Casey, hu kutab:

For a whole year now I've heard people who claim to be Objectivists
project a purely Platonic/omniscient definition of "moral perfection"
onto Rand and find her lacking (surprise, surprise) while chortling
from their superhuman throne at the very notion that humans can be
morally perfect. Anyone who claims that Rand WAS morally perfect is
branded a goddess worshipper by these folks, even though it is those
who adopt such a Platonic standard of moral perfection that have an
unrealistic view of the entire issue.

Of course, the dichotomy between the possible/practicable and the
perfect does not exist (literally) and therefore is not valid according
to Objectivism. When people on the Branden/etc. side drone on about how
their smears made her more "human" and "real" by adding moral warts to
her portrait they are assuming that perfection is measured against
omniscience as a standard and all living human beings fall short,
rendering "perfection" an anti-Objectivist concept at its root.

I respond:



Perhpaps being morally perfect,  with respect to a particular
choice of decision means you could not do otherwise and still be
yourself. A morally correct decision leaves you in one piece. A morally
incorrect decision is self devisive and conflicting.  Now there is
no guarantee that a "feel good" decision is objectively correct, but at
least it is not self destructive, even if arrived at intuitively.



I am not one for overphilosophizing moral or ethical decisions. I use
heuristic techniques if I have to come up with a solution verbally.
Rule 1: Do not do to someone else you would not want him to do to you.
Rule 2: Whiat is yours is yours and what is mine is mine.  Respect
property.



I find those two rules cover 99 percent of the cases I have to handle.
I have no good rule set for the other one percent. If I cannot
rationalize my decision, I go with my gut (it is either that or do
nothing).  I am not convinced there are any valid a priori
principles that are moral/ethical in their essence. Obviously no moral
or ethical choice can entiail or be entialed by a logical
contradiction. The Law of Non Contradiction is ueber alles. No moral or
ethical choice can entail or be entialed by a physical impossibily.
There no such thing as a morality that requires you to fly by flapping
your arms.

But most moral/ethical decisions do not involve obvious absurdities. They are more subtle and huanced than that.



Bob Kolker

Linz, I like what you said the best. Your argument for "good faith" is convincing. What else is there than to take in all you can and to act on it as earnestly as you know how? You hit on the idea that many people are much, much better people than they give themselves credit for. The classic example is the moral person who gives themselves a little pat on the back and follows it with the thought, "But I'm nothing special. I'm just as likely to sin and burn as anyone else." That's the kind of self-immolation that Rand despised.

Which leads me to "Gearing Down" which I'll post about elsewhere.

There is a great difference between our estimate of moral perfection and the reality underneath it. We can convince ourselves of all sorts of things and these convictions can, at the same time, have no basis in reality.

In other words, most of us focus too much on justifying our morality and too little on delivering it.

I've decided not to add anything more to this discussion at this time. The replies to my remarks have been very interesting. I'm not here to win an argument. I am willing to recast my thoughts somewhat. Eventually I will.

--Brant

You're right!

Casey, you wrote: "That is, it is not intrinsic to the concept of moral perfection that it is difficult, painful and ultimately impossible -- in fact, this bad premise can only be overcome by the realization that living a moral life is practical and possible."

(That looks unfinished.)

.... by the realization that living a moral life is practical and possible, satisfying and fulfilling, and joyful from extatic pride at life well lived.

"It was moral to shoot the guard; it was not moral to have a conversation with him first, but that was just AR not really knowing how you do those things in the real world."

The "discussion" served to illustrate the point Rand was making about the necessity of thinking for oneself. Again, it's not a prescription but an abstraction. It's not naturalistic fiction. Remember also that Rand put her characters in the most difficult positions to maximize the conflict.

As for Rand and the real world...sounds like an argument out of PAR.

Jen: "Note that you've actually had to re-write the story to make your scenario plausible."

It's that and more: He has to rewrite the story to justify the view that Dagny and Galt are the guilty party, when it's the state of the world and the conditions set by the parasites in the story that make such a dilemma possible. The looters are using the emotional appeal of not only Reardon but all who suffer in such societies, holding them at gunpoint, in an attempt to lure the producers out of the strike. It's the same mentality that says the cop who tries to shoot at the bankrobber is guilty for killing the hostage.

Not only that, but this argument assumes that the strikers have an obligation to Reardon, but forget the fact that Reardon is working against them by giving his sanction to the outside. The same reason that Galt was destroying Taggart Transcontinental. Reardon was on the outside for a reason.

I'll come back tomorrow and make another post after the dust settles a bit.

--Brant

It was moral to shoot the guard; it was not moral to have a conversation with him first, but that was just AR not really knowing how you do those things in the real world. For Dagny to need a moral justification by way of a conversation required more justification than was offered in the text, like the guard going for his gun. In an actual rescue operation all the guards except one or two would have been killed, even if they had put their hands up, because to take all those prisoners would have slowed them down, perhaps fatally.

--Brant

Should Dagny also have contacted Eddie Willers, the cigarette salesman, her milkman...

Hank had no reason to go into the mountains... there's no logical way anyone could be down there (the ray screen) Dagny saw it first hand and that's the only reason she entered the valley.

Your scenario is tragic but morally irrelevent.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Note that you've actually had to re-write the story to make your scenario plausible.

I'm just sayin'.

-- The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

John Galt, the ruler of Galt's Gulch.

Week two, flying around looking for Dagny, Hank crashes and burns. Dagny leaves the valley and finds out Hank is dead, but it doesn't matter so much because she has found a "higher" value. Or it does matter so she starts flying around the Rockies looking for Hank, finds the wreckage of his plane, runs out of gas and crashes on top of his body. Their bodies are recovered by Galt who buries them both in the Gulch. Violins play. Fade out (from insanity)

--Brant

"Hank!" she screamed, waving her arms in desperate signal. "Hank!"

She fell back against the rock, knowing that she had no way to reach him, that she had no power to give him sight, that no power on earth could pierce that screen except his own mind and vision.

But the pull of the outer world...was not the image of Hank Reardon-she knew that she could not return to him, even if she returned to the world-the pull was the vision of Hank Reardon's courage and the courage of all those still fighting to stay alive. He would not give up the search for her plane...Was she certain that no chance remained for the world of Taggart Transcontintal? Was she certain that the terms of the battle were such that she could not care to win? They were right, the men of Atlantis...but until and unless she saw that no chance was untaken and no battle unfought, she had no right to remain...

Put down that copy of JARS and pick up a copy of ATLAS...

She's thought dead... it's been in all the newspapers and Reardon has been publicly searching for her. He all the sudden stops after someone (who would about have to be someone else who was already missing) delivers him a message.

And that wouldn't raise suspicion in paranoid "shoot first ask questions later... or more than likely not at akk" types like the AS villains.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

You don't get why it was moral to shoot the guard. You can get out of my way or you can confront me you have to make a choice... met by a simple I don't know (and a mind-numbing refusal to think). With all that on top of helping in the torture of an innocent man.

I can't think of anything more moral in that instance

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Any communication could be traced? If AR could justify Dagny shooting that guard she could have found a plot way to give Hank some relief. Instead, what happens? Dagny forgets about Hank for a month after her *decision*.

--Brant

"Do you permit any any communication with the outside world?"

"No."

"Not any? Not even a note without return address?"

"No."

"Not even a message, if no secret of yours were given away?"

"Not from here. Not during this month. Not to outsiders at any time.

He asked, looking at her as if he knew the reason of her query, "Do you wish to ask for a special exception?"

"No," she answered.

I've stated my reasons why this is not immoral, what is your argument that it is, in fact, immoral?

...I've read the book more than 10 times. What is it you think I've missed? I'm not saying this to be contentious -- I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

-- The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

They developed rules designed to protect the safety, lives and property of everyone in the valley.

The rules involving her were to allow her to stay during their month at the valley (but not escape because no one leaves that month)... any communication from the valley could be traced putting everyone in danger, tough decision but the right moral one.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

should read that part of Atlas again. They let her go, subsequently, anyway. Why didn't they shoot her instead?

--Brant

That was kind of hot.

Joe, I agree that keeping Hank ignorant of Galt's Gulch was essential to the integrity of the place -- and to the characters involved. Rand was very adept at clarifying the consequences of actions, for example when Dagny did, in fact, have to lead the thugs to Galt's apartment, though she could not fathom such a thing would come to pass. That Galt held her to a strict standard in the Gulch does not make him faulty (?!).

-- The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

It's how you use it.

Keeping all the facts in mind, this just became ackward and I have no one to blame but myself.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

HAHAHA.

Don't mind me, Landon. I was never fond of inking. Especially after I splattered some nice atmospheric spots on my rug...and I had a horrible tendency to cover the page in black a la Frank Miller Sin City style. I'm safer with the pencils...

Says the man who's never experienced the sweet, sweet lustful fricking ecstasy of switching from brush, to pen, back to a brush, pulled out the toothbrush, Splatered some nice atmosphere spots in the background picked the pen back up to lay the details over those smooth flowing brush lines, just watching that dark black ink envelope those soft gray pencil lines...

What was I talking about... I strangely need a ciggerette and I don't even smoke.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Landon, your duplicates are like inkers: they just trace over the artist's work.

(With apologies to Kevin Smith)

It's not unheard of, sadly.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Twice in one day I do this. But I state once again for the record that inking is still sexy.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

"Oh please already."

Exactly my sentiments.

Are we next going to have an O-Llie weep-fest on why Eddie Willers was left behind?

"Letting Hank spend weeks flying around the Rocky Mountains looking for Dagny thinking she was probably dead but might be alive not knowing what they knew was profoundly immoral for the fictional characters and an author blind spot."

Oh, please already, I wish people would actually read the damn passage on why that had to be. It's not as if they were being intentionally cruel, for cruelty's sake. The context of the situation was one where revealing the location could be deadly, and the risk of being discovered outweighed the risk of communication.

Galt does ask Dagny if she wanted to be exempt from that rule, and she replied no, not out of cruelty, but of an understanding of the situation. This suggests that it was not a blind spot on Rand's part. Galt knew she wanted to contact Reardon.

Besides, we saw later how Dagny led the enemy to Galt's apartment, she clearly couldn't be trusted to keep a secret . But seriously, Dagny was already a scab, and neither she nor Reardon were ready to enter the valley. Galt was under no obligation to allow any communication with the outside that could endanger the denizens of the Gulch. Could you imagine the implications if Galt DID allow Dagny that luxury, both the the plot and to the psychology of the characters? The members of the valley had to learn to overcome their attachment to the outside. It was psychologically significant that Reardon not learn of Dagny's whereabouts. It's metaphorical that Reardon was right over her, but couldn't "see" her, because he was still attached to the outside world.

It's not necessarily easy to be moral, Casey, because of the innumerable facets of morality. One can live a safe life and have a "perfect" morality but so limit oneself through cowardice to have low self-esteem and self regard. Morality isn't only what you choose to do. The easy way can be the wrong way. The path not taken can make the bearer of an ostensibly perfect morality immoral anyway.

I still don't buy the "perfect" human moral action philosophy. In spite of Rand's best efforts, John Galt wasn't. Neither was Dagny. Or the author. Letting Hank spend weeks flying around the Rocky Mountains looking for Dagny thinking she was probably dead but might be alive not knowing what they knew was profoundly immoral for the fictional characters and an author blind spot.

--Brant

Once someone has damaged himself, it is one of the hardest things in the world to turn oneself around and restore faith in oneself and self-respect. And in a certain sense, it is easier to lose oneself and give up than to defend oneself and keep going, especially when surrounded by corrupt influences. At root, I think this is because someone has accepted that the self is a corrupt purpose in life and that self-sacrifice is the only antidote. But it is the self-sacrifice that makes immorality OK and gives sanction to the further corruption of the self in the first place. Then it becomes horribly hard to face the fact that one is responsible for immoral acts -- but at the same time, when someone does see that, they have become a different person, they been born, in a way, for the first time once they see that their actions are not just the result of intrinsic corruption but of their own choice.

One of my favorite descriptions in all of literature is the transformation of Jean Valjean in Les Miz after he has stolen the silver from the bishop. He falls in a muddy field as rain pours down on him in the night and looks at the wretched monster that he is who abused the one human who offered him kindness. And even as he realizes he is hopeless, doomed, damned, destined to be wicked all of his life and looks upon himself appalled he realizes that he is suddenly looking from different eyes, as though from a different person upon himself. And in that moment he becomes a different man who can never be that man again. The very act of condemning himself absolves himself and sets him on a different path. And that path is much easier than the path he was on, in a very real sense, because he carries a lighter soul that is held aloft by positive force that makes all the troubles awaiting him bearable and possible to overcome.

This all falls under the category of repairing damage done, however, and correcting things that have gone horribly wrong. Many are not the giants Jean Valjean was, but many have risen to that challenge, too.

In the normal state of human affairs, however, in which such a detour of bad premises and misfortune has not taken place, morality (the Objectivist variety) is the easy, the practical, the rewarding, the straightest route to happiness. It is also the only thing that can save a previously immoral man from simply continuing in that state throughout his life for the reason that it is practical and practicable and self-fulfilling. That is, it is not intrinsic to the concept of moral perfection that it is difficult, painful and ultimately impossible -- in fact, this bad premise can only be overcome by the realization that living a moral life is practical and possible.

...but pain can be easy, if that's what you're accustomed to, and you esteem yourself so poorly. I think the issue of whether virtue is easy or hard has to do with how well one's emotions are integrated with one's conscious ideas. Your emotions will tell you to go after the familiar - the psychologically familiar - in our relationships and in our actions. You have to be able to see past that, and it takes time.

A certain amount of honesty is required to even begin improving one's character. I suspect some people lack even that much, after a long enough period of self-destruction, and then it's not even an issue of whether their immorality is painful. You have to be conscious enough to perceive that kind of pain in the first place.

I do know who you mean.

Pursuing values is difficult and requires reason and work. But it is not slavery. It is not toiling away for some disembodied or unselfish value. It is, in fact, the most rewarding activity one can do, no matter how hard it is. And the goal is not to be perfect. That is simply what comes with rational value pursuit. Morality is not the purpose of life. Life is the purpose of morality (since O'ist morality is the practical requirement for achieving values). If such perfection were a cross to bear or a disembodied abstraction taking us away from what will make us supremely happy on earth it would not be moral, since there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical in achieving human happiness.

Immorality is HARD. That is why it is deserves condemnation -- AND why it is immoral at the same time.

Gotta say, good point, but there is a sense in which being perfect is difficult. Not in the Christian sense of a constant struggle against temptation of course, but pursuing your values isn't automatic (gee-heck, even identifying them and choosing them isn't automatic!). It takes constant effort, strugle, and courage--especially in today's culture! This is why it's so important to admire (and defend) those succeed in this task, especially when they are attacked by vicious liars and haters of the good (you know who I mean).

It reminds me of the Rorshach package deal. Someone trying to smear Objectivism wrote a character into his story who was supposed to suffer from the mental illness of Objectivim... he followed a total standard of Black and White morality and was shown to be insane for it.

What the guy left out is... well basically the content of your post.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I wanted to add one more thing. Being morally perfect IS NOT THAT HARD! The moral IS the practical in O'ism. To be immoral is hard, is impractical, and is, in fact, to wage war with reality, including oneself. I think there's a vestige of the Christian/Platonic view that sticks to the word "perfect" and makes one think that moral perfection is some kind of impossible dream. The reverse is true.

Mark Twain pointed out how lazy men don't lie, for example. It's far more work to lie because everything in reality is connected to everything else.

In relations with others, you know when you're doing unjust harm to someone -- knowing it is a prerequisite to the action's immorality! That makes it easy to avoid doing. (Mistakes are not moral issues at all.)

To be moral to oneself means pursuing one's (rational) values. No matter how much work it is, it is a joy because it is pursuing one's VALUES. The pursuit of happiness, no matter how arduous, has its own built-in incentive and reward. (To seek to unjustly harm others has no such incentives or rewards -- it in fact detours one from those pleasurable and joyous pursuits and destroys one's own pride and happiness, as well.)

The idea that morality is impossible stems from altruism -- and, of course, the pursuit of one's own self-negation and sacrifice IS hard, and ultimately impossible short of suicide. Ayn Rand's ethics on the other hand, which are the opposite of altruism, are practicable and possible and compatible with life on earth. Life is the STANDARD of morality in Objectivism, not the obstacle to morality that it is in altruist ethics. Roark did not devote himself to his goal like some monk whipping himself on the back to be perfect -- he did it for the glory of himself -- his own mind and vision. The similarity to a monk in his long years of struggle and poverty is superficial only. He is doing the most selfish and glorious thing he can actually do with his life.

It is repugnant that some consider it impossible to avoid being immoral. MSK and that ilk seem to cut that slack for themselves, even though doing something immoral means doing so consciously and requires great deliberation and effort at the expense of one's own self-respect and self-improvement.

I agree with your mountain metaphor, as well. Moral perfection is not some Platonic ideal (the mountaintop) that is a goal in and of itself, but the result of consistently striving for one's rational values to the best of one's abilities using the maximum but finite knowledge available. Otherwise the concept of moral perfection has no meaning except to degrade the reality of human life.

A man who has consciously done evil to another cannot be said to be morally perfect. Children get cut lots of slack as they are still learning the nature of reality and their proper relationship to others. Often they are sold a bill of goods that they must unlearn, but once they are aware of the issues if they continue to harm themselves or treat others unjustly that is immoral. There is no moral status for errors in knowledge, as Rand said many, many times. Hell, even Pelagius said this 1,700 years ago, and Aristotle did, as well. Augustine was the one who insisted on overturning Pelagius's theory of free will and reinstating the concept of Original Sin (a stolen concept if ever there was) in order to justify the necessity of the church.

The question for me now becomes: what constitutes a “complete” dedication to life? A life-long criminal cannot wake up one day, announce to the world that he is now dedicated to self-preservation, and ordain himself a perfect being. If perfection is an active process, then must not the former criminal put together a string of ethical choices before he becomes a good man? Is he a good man once his mind has automatized rational and ethical principles guiding his actions? Or, is he a good man from the moment of his dedication to life, as long as he sticks to it? What I’m looking for is, there’s got to be some sense of *long-range* thinking and goal-directed action. At what point can a formerly irrational man, newly dedicated to a productive existence, be logically assured of and satisfied with his own moral integrity?

By my eyes, the answer rests in what moral perfection refers to, which is a human being as a total entity, not some one out of context aspect (such as a former criminals desire and commitment to become a better person). Another angle: Ayn Rand said man is a being of self-made soul--moral perfection refers to what a person has made her or his soul into.

How would that apply in the case you suggest, the case of the criminal who wants to become a good man? First of all, before we get lost in Plato's world of forms, do remember that immoral people are regularly faced with the destructive consequences of their actions, and often they wake up and say, "I need to change my life." And often they sincerely do mean it. (Attend an AA meeting once or twice if you disbelieve!) But then of course two hours, two days, or two weeks later, they've fallen back into old habits. So no way can that be the standard.

Such a person actually has to change his character. He has to, as you say Dan, automatize the rational moral principles that will guide his actions. He needs to totally reform and remake his moral character, which includes making restitution for his crimes.

But to make this clear, what does it really mean to automatize a new set of moral principles? Here's just one aspect: the fact we have free will doesn't mean we can choose to take any action metaphysically open to us. I think Harry Binswanger once made the point that Ayn Rand could not have gone out of focus one day and taken LSD. And it's safe to assume, for example, that you couldn't walk next door and murder your neighbor. Now, over time, if you went out of focus long enough, and evaded long enough, it's possible you could. But that would require a progression of choices over time. So the former criminal who is reformed is someone for whom it is no longer possible to commit a crime. He is in essence a new person. He's not simply volitionally refraining from picking pockets or poking prostitutes--that has become second nature.

So a commitment to achieve perfection is essential, it's the precondition for perfection, but in my humblest of opinions, it's not enough to achieve perfection. But...but, but, but...I think a person who is sincerely struggling to reform his moral character, who is not perfect, but is pursuing perfection, is deserving of moral praise. Not the admiring praise of a hero, but a salute of good will.

Casey, my apologies. I should have re-read your opening comment to this thread. If I had I would have said:

"I won't comment on Robert Campbell's contribution to their little discussion. Casey already has. But I'll just note, as does Casey, that his ignorance of Objectivism is truly stunning, which however I suppose is what qualifies him to be an editor of JARS (The Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge)."

Fred,

My knee-jerk response to anyone proclaiming that "perfection is impossible" is: Check your definitions!  If a concept cannot be applied to anything that actually exists, then it is a useless concept and should be discarded or redefined.  I have the same reaction to those who claim that certainty is impossible.  If it's impossible, i.e., cannot exist, then what is the point of having a concept for it in the first place?  Rand's Razor says: cut that s*$% out!

--Dan Edge

First: thanks to Casey, Phil, Penelope, and others for the insightful posts on this subject.

I'm still not satisfied with my understanding of moral perfection.  Penelope describes perfection as an active process, saying that "...perfection requires continuous improvement!"  I agree with this, and would like to explore the idea further.

I also tentatively agree with Phil that "completeness" serves as a logically coherent genus for the concept "perfection."  The distinguishing characteristic of *moral* perfection is that it applies to a rational, volitional being who must live and reason long-range to ensure his survival.  So, the term "morally perfect" could be applied to "a rational being who is completely dedicated to the preservation of his own life (qua rational being) for the long term."  I use the word "dedicated" to denote the fact that perfection involves volitional, consistent, goal-directed actions. 

The question for me now becomes: what constitutes a “complete” dedication to life?  A life-long criminal cannot wake up one day, announce to the world that he is now dedicated to self-preservation, and ordain himself a perfect being.  If perfection is an active process, then must not the former criminal put together a string of ethical choices before he becomes a good man?  Is he a good man once his mind has automatized rational and ethical principles guiding his actions?  Or, is he a good man from the moment of his dedication to life, as long as he sticks to it?

What I’m looking for is, there’s got to be some sense of *long-range* thinking and goal-directed action.  At what point can a formerly irrational man, newly dedicated to a productive existence, be logically assured of and satisfied with his own moral integrity?

--Dan Edge

The O-Llies have decided to weigh in on the subject, beginning with the inimitable MSK who announces:

"One of the silliest notions promoted by orthodox Objectivists is that a person can become morally perfect. This statement is a complete inversion of values."

(Rants - Moral Perfection)

My first reaction to this pronouncement was:

DAYAAAAM!

Then I cracked up.

LOLLOLLOLLOL

First of all, it was clearly AR's view that moral perfection is possible (in fact even *mandatory* - in the sense that one *should choose* to achieve it). It is therefore not "orthodox" Objectivism (whatever that is). It is Objectivism.

(It should be clear by now that MSK doesn't agree with Objectivism but rather than admit that - since he'd rather have his Objectivism while eating it, too - he manufactures this artificial distinction between a "orthodox" Objectivism, which of course is merely AR's version of it vs Objectivism as he wiahes it was if he could re-write it, which one could call "Objectivism According to MSK" or "Objectivism Lite" or maybe "Objectivism for Lightweights").

But second, his pronouncement is a stolen concept and blatantly self-contradictory (much of what emanates from MSK's mouth is). If moral perfection is impossible then obviously the morally perfect thing to do is to not pursue it, which is a contradiction. In practise it merely means they can constantly pat each other on the head virtually regardless of what they do. Barbara Branden of course included.

You know that moral standards have gone out the window when someone embraces Barbara Branden. But of course throwing away moral standards is what they regard as moral perfection!

No one can of course practise such nonsense with any consistency. So we note MSK just the other day calling Phil Coates a schmoo because he doesn't regard we here on SOLO as dishonorable, i.e. "Phil, if you were morally perfect like me MSK you would denounce those slugs over at SOLO!"

Anyway, by now the stolen concept should be clear. A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Moral perfection consists therefore in...well...acting to gain and/or keep one's values. So, how therefore can it be an "inversion of values" to pursue one's values????

I won't comment on Robert Campbell's contribution to their little discussion. But I'll just note that his ignorance of Objectivism is truly stunning, which however I suppose is what qualifies him to be an editor of JARS (The Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge).

Yes, envy is depicted existentially by AR in her novels, but she didn't get at its roots.

--Brant

I think the concept you're looking for is "moral."

...

I think focusing specifically on perfection, in certain contexsts, serves a real epistemological/psychological/moral need.

I see where you're coming from.  "Moral" is used as "pertaining to morality," but is synonomous with "good" in some contexts, as in "a moral man."  Moral perfection is usually thought to apply to a man as a whole, as opposed to a singular action or application of principle, though I suppose one could describe a particular action as "morally perfect."

Shoot, gotta go, more later...

--Dan Edge

I was thinking of the term "perfection" in a strictly ethical sense. I don't think there is a term specifically for "moral perfection," perhaps we need one.

I think the concept you're looking for is "moral." There is no such thing as "imperfectly moral." That just means "immoral." In one sense "moral perfection" is kind of like "laissez-faire capitalism." It's a redundancy that's necessary only because "morality" has been corrupted by those gord-damned altruists. In another sense, however, I don't think it's completely the same issue since as I said before I think focusing specifically on perfection, in certain contexsts, serves a real epistemological/psychological/moral need.

Thanks for helping me break it down.  I follow your logic here, that all certainty entails "perfect" knowlege, but not all perfect things relate to epistemology.  I was thinking of the term "perfection" in a strictly ethical sense.  I don't think there is a term specifically for "moral perfection," perhaps we need one.  How bout: permorfection?  Sound pretty sexy, that... 

--Dan Edge

Dan, I think both certainty and perfection would fall within the wider concept of *having all the necessary parts or elements*, in a word: *complete*.

"Perfect" is broader than "certain" because it means unflawed, not lacking a part or element in a broader sense than "certain"--you can have perfect knowledge, a perfect sunset, be perfectly happy. "Certain", by contrast, is a purely epistemological concept: not having any doubt.

"Complete" is a still broader concept, or more precisely has more senses, than "perfect". Something which is perfect is also complete, but many things which are complete -- for example 'my meal is complete', 'the jigsaw puzzle is now complete' -- would not be said to be perfect. You can complete something by finishing it or carrying it to fruition. You have rendered it whole in a sense, but you have not rendered it (necessarily) without flaw. So it's not perfect.

Narrowest: certainty.
Broader and more inclusive: perfection.
Broadest genus which includes the other two: completeness.

I'm interested in exploring how these two concepts are related.  They share many of the same (epistemological) traits, and are often misunderstood for very similar reasons.  Both are regarded as contextual absolutes in Objectivism.  When one is certain of a principle, he asserts that it is always true, forever and ever, unless something outside his context of knowledge comes into play.  The perfect man acts according to the same set of moral principles, and consistenly makes decisions that he believes are good for his life.  Mistakes are possible (and permissable) in both cases, without resulting in an epistemological or moral failing.  Context is critical to understanding and attaining both.

Certainty and moral perfection are also similar in the way they are misunderstood and improperly defined.  Certainty is fallaciously held to a standard of omniscience, while perfection is fallaciously held to a standard of omnipotence.  Context is forgotton.  A rationslistic misunderstanding of either concept can be destructive to one's psychology.

Did we get a proper definition of "perfection" earlier in this thread?  Defining it as "completeness" doesn't seem quite, well, "complete."  Some questions:

1) What is the genus of this concept (perfection), and what is its distinguishing characteristic?

2) Could we model the defintion of perfection after the definition of certainty?

3) Are there any other enlightening similarities between the ethical concept of "perfection" and the epistemological concept of "certainty?"

Thanks for any responses.

--Dan Edge

That is one of my favorite quotes of all time. Thanks for posting it.

Jennifer

> Roarkhood does not mean being the greatest architect who ever lived, unless one is Roark; it means fulfilling one's own potential [Linz]
> A living being cannot be perfect qua living being without taking risks and making mistakes. [Adam]

" It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. "

Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

For a living organism, to make no mistakes signals a failure of ambition at life, and that is a defect, an imperfection. A living being cannot be perfect qua living being without taking risks and making mistakes.

Very good point! But we shouldn't allow our opponents to trap us into conceding that the issues of perfection and fallibility are in the least bit related, any more than the issues of perfection and ability are related. Certainly it would be preposterous to claim that making mistakes is a *defining* characteristic of either perfection or imperfection.

Campbell tries to drive a wedge between Tara Smith's saying anyone who does his best is morally perfect & Peikoff's saying we can all achieve Roarkhood. Doing one's best (which, since we are specifically discussing moral perfection includes refraining from consciously doing evil) is Roarkhood. Roarkhood does not mean being the greatest architect who ever lived, unless one is Roark; it means fulfilling one's own potential, even though it be much less than Roark's. Acting on the "total passion for the total height"—the height of one's own abilities. And the point of this perfection, let it not be forgotten, is not perfection for its own sake but one's happiness.

"Perfect," in the context of primacy of existence, means "as good as is possible in reality."

To achieve one's full potential as a human requires testing one's knowledge without always knowing in advance how the test will turn out. The risk of making mistakes comes with testing the limits of knowledge. And failure to expand one's knowledge is the only way to avoid all mistakes. For a living organism, to make no mistakes signals a failure of ambition at life, and that is a defect, an imperfection. A living being cannot be perfect qua living being without taking risks and making mistakes.

Chris, I like your mountain top analogy, but I would change it somewhat. I think perfection means always going up the mountain, and never choosing to jump off of it. That's why I say perfection isn't a state that you reach and reveal in. It's how we designate a process that is all moving in the same, life-affirming direction. I think the "state" view still smacks of intrinsicism.

I also your description of perfection is wrong if it means that a person who is acting morally to the best of his knowledge really isn't if he doesn't grasp consciously the need for an abstract moral code. I think that's holding an error of knowledge against a person. If someone is basically ignorant, but doesn't evade, and pursues the good as he understands that, that is perfect in his context I think, which is just another way of saying that the moral is the chosen.

Penelope, "morally flawless" begs the question of what is involved with morality in toto and it always will for morality involves all of human choices and must reject determinism absolutely. And "morally flawless" is (moral) perfection is contentless and circular.

Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. If you don't do something you know to be immoral, if you do not engage in evasion, that is what it means to be perfect. How is that without content? "Be perfect" is simply a way of saying, "Don't act against your knowledge of the good."  

But I do think it's worth bearing in mind that being moral requires us to continually strive for new and greater values, and to pursue an ever-expanding amount of knowledge in order to make that kind of value-pursuit possible. The point being that "perfection" isn't static. It not only allows a person to grow, it demands that she or he does.

Now why is this important? Why is this not simply a semantical dispute? I can think of two reasons. One is that it's important to defend every word Ayn Rand ever wrote. That's not a good reason. But there is another reason why I think this topic is important. I think it's essential never to give yourself an excuse for accepting any immorality into your life and character. I think demanding perfection of yourself, of never rationalizing an immorality on the premise that no one can be moral all the time, I think that is extremely important. It certainly has been to me.

But I want to add something. It's also important not to look at this from Kant's perspective, or rationalistically. Let's say you're not perfect. Let's say, perhaps, you're in the habit of lying in order to avoid uncomfortable situations. I do not think you should take the perspective that "if I don't completely stop doing this right now I'm failing to pursue perfection." I think pride, in such a case, must take into account that you can't change your moral character over night. I think what pride demands is that you honestly and sincerely put forth the effort to change, and that when you do fail, you don't permit yourself to indulge in your failure, but to keep working to change. That is what it means to pursue perfection.

But again, the thing you're pursing is not really perfection. That's just one perspective on a wider issue. What you are doing is trying to fully adopt and embrace the means to achieving great values. It's the values that should be what you're aiming at, including the value that is you. Something that helped me when I went from a flaming emotionalist to an Objectivist was to focus, not on feeling guilty about my immoral choices, but to say to myself, "You deserve better than that. Don't treat yourself that way." In other words, when I would mess up, I would make sure to reaffirm that I am a value...not decide that I'm a dirty little apple to be tossed in the trash.

I think that one has achieved a "state" (more like activity, rather than state, since life is an ongoing process and one needs to work to maintain the position through time) of moral perfection from a virtue-ethics eudaeomonist perspective, when one has integrated honesty, integrity, etc. into one's character as a matter of principle. One simply isn't happening to be honest, have integrity, as a matter merely contingently related to the project of living. Rather, it's when one practices these things as a matter of principle, such that your living consists in expressions of virtuous activity. It's when the virtues become ingrained in the fiber of one's being, such that deviation isn't even really ever an option on the table -- it just wouldn't fit into the project of living as the kind of being one has strived to become and achieved being. Such would amount to a fall from that position of excellence.

We're also talking about such achievement here in the real world as it is actually constituted. When I speak of imagery of "falling from a position of excellence," it's a position that one could envision with a physical analogy: when one has reached the mountaintop. There isn't anywhere to go but down. (I'm thinking of that one image from Gaetano on the cover of TVOS, the human standing atop the steps facing the sun.) It's not some Platonic form of a mountain, but a here-and-now mountain, a mountain as actually occurs here in the physical world. Yes, there is such thing as "higher than the mountaintop," and mountains only go so high. But the imagery of reaching a mountaintop sounds good enough to me for what's possible here in this world. It's grounded, but achieves heights. It represents the achievement of one's good given the finitude and limitations that necessarily go along with any concrete-world event, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all one really needs to speak of, in speaking of attaining moral perfection. What else does one really need, other than attaining one's good?

Penelope, "morally flawless" begs the question of what is involved with morality in toto and it always will for morality involves all of human choices and must reject determinism absolutely. And "morally flawless" is (moral) perfection is contentless and circular.

--Brant

Is why SOLO rocks. Thanks Boaz, Penelope, Phil, Brant, Jim, Landon, Lance, Craig, Jim, Linz, et al.

If Ayn Rand, or anyone else, had ever made the argument that it was healthy or proper to act morally in order to be morally perfect (with perfection itself as a goal), then I would grant you that there was a problem.

Christianity has been torturing humanity for too long to be allowed to retain exclusive ownership over the word "perfect". We can forgive the early church fathers for being virtually illiterate, but as intellectual christianity developed, their view of sin and inherent depravity became ever more vicious, and our hesitency to think in such terms as "perfection" (there aren't any adequate synonyms - the word is necessary) is only one harmful consequence of this. I thought Phil's post was excellent, too, but I agree with Penelope that Christianity is the foil, here, not Plato. There were neo-platonists and Plato-influenced thinkers in Christianity who at least held that we were capable of improving our character, of reunifying with the divine spark in us -- even without knowledge of Christ or the Gospel text (the Pelagianist heresy, for example). There were many arguments and variations on this topic. But the moral determinism that says human beings are fundamentally incapable of avoiding evil is the view that was upheld; far from being extinguished, it still pervades our thinking today.

Casey - FANTASTIC post!

Sounds like Peter Keating and every villain in Atlas Shrugged.

But imagine this. You have made moral mistakes in your life (ie made bad moral choices knowing they were exactly that) but later on you developed a much higher respect for the concept of morality. Since life is a process not a state, you're only as morally perfect as your current ledger of actions.

If you had made bad moral decisions which hurt yourself, move on from them and work to improve your life... at that point that portion of your moral slate is wiped clean (and will remain so unless you do something to change that). If you have done something that has hurt someone else through a moral failing the proper action is do whatever you can to make it up to the person and take any necessary penance (and of course change whatever part of you is responsible for the moral failing) at that point you can be said to have reached moral perfection.

You take the consequences of your past immoralities and don't create any furhter ones.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I just imagined myself as a character in "The Fountainhead" who meets and admires Howard Roark, but I am not morally perfect. However, I am no Peter Keating, either. I ask myself, "Can I be what Howard Roark is?" The answer is yes, in spite of certain past mistakes and screw ups. But it is not perfection as such that I would strive for, but those attributes of character and action that can result in that.

There is one vice I don't think Ayn Rand really understood, correct me if I am wrong--the vice of envy. Did she depict any of her villains as envy driven? I think she was so free of it in herself she didn't appreciate it in others.

Can not the morally virtuous be the target of envy for their virtue? And can they not be morally damaged by cowardice in the face of it?

--Brant

Great post Casey. And several others... notably Phil among them.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

If we combine integrity and perfection--perfect integrity--it illustrates that perfection per se is too broad a concept for what we are actually talking about, but leaves us something to work with.

--Brant

dup deleted

"Perfection" to me is the Objectivist version of original sin. You are born perfect but it cannot be maintained and once lost cannot be regained. Tell a lie and kiss your ass goodbye. So we have a lot of folks pretending they're "perfect," but they aren't.

No, that's the Christian idea of perfection. That's how an intrinsicist would define and judge "perfection."

Lastly, "perfection" seems to me to imply a static, not a dynamic, model of human being. That's the major conflict I experience when contemplating myself as "perfect," yes or no. I just cannot use this idea. Again, I go with integrity.

To my eyes, perfection is an evaluation that something meets a certain standard--in this case, it refers to an individual who adheres to morality. The question is, is my character morally flawless? If it is, I'm perfect. If it's not, I'm not. 

So going back to the above point, the fact that you once did something immoral is not per se relevant to the question of your present moral character, assuming that you've atoned for that wrong, identified what made it possible, and corrected that so that you're confident you won't act similarly in the future.

You can't, I think, replace this evaluation with integrity. Integrity is a virtue, a demand for a specific type of action (one that is consistent with your ideas, your thoughts, your values, your convictions...with your rational ideas, rational thoughts, rational values, rational convictions).

Also, I was just thinking about this. When does Ayn Rand focus on the issue of moral perfection? In the context of pride, and pride for her, focuses on one specific aspect of the need for moral perfection:

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned--that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character--that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind--that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining--that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul--that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has not automatic values, has no acutomatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the imagine of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice--that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself..."

In other words, the issue of perfection is important because it highlights the requirement for achieving self-esteem, that undiluted self-esteem isn't possible for someone who evaluates himself as morally deficient in some regard.

I guess in a sense all of that is contained in "Form moral principles rationally, adhere to them, and judge yourself accordingly." But I also think Miss Rand had good reason to stress different aspects of the above by identifying "rationality," "integrity," "pride," and "perfection" as distinctive concepts and issues. Really it's that all virtue is one, so there will always be overlap between moral concepts. But since morality is so demanding, we need to be able to summon our full understanding of its necessity and instruction quickly and easily, and that requires what would otherwise be unnecessary repitition.

To take an example, the need for the concept "integrity" arises specifiically to remind us to act on our convictions when our emotions are telling us otherwise. "Perfection" arises to remind us to always conform to morality's demands, that nothing can be a higher value than that. Either implies the other, but neither is expendable.

I agree 100% with your post. It's perfect.

> ...talking philosophy...The subject of perfection came up - was it possible?...one of us reached down...and picked up a simple marble ashtray -- a square with a hemisphere and four half tubes at compass points for cigarettes carved into it -- and said, "this is perfect." [Casey]

Great example!

1. Re ashtray (or anything else): "Perfection means no improvement in -any respect- is possible." [Bob K]

No, you're being a Platonist on this point. Perfection means it completely meets the relevant standard - in this case being an ashtray and elegant or beautiful. Functionality and beauty are the standards here.

2. Many people claim that Rand's anger is an example of "moral imperfection" if she blew up at someone who didn't deserve it during a lecture. But that would not follow. Errors of knowledge or of emotional control are part of human nature. Not examples of moral flaw. Acting within her knowledge to be just and fair are the standards here.

3. Getting depressed at the culture and not being able to write is not an example of "moral imperfection". Sometimes shit happens and you can't get past it for a time. Being bashed in the head by reality is not a moral flaw. Even if you were to have a bit of a malevolence or pessimism problem or are too harsh in your view of the culture, that is not a -moral- flaw. It might be a blind spot, psychological barrier, or error of knowledge.

To say that someone has some limitations or personal, behavioral flaws or blind spots or "rough edges" (e.g., unpolished social skills, unawarenesses or lacks of insight in certain areas) does not mean they have moral flaws. As long as they are acting as best they can at the time.

And within their context of knowledge and skill.