life. A quote from Atlas Shrugged is very appropriate to express what it was like:
The music of [his] Fifth Concerto streamed from his keyboard, past the glass of the window, and spread through the air, over the lights of the valley. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance.The entire crowd jumped to their feet and literally howled with delight. There's no possible way to describe how powerful the energy was in that concert hall. I have never experienced anything like it. The woman next to me, as a matter of fact, was bawling her eyes out, shaking even. My hands have never hurt so much and never have been as red after clapping as hard as I did. And I too was shaking and short of breath.
After several minutes of applause, Williams got on the microphone, thanking us, and asking us to sit. We were then treated to an encore featuring the principal flautist (who also did an amazing job with a solo in the music from Jane Eyre). The piece was his theme from the movie Sugarland Express. It was enjoyable, but not how I expected the concert to end. Indeed, I had thought to myself, I was disappointed that nothing from his Olympic music had been performed.
As I was thinking this, alas, he announces that they will now perform one of his Olypmic themes with a film montage of the best highlights from the 1988 Summer Olympics in the background! We watched countless athletes achieve victorious moments after years of brutal training and preparation, all to the sounds of one of Williams' most heroic themes! My smile and utter joy could not be contained at this sight. Again, at the conclusion of the piece, the crowd erupted in joy, launching to their feet the moment it was possible. That was the third massive standing ovation by that point.
So after several minutes of this, Williams comes out on stage, makes a funny face at the audience, and quietly reaches over to a podium and picks up another score! Triple encore! He gets on the microphone and tells us that they are now going to play his commissioned music for the NBC Nightly News theme. He jokes that what he conceived of as a 6-minute symphonic work, was being used by NBC for 15 seconds. They told him that if they ever had a slow news day, they would play the entire thing at the end of the broadcast. He said that he's been waiting a long time for that day, but it has not come yet! Surprisingly, the expanded version of the theme was incredibly good, and true to form, quite heroic. At its conclusion the crowd gave what must have been the fourth standing ovation of the evening. After several minutes, Williams finally left the stage for good and the orchestra packed up. By this time, the concert had lasted almost 3 hours!
I walked out of that concert hall in a total daze, into the most inspiring city on Earth. I must have looked a little insane, walking through the streets at a very fast pace, with a huge smile on my face. The experience left me feeling like I was in another world, one in which pessimism and suffering had absolutely no place. That is why that night was most certainly the best in my entire life. Nothing else that I have ever experienced compares in form and intensity!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Only a Matter of Time
For those of you optimistically thinking that the need to confront Iran would disappear, the following news makes it seem less likely.
Anyone remember the mysterious incursion by Israeli jets into Syrian air space a few days ago? Initial reports (including from Israeli officials themselves) indicated that it was a mistaken fly-over. Now that the information is coming in, it apparently was a deep incursion into Syrian territory.
Most importantly, it looks like the strategy of increasing economic sanctions on Iran is politically dead. This perception came after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that her government would not support any further sanctions through the UN imposed on Iran.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Anyone remember the mysterious incursion by Israeli jets into Syrian air space a few days ago? Initial reports (including from Israeli officials themselves) indicated that it was a mistaken fly-over. Now that the information is coming in, it apparently was a deep incursion into Syrian territory.
After days of silence from the Israeli government, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes inside Syria last week, the first such attack since 2003....Worse yet is what Israeli reconnaissance flights have shown.
Officials in Washington said that the most likely targets of the raid were weapons caches that Israel’s government believes Iran has been sending the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah through Syria. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah’s primary benefactors, and American intelligence officials say a steady flow of munitions from Iran runs through Syria and into Lebanon.
One Bush administration official said Israel had recently carried out reconnaissance flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea. The administration official said Israeli officials believed that North Korea might be unloading some of its nuclear material on Syria.In other news, the US military is moving to build a base on the Iraqi-Iranian border, with the help of the UK. This comes as the long-anticipated report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was released on Monday.
The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state".It's about damn time that someone in our government recognized the fact that Iran is openly at war with our country, and a response is not only justified but necessary.In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.
Most importantly, it looks like the strategy of increasing economic sanctions on Iran is politically dead. This perception came after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that her government would not support any further sanctions through the UN imposed on Iran.
The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.I'd say that the exact strategy upon which to confront Iran to rid them of their nuclear program and end their support of Islamic terrorism is debatable. But it seems fairly certain to me that they will be confronted militarily, and that such an action is necessary and just. It's only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Why Should We Be Honest: Revisited Again
In responding to an objection to my post (which is cross-listed on facebook) I ended up writing a lot more than I intended, even getting into the subject of white lies. Facebook has a character limit on its comments, so I figured it would be easiest to write it all out here. This is the objection that prompted this, from my friend Steve:
It is true that a very good liar could maintain this system for quite some time, without getting caught. But the really important point is to look at what this does to HIS OWN relationship with reality. Rand is working from the metaphysical premise that reality is an absolute. That is, it harshly imposes a variety of conditions on him regardless of his intentions. Rand is essentially making the point that it is much easier to operate honestly, in accordance with the facts of reality, than to attempt to subvert it.
Try to place yourself in the scenario of the habitual liar. You have obtained a few material things - a job, income, etc. Would you really feel like you had achieved something? Did you create a value? Or are you simply a looter, a parasite? What will this elaborate fantasy do to your self-esteem? You can't actually create values, so you must pretend to be something you are not in order to swindle everyone? What does this do to your relationship with your loved ones? Do you really deserve the praise of your wife when she congratulates you on your promotion? And so on and so on.
The point is that we are not talking about the most efficient way to collect THINGS. We are talking about the best way to live as a human being, in accordance with the requirements of our nature. That is, we're not talking about how to preserve a basic sustenance in the short-term, but rather how to live a flourishing life in the long-term. That is really the key here. The primary reason why it seems difficult to abandon the idea of the effective manipulator is that most people (myself included) are thinking in terms of the range of the moment.
It's true that this liar may achieve a bit more short-term material comfort, but do you see how badly he has sabotaged himself in the long-term? He must keep up this charade his entire life, or else face the collapse of his pretense. Do you think this gets easier over time?
Ok. Imagine a man moving from swindle to swindle. Let's say that he even is able to increase the scale of his con as he progressively becomes a better liar. Can you imagine what he will actually feel at the end of his life? Do you sincerely think he will feel true pride at the sight of a great accomplishment? Or do you think that the years of pretending to himself and everyone around him will catch up with his sense of self-worth?
I really want for you to think about this not just in a hypothetical sense, but applied to your own life specifically. Can you imagine ever lying on such a scale and being truly successful? And don't just self-deprecate. Don't think to yourself, oh I couldn't possibly do it, but if someone has the genius to, more power to him. I highly doubt you think that. And is it out of some sense of duty to the truth that you feel that way, or a duty to others? Where does such a duty come from if there is no such thing as the divine?
No, I think that you would reject such a scheme through your own common sense conclusion that it would either fall apart or cause you incredible mental turmoil in the long-term.
No matter how hard we may want reality to be other than its not, the fact of the matter is that the truth exists independently of our wishes. Any attempt to subvert this fundamental fact is futile.
Now I'd like to move onto the subject of white lies. The idea that they should never be used is an extension of the principle that reality exists independently of our minds. A woman asking how she looks in a dress is either fat or fit, regardless of our statements. That being said however, it is obviously prudent to avoid needlessly insulting our friends and loved ones. So there are a couple of ideas to keep in mind regarding white lies.
First of all, it's not necessary to go around delivering unsolicited information to everyone you know. I can easily be friends with a person who I think has something they can improve in their life, because such things are irrelevant to the nature of our friendship, depending on its degree. We all have things we can improve in our life, and there's no need to constantly criticize others about their short comings. (Unless we are talking about a major character flaw, such as being an avowed Kantian :-P) But seriously, withholding your full opinion of another person, because it is not asked for, is not being dishonest.
But I suspect that you, and most other people, would agree with me up to this point. The really tough situations occur when another person asks you your opinion, and you know that your honest answer will hurt their feelings. The best example I can think of is when a loved one gives you a gift that you don't really like. I'm sure that all of us, at some point, have faked a sincere interest in a gift we have received. How can I tell a person, who had every good intention, that their thoughtful gift is of little interest to me? That doesn't seem right. So, not wanting to hurt their feelings, we lie.
Tara Smith argues in Ayn Rand's Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (what started this whole discussion), that it is possible to tell the truth and not offend the other person's feelings. For example, a simple "thank you" or "I really appreciate your thoughtfulness" is more than enough to satisfy the situation. However, the person might ask you specifically what you think of the gift. Unless the person asks you specifically what your absolutely full opinion of the gift is, it's not necessary to divulge everything you are thinking. I would not consider that a white lie but rather an appropriate response based on the context. If all else fails, and the person wants to know absolutely everything you are thinking about that gift (which seems highly unlikely), I would sensitively let the person know that it's not exactly what I need/want, but I still really appreciate the thought.
I'm sure that there are a lot of other pertinent examples, but this is getting rather long, so I'll stick with just one more. What should you do when another person asks how they look either in a particular article of clothing or in general? Obviously, sensitivity is a must here. Having had serious issues with weight and physical appearance myself, I know how crushing a negative assessment of one's self can be.
Let's look at both situations separately. In the case of answering an opinion about an article of clothing, this does not seem difficult at all. In such a situation, I would say something like, " I do not think that is particularly flattering for you. I think you looked much better in X. But, that's just me." It's important to note that taste in regards to physical appearance and clothing varies, so I do not think it is problematic to let someone else know your opinion if asked. Furthermore, what benefit do you confer upon a person by lying to them about your opinion in this case? If your opinion of the garment ends up being widely shared, you have done this person a disservice by lying to them. The only concern should be avoiding the needless offense of their feelings. But, if you're sensitive as I described above, that shouldn't be a problem.
The latter situation, giving your opinion on a person's physical appearance in general, is obviously much more problematic. If we're dealing with something that can be changed, for example being overweight, I think it is important to tell the truth in a sensitive manner but stress the fact that the issue in question is a matter open to change. "Sure, you may be a little overweight right now but I know that you can improve that if you want to. I'd be happy to help in any way that I can, if you'd like." Unfortunately, there are too many people that would be shocked to hear something like this said to them. They would rather have their friends assist them in maintaining an illusion for their own pretense. Frankly, I do not want to be friends with people who consciously seek to delude themselves like that, and I will not like simply for their sake.
If however, we're dealing with a physical issue that cannot be changed, I would take the approach of deflecting the issue. For example, if someone asked me if I thought they were too short, I would say something like, "Well, you are a bit short, but who cares? I'm a bit A, B, or C myself. These things were never under our control. Besides, you're X, Y, and Z! (these being positive attributes, obviously)."
The fact of the matter is, I think that a healthy relationship between two people requires honesty. If I thought that my friends were shielding me from the truth about something, I would think that one, they have little respect for my ability to handle reality; and two, I would think that they have little respect for me. From that point on, I could not be sure whether they were being truthful with me or attempting a pleasant charade.
And ultimately, it all boils down to my perspective on our relationship between reality and ourselves. Since the truth is absolute, we must face it, even if at times it hurts our feelings. It makes sense to approach certain issues in a sensitive manner, but that does not change the fact that the truth must be faced.
If anyone can think of other problematic examples I'd be happy to field them.
Interesting, but your example only works if a continual web of lies must exist. What if upon getting the job with your falsified resume, you are free from producing or maintaining any additional lies - that is, people accept that you are qualified and don't question it further, and your wife/friends/etc accept your lie to them that you "had a good interview" or "just was the man the company was looking for" and question you no further? Then you would gain from your lie as you would have your job and no web of lies to maintain, and as Jason previously said, even if you had to occasionally throw in a lie, there would be no threat of destroying your web of lies if you are a good enough liar.Here is my response.
I wrote that kind of quickly, but that's my objection. I would be interested to hear your view on white lies.
It is true that a very good liar could maintain this system for quite some time, without getting caught. But the really important point is to look at what this does to HIS OWN relationship with reality. Rand is working from the metaphysical premise that reality is an absolute. That is, it harshly imposes a variety of conditions on him regardless of his intentions. Rand is essentially making the point that it is much easier to operate honestly, in accordance with the facts of reality, than to attempt to subvert it.
Try to place yourself in the scenario of the habitual liar. You have obtained a few material things - a job, income, etc. Would you really feel like you had achieved something? Did you create a value? Or are you simply a looter, a parasite? What will this elaborate fantasy do to your self-esteem? You can't actually create values, so you must pretend to be something you are not in order to swindle everyone? What does this do to your relationship with your loved ones? Do you really deserve the praise of your wife when she congratulates you on your promotion? And so on and so on.
The point is that we are not talking about the most efficient way to collect THINGS. We are talking about the best way to live as a human being, in accordance with the requirements of our nature. That is, we're not talking about how to preserve a basic sustenance in the short-term, but rather how to live a flourishing life in the long-term. That is really the key here. The primary reason why it seems difficult to abandon the idea of the effective manipulator is that most people (myself included) are thinking in terms of the range of the moment.
It's true that this liar may achieve a bit more short-term material comfort, but do you see how badly he has sabotaged himself in the long-term? He must keep up this charade his entire life, or else face the collapse of his pretense. Do you think this gets easier over time?
Ok. Imagine a man moving from swindle to swindle. Let's say that he even is able to increase the scale of his con as he progressively becomes a better liar. Can you imagine what he will actually feel at the end of his life? Do you sincerely think he will feel true pride at the sight of a great accomplishment? Or do you think that the years of pretending to himself and everyone around him will catch up with his sense of self-worth?
I really want for you to think about this not just in a hypothetical sense, but applied to your own life specifically. Can you imagine ever lying on such a scale and being truly successful? And don't just self-deprecate. Don't think to yourself, oh I couldn't possibly do it, but if someone has the genius to, more power to him. I highly doubt you think that. And is it out of some sense of duty to the truth that you feel that way, or a duty to others? Where does such a duty come from if there is no such thing as the divine?
No, I think that you would reject such a scheme through your own common sense conclusion that it would either fall apart or cause you incredible mental turmoil in the long-term.
No matter how hard we may want reality to be other than its not, the fact of the matter is that the truth exists independently of our wishes. Any attempt to subvert this fundamental fact is futile.
Now I'd like to move onto the subject of white lies. The idea that they should never be used is an extension of the principle that reality exists independently of our minds. A woman asking how she looks in a dress is either fat or fit, regardless of our statements. That being said however, it is obviously prudent to avoid needlessly insulting our friends and loved ones. So there are a couple of ideas to keep in mind regarding white lies.
First of all, it's not necessary to go around delivering unsolicited information to everyone you know. I can easily be friends with a person who I think has something they can improve in their life, because such things are irrelevant to the nature of our friendship, depending on its degree. We all have things we can improve in our life, and there's no need to constantly criticize others about their short comings. (Unless we are talking about a major character flaw, such as being an avowed Kantian :-P) But seriously, withholding your full opinion of another person, because it is not asked for, is not being dishonest.
But I suspect that you, and most other people, would agree with me up to this point. The really tough situations occur when another person asks you your opinion, and you know that your honest answer will hurt their feelings. The best example I can think of is when a loved one gives you a gift that you don't really like. I'm sure that all of us, at some point, have faked a sincere interest in a gift we have received. How can I tell a person, who had every good intention, that their thoughtful gift is of little interest to me? That doesn't seem right. So, not wanting to hurt their feelings, we lie.
Tara Smith argues in Ayn Rand's Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (what started this whole discussion), that it is possible to tell the truth and not offend the other person's feelings. For example, a simple "thank you" or "I really appreciate your thoughtfulness" is more than enough to satisfy the situation. However, the person might ask you specifically what you think of the gift. Unless the person asks you specifically what your absolutely full opinion of the gift is, it's not necessary to divulge everything you are thinking. I would not consider that a white lie but rather an appropriate response based on the context. If all else fails, and the person wants to know absolutely everything you are thinking about that gift (which seems highly unlikely), I would sensitively let the person know that it's not exactly what I need/want, but I still really appreciate the thought.
I'm sure that there are a lot of other pertinent examples, but this is getting rather long, so I'll stick with just one more. What should you do when another person asks how they look either in a particular article of clothing or in general? Obviously, sensitivity is a must here. Having had serious issues with weight and physical appearance myself, I know how crushing a negative assessment of one's self can be.
Let's look at both situations separately. In the case of answering an opinion about an article of clothing, this does not seem difficult at all. In such a situation, I would say something like, " I do not think that is particularly flattering for you. I think you looked much better in X. But, that's just me." It's important to note that taste in regards to physical appearance and clothing varies, so I do not think it is problematic to let someone else know your opinion if asked. Furthermore, what benefit do you confer upon a person by lying to them about your opinion in this case? If your opinion of the garment ends up being widely shared, you have done this person a disservice by lying to them. The only concern should be avoiding the needless offense of their feelings. But, if you're sensitive as I described above, that shouldn't be a problem.
The latter situation, giving your opinion on a person's physical appearance in general, is obviously much more problematic. If we're dealing with something that can be changed, for example being overweight, I think it is important to tell the truth in a sensitive manner but stress the fact that the issue in question is a matter open to change. "Sure, you may be a little overweight right now but I know that you can improve that if you want to. I'd be happy to help in any way that I can, if you'd like." Unfortunately, there are too many people that would be shocked to hear something like this said to them. They would rather have their friends assist them in maintaining an illusion for their own pretense. Frankly, I do not want to be friends with people who consciously seek to delude themselves like that, and I will not like simply for their sake.
If however, we're dealing with a physical issue that cannot be changed, I would take the approach of deflecting the issue. For example, if someone asked me if I thought they were too short, I would say something like, "Well, you are a bit short, but who cares? I'm a bit A, B, or C myself. These things were never under our control. Besides, you're X, Y, and Z! (these being positive attributes, obviously)."
The fact of the matter is, I think that a healthy relationship between two people requires honesty. If I thought that my friends were shielding me from the truth about something, I would think that one, they have little respect for my ability to handle reality; and two, I would think that they have little respect for me. From that point on, I could not be sure whether they were being truthful with me or attempting a pleasant charade.
And ultimately, it all boils down to my perspective on our relationship between reality and ourselves. Since the truth is absolute, we must face it, even if at times it hurts our feelings. It makes sense to approach certain issues in a sensitive manner, but that does not change the fact that the truth must be faced.
If anyone can think of other problematic examples I'd be happy to field them.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Why Should We Be Honest: Revisited
Well I had a couple of well-placed objections to my first post about the nature of honesty from Jason and Martin. Jason's objection gets to the heart of the issue, so I will post that here. (Martin, I'd be happy to discuss the reasons why honesty matters metaphysically to an atheist further, though I think I will inevitably brush upon that in my response here anyway).
From Jason:
Let's bring this to the concrete level with an example. Based on your objection, I will deal here with the concept of the successful habitual liar, as opposed to the generally truthful person who permits himself occasional deceptions or white lies. (The subject of white lies requires another train of thought, which I'd be happy to share should it come up. As a note of interest, I was only recently fully acclimated to the idea of not allowing oneself to tell white lies).
(I am borrowing this general example from Leonard Peikoff. He discusses this example in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand). Suppose I were to apply to a job with a resume and educational history that is entirely falsified so that I can be certain to acquire the position. Suppose that I am expected to act upon my skill qualifications that I embellished in my resume. Suppose that your boss is good friends with the Dean of Admissions at the school you pretended to go to, and he does not remember ever seeing your name. Suppose that your wife inquires about how you managed to get a job of this kind. This one lie will, in short order, spiral into a system of lies that become harder and harder to maintain.
Obviously, the response to this line of reasoning is that the individual in question should simply do a better job of lying (as you noted). Clearly he was clumsy, and understandably caught in his poorly conceived lies.
However, I'd like to submit to you that this pattern must be extended to any other example of dishonesty. Regardless of the degree of my initial lie, and regardless of how effectively I have covered up the truth, I will always be faced with the threat of being discovered. Every person I interact with is a threat to me, in that they may shatter my web of lies. Inevitably, I must become suspicious of everyone around me and constantly work to maintain the lies. Indeed, such a pattern would ultimately shatter any valuable relationships with other people.
But more importantly, what have I done to my self-esteem in this process of deceit? By obtaining the job through deception, have I actually achieved something? Have I earned a value as the result of my own, actual worth? Or, am I trying to fake it? From that point on I have set reality against my interests: it is now my enemy. I must continually ignore the truth of reality in favor of my fantasy in the attempt to preserve the faked sense of self-worth from my "accomplishment."
Ultimately, the most important principle is that reality is absolute. It exists regardless of our intentions, desires, and best wishes. Any attempt to pretend that reality is what it is not is utterly futile for this reason. Even if we are dealing with very practiced liars, the fact of the matter remains that it is impossible for the self-deception to succeed. And what I mean by that is, even if they have everyone around them fooled at the moment, they have not actually accomplished what they are pretending in fact. Sure, the most practiced liars will have accumulated a variety of material possessions, even companions. But it is all a fantasy. And, at what cost have they "achieved" this status?
I have a feeling that at this point, you are not yet satisfied with this answer. There is one crucial piece of the puzzle missing. Where do values come from? At root, we are debating whether a person can invent values through self-deception or not. Rand identified three suggested sources of value in the history of philosophy. First there's the concept of intrinsic value, that is, the value of a thing is literally in the thing itself, and this is impressed upon us by our passive experience of it. Another possibility is the concept of subjective value. Values do not exist in things, but rather are the creation of individual minds imprinted upon things of our artificial choosing. (I would think by now that you are starting to see the connection to the problem of universals).
The final option is the concept of objective value. An object is valuable in relation to another object's nature for a particular end. Food is of value in relation to the requirements of human existence towards the end of continued living. Were we not living beings, food would be of absolutely no consequence. I cannot delude myself into thinking that a rock is an objective value towards the end of receiving sustenance in order to continue living, because that is not the nature of reality. The point is, objective values cannot be faked. Self-deception is the attempt to turn a subjective value into objective, and on the basis of Rand's metaphysics, must inevitably fail.
Going back to the original example, sure, I've obtained some material possessions, but what have I really gained? Based on all of the problems associated with maintaining the lie with others alone, I've lost in the long-term. But more importantly, what have I really achieved for myself? I haven't improved my ability to create, I haven't developed my skills relevant to this job, I haven't actually done anything, except attempt to improve my ability to deceive myself. There is ultimately no long-term benefit from turning reality into my enemy, since it is absolute. I cannot succeed in artificially creating an objective value through self-deception. Thus, it makes all the prudential sense in the world to be entirely honest with myself, and with those around me.
From Jason:
Rand's selfish justification of honesty suffers from a critical shorortcoming: It is a rationalization. To affirm that a prudent person will not want to be deceived about reality is easy; segueing to the need not to deceive others simply begs the question: How does misleading others constitute a flight from reality—indeed, how is it intrinsically different from any other kind of strategic behavior? This segue is a virtual change of subject in mid-argument. In her 1971 essay "Lying in Politics" Hannah Arendt provocatively but perceptively points out that a liar, to be effective, has to have a clearer and more-textured view of reality than those misled. Steve himself notes Smith's example of the "very effective liar" who is not caught in the lie, and thus does not face the consequences (merely the implications); this really is the last word on the subject as far as "faking reality" is concerned. In a complex or consequential lie one must improvise brilliantly; one could however invoke the metaphor of sailing the open seas in stormy weather: You take your chances—but what does that necessarily have to do with delusion?Your objection is fair based on the amount of material I divulged in my post.
I have to conclude that Rand's reduction of all dishonesty to mere delusion is simply an effort to rationalize the customary profession of honesty in "enlightened self-interest" language. Like most attempts to induce moral staples from "enlightened self-interest," this can only be accomplished by begging the question with a better sob story.
Let's bring this to the concrete level with an example. Based on your objection, I will deal here with the concept of the successful habitual liar, as opposed to the generally truthful person who permits himself occasional deceptions or white lies. (The subject of white lies requires another train of thought, which I'd be happy to share should it come up. As a note of interest, I was only recently fully acclimated to the idea of not allowing oneself to tell white lies).
(I am borrowing this general example from Leonard Peikoff. He discusses this example in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand). Suppose I were to apply to a job with a resume and educational history that is entirely falsified so that I can be certain to acquire the position. Suppose that I am expected to act upon my skill qualifications that I embellished in my resume. Suppose that your boss is good friends with the Dean of Admissions at the school you pretended to go to, and he does not remember ever seeing your name. Suppose that your wife inquires about how you managed to get a job of this kind. This one lie will, in short order, spiral into a system of lies that become harder and harder to maintain.
Obviously, the response to this line of reasoning is that the individual in question should simply do a better job of lying (as you noted). Clearly he was clumsy, and understandably caught in his poorly conceived lies.
However, I'd like to submit to you that this pattern must be extended to any other example of dishonesty. Regardless of the degree of my initial lie, and regardless of how effectively I have covered up the truth, I will always be faced with the threat of being discovered. Every person I interact with is a threat to me, in that they may shatter my web of lies. Inevitably, I must become suspicious of everyone around me and constantly work to maintain the lies. Indeed, such a pattern would ultimately shatter any valuable relationships with other people.
But more importantly, what have I done to my self-esteem in this process of deceit? By obtaining the job through deception, have I actually achieved something? Have I earned a value as the result of my own, actual worth? Or, am I trying to fake it? From that point on I have set reality against my interests: it is now my enemy. I must continually ignore the truth of reality in favor of my fantasy in the attempt to preserve the faked sense of self-worth from my "accomplishment."
Ultimately, the most important principle is that reality is absolute. It exists regardless of our intentions, desires, and best wishes. Any attempt to pretend that reality is what it is not is utterly futile for this reason. Even if we are dealing with very practiced liars, the fact of the matter remains that it is impossible for the self-deception to succeed. And what I mean by that is, even if they have everyone around them fooled at the moment, they have not actually accomplished what they are pretending in fact. Sure, the most practiced liars will have accumulated a variety of material possessions, even companions. But it is all a fantasy. And, at what cost have they "achieved" this status?
I have a feeling that at this point, you are not yet satisfied with this answer. There is one crucial piece of the puzzle missing. Where do values come from? At root, we are debating whether a person can invent values through self-deception or not. Rand identified three suggested sources of value in the history of philosophy. First there's the concept of intrinsic value, that is, the value of a thing is literally in the thing itself, and this is impressed upon us by our passive experience of it. Another possibility is the concept of subjective value. Values do not exist in things, but rather are the creation of individual minds imprinted upon things of our artificial choosing. (I would think by now that you are starting to see the connection to the problem of universals).
The final option is the concept of objective value. An object is valuable in relation to another object's nature for a particular end. Food is of value in relation to the requirements of human existence towards the end of continued living. Were we not living beings, food would be of absolutely no consequence. I cannot delude myself into thinking that a rock is an objective value towards the end of receiving sustenance in order to continue living, because that is not the nature of reality. The point is, objective values cannot be faked. Self-deception is the attempt to turn a subjective value into objective, and on the basis of Rand's metaphysics, must inevitably fail.
Going back to the original example, sure, I've obtained some material possessions, but what have I really gained? Based on all of the problems associated with maintaining the lie with others alone, I've lost in the long-term. But more importantly, what have I really achieved for myself? I haven't improved my ability to create, I haven't developed my skills relevant to this job, I haven't actually done anything, except attempt to improve my ability to deceive myself. There is ultimately no long-term benefit from turning reality into my enemy, since it is absolute. I cannot succeed in artificially creating an objective value through self-deception. Thus, it makes all the prudential sense in the world to be entirely honest with myself, and with those around me.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Because We Said So
In absurd news, Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards has proposed a universal health care system that involves mandatory doctor visits. (John Edwards is not to be confused with John Edward, biggest douche in the universe; though Edwards should be a nominee for the title himself).
More importantly, let's look at who the government looters will steal from in order to fund this monstrosity.
You can damn well guarantee that I will not be voting for John Edwards in 2008. You should not either. Is anyone as outraged about this as I am?
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care....
Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans."The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.
I'm not sure how exactly to describe the sick feeling in my stomach that this gives me. Words like "appalling," "nauseating," and "repulsive" just don't seem to cut it.
More importantly, let's look at who the government looters will steal from in order to fund this monstrosity.
Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.By what right can the government loot this money from our best, most productive citizens? By what right? I have very little doubt that mandatory doctor visits would save lives. There are plenty of people in our country that are too afraid to confront a medical problem which later becomes fatal. Also, there are people in unfortunate circumstances who cannot afford healthcare. But those reasons do not justify the chaining and looting of our most productive citizens by gunpoint.
You can damn well guarantee that I will not be voting for John Edwards in 2008. You should not either. Is anyone as outraged about this as I am?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Why Should We Be Honest?
So it's been over two months since I've written a post. Perhaps blogging has not been as much of an interest to me lately because I have been very inwardly focused (yes, even more than usual) and not nearly as interested in communicating my thoughts to others. Well at any rate, I do have something that I'd like to comment on at the moment, so here we go.
I have been reading Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith. She's a philosophy professor at the University of Texas, Austin (and yes she's an Objectivist). I actually had the privilege to meet her in New York City after she delivered a lecture. Between her lecturing ability and her very effective writing, I am quite impressed. She does a much better job lending an aura of respectable academic standing than I have seen from some other Objectivist intellectuals in the past. Perhaps that is why this book was published by Cambridge University Press - a very respectable publisher for those in academic philosophy.
Having just completed her chapter on the virtue of honesty within the Objectivist ethics, I found myself desiring to share its uniqueness with others. Typically, honesty is understood as a virtue of action in relation to other people specifically. On this view, there are several possible reasons why dishonesty is immoral: it creates an aura of distrust within society, it unfairly uses other people, and it can harm your reputation. But notice that this line of argument suggests dishonesty is harmful only in relation to others. In fact, as Smith aptly notes, these proposed ill effects of dishonesty suggest that if one were simply a very effective liar (i.e. was never caught) it would not be harmful or immoral.
Contrary to this typical line of thought then, Rand suggests that dishonesty is harmful to the individual outside of any consideration of its effects on others. Rand is working from the premise that because the nature of reality imposes very strict conditions on us (we must eat, create shelter, and a myriad of other actions to live as human beings), we absolutely must use our reason to understand reality. In her perspective, to attempt dishonesty is to attempt to fake reality. And since reality is absolute (that is, it exists outside of our desires and intentions), the attempt to fake reality must inevitably fail. Consider the ramifications of dishonesty then. For example, imagine standing on railroad tracks, trying to deceive yourself into believing that an incoming train was not actually there. Your desire for reality to be different, in itself, imposes no changes on what confronts you. Now extend this principle to any other situation, and the principle is the same. Given this unalterable fact, self-deception is inevitably harmful to our well-being.
It is from this basis that one should not lie to others--because there is no benefit in doing so for yourself. That is, being honest to others is derivative from the fact that one should not lie to oneself.
It being late, I will end this line of thought here, despite there being more to say. But, I'd be interested to hear objections.
I have been reading Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith. She's a philosophy professor at the University of Texas, Austin (and yes she's an Objectivist). I actually had the privilege to meet her in New York City after she delivered a lecture. Between her lecturing ability and her very effective writing, I am quite impressed. She does a much better job lending an aura of respectable academic standing than I have seen from some other Objectivist intellectuals in the past. Perhaps that is why this book was published by Cambridge University Press - a very respectable publisher for those in academic philosophy.
Having just completed her chapter on the virtue of honesty within the Objectivist ethics, I found myself desiring to share its uniqueness with others. Typically, honesty is understood as a virtue of action in relation to other people specifically. On this view, there are several possible reasons why dishonesty is immoral: it creates an aura of distrust within society, it unfairly uses other people, and it can harm your reputation. But notice that this line of argument suggests dishonesty is harmful only in relation to others. In fact, as Smith aptly notes, these proposed ill effects of dishonesty suggest that if one were simply a very effective liar (i.e. was never caught) it would not be harmful or immoral.
Contrary to this typical line of thought then, Rand suggests that dishonesty is harmful to the individual outside of any consideration of its effects on others. Rand is working from the premise that because the nature of reality imposes very strict conditions on us (we must eat, create shelter, and a myriad of other actions to live as human beings), we absolutely must use our reason to understand reality. In her perspective, to attempt dishonesty is to attempt to fake reality. And since reality is absolute (that is, it exists outside of our desires and intentions), the attempt to fake reality must inevitably fail. Consider the ramifications of dishonesty then. For example, imagine standing on railroad tracks, trying to deceive yourself into believing that an incoming train was not actually there. Your desire for reality to be different, in itself, imposes no changes on what confronts you. Now extend this principle to any other situation, and the principle is the same. Given this unalterable fact, self-deception is inevitably harmful to our well-being.
It is from this basis that one should not lie to others--because there is no benefit in doing so for yourself. That is, being honest to others is derivative from the fact that one should not lie to oneself.
It being late, I will end this line of thought here, despite there being more to say. But, I'd be interested to hear objections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)