Robert Bidinotto is a fine thinker, certainly fully understands Objectivism, and would make a fine choice.  Even if he does not agree with a particular Randian thought or application of principle, what evidence do we have that he so lacks integrity that he would misrepresent O'ism in favor of his pet ideas?  If the context of one issue makes anyone back away from unreservedly endorsing him as a college speaker, then Professor Machan goes, too.  By that standard, we all are unacceptable.

David Kelley--excellent choice.  Hell, I do not think there are many suggestions on this thread so far who would do anything other than a bang up job.

I like this thread.  It is what SOLO is about.  Ideas, passion, good humor.  We are finally breaking this new place in!

Hi Mark,

If you were to book Robert B, you can count on at least one person (myself - and anyone else who wants a lift) from Lawrence making the trek to "the Little Apple" [stifles guffaw] to see him strut his stuff.

Keep us informed of your progress. PS I Don't mind paying a cover charge if that's an issue for non-student out of towners.

Robert W

"Some have claimed that I'm a posturing thumbsucking nitwit -- but I disagree with this, and authorities back me up."

I disagree, too. I refuse to believe you still engage in thumbsucking.

BTW, this was very funny satire. Thanks.

So have you booked a speaker yet, Mark? I fear all our other discussions may have sidetracked you.

Dear Mr. Bidinotto,

I was told you were a great and knowledgeable guy and at that time I decided I would love to converse with you and consider your wisdom.

But then I heard you and I might disagree on an issue and even that your grasp of contextualizing might be deficient in some feature. Thus, I no longer wish my impressionable young mind to be disturbed by the prospect of any non-kosher babblings from your no-doubt errant and wayward self, per what I've now been told about you. My ability to cognize is too fragile to withstand the prospect of listening to your reasoning re so pivotal a disagreement on so crucial an issue, because not only the whole tinker-toy structure of your argument but also my own dewy apprehension of things might then falter and collapse. Hope you understand. As you know, all college students receive only 100% reinforcement of any proto-Objectivist leanings from other students and professors, so for me to risk being contaminated now by a less that fully-vetted grasp of reason and polity, prior to my graduation, would likely be quite shocking to my sensibilities and intellectual growth. I beseech ye: Try, try to improve your psychoepidemiology and perhaps I will reconsider the advisability of attending to your words at such juncture as you have adequately reformed. When you feel you are ready let me or a mutual acquaintance know and I will give you a multiple-choice quiz and see how you do.--Joe Yungun

P.S. Some have claimed that I'm a posturing thumbsucking nitwit -- but I disagree with this, and authorities back me up.

RB's EcoNOT website is thoroughy recommended. www.EcoNOT.com, though I think he's spending more time elsewhere at present.

Emotionally it's easy to be sympathetic to Adam's statement. However, it strikes me as suffering from at least the following difficulties:

1. If the jury knows they will not actually be put to death on finding out later that the defendent was innocent -- then it's just grandstanding and will have at best a neutral effect.

2. If the jury were composed of all Ayn Rand's who had studied Law and Forensics for thirty years before sitting on the panel, and did everything humanly possible to get it right, including let's say, examine each piece of evidence themselves for the twelve months of the trial, but it turned out later they were in fact mistaken -- what possible punishment of any kind could be justified?

Or will it be Adam who decides who tried hard enough to be objective and reasonable and just?

I do like the flavor of the instructions, though. The judge should make it clear that they need to be just that certain.

I also heard Robert Bidinotto speak on "Death by Environmentalism" at a TOC event in 2003. It was RIVETING. And I can imagine a topic like that having broad appeal to those who are not hardcore or even Objectivist at all, as it really points out simple, clear effects of flawed and twisted thinking. He either has his own website or recommended a great website to go along with his speech, and after that conference I was reading it for months, I was so fired up about the whole thing.

Consider the following instructions to the jury in the death-penalty case of the trial:

"You may vote for the death penalty in this case only if you find the evidence so certain, that you would consider it just for you to lose your own life if it were later discovered that the person you condemned to die was actually innocent. If you would not be willing to stake your own life on your certainty in this case, then you do not have the degree of certainty required for the imposition of the death penalty."

This would satisfy Ayn Rand's criterion. Actually killing the jurors etc. who mistakenly sent an innocent person to his death would be neither necessary nor appropriate - it should be enough to make it publicly known that they gave their judgement a greater degree of confidence than was objectively justified, and that an innocent man was put to death by their error. Let them live the rest of their natural lives, with their guilt and their shame for having failed to focus their minds on reality when the life of an actually innocent man was at stake.

Does anyone really think that this is not practical enough?

"If you are absolutely certain of their guilt, you shouldn't mind betting your own life now should you..."

The principle has some plausibility, but consider this.

A person is convicted on the basis of massive evidence and the conviction has held up through several appeals. He or she is later executed, but it turns out -- in your scenario -- that he or she was actually innocent.

So you propose that those responsible for the execution (and the conviction?) be similarly executed.

Let's see. An individual is believed guilty on the basis of massive evidence. He's not to be put to death because fallibility is a capacity of human beings. One or more other individuals make an honest error, after taking due consideration of massive evidence, but they should be killed because of...?

Second,
A group of individuals take an action based on massive evidence and due consideration, but their decisions are always suspect. But somehow we are expected to act as if pronouncing him innocent doesn't require the same standard of judgment. How do you know he's innocent? What gives your evidence for *that* so much additional strength?

There is of course, no way to get very far on either side of the debate without a consideration of a very extensive and detailed example or two.

I accept that the decision is irreversible and therefore requires a significantly stiffer standard of proof. No doubt in most cases that standard can't be met -- particularly as things stand. But even as things are, there are clearly cases where it is possible to be certain -- beyond any reasonable doubt. And there's no such thing as beyond beyond reasonable doubt -- except irrational doubt.

Ross,

I don't think I was contemplating hobbling the justice system in quite the way you stated. I was musing over Robert B's idea that there are times when a man's guilt can be established absolutely. Robert believes that when the crime includes murder then the criminal can be executed.

Like I said later Ross "... a government with permission to execute people in "special" cases is far more dangerous to me, and everybody else, than a criminal, in chains, behind concrete and steel walls, doing hard labour for the rest of his life."

In this context it becomes clear that I was attempting to show that proving guilt beyond ANY doubt what so ever (in order to justify executing a criminal after he's been convicted - beyond a reasonable doubt) is extremely difficult - nothing more. True, I opened my line of argument with a crappy example, so sue me! I think I developed my objection to Robert B's idea further and more effectively in later posts.

Please don't take one poorly argued, poorly contrived and (in the end) an insignificant portion of my argument and twist it to mean something I didn't intend it to.

If you read the second of my posts in this thread you should see better where I stand.

Robert: "As I see it, in Ruby's case the question isn't one of whether he did it, but whether his actus reus was accompanied by mens rea. Was Ruby in his right mind?"

Well, this raises an interesting question. Can anyone be said to be in complete possession of their rational faculty during the commission of a murder? Since Objectivism holds that one must be judged on one's actions & conscious convictions you would have to class an act of murder as an unconscious process to diminish culpability. An irrational & unreasonable response murder may be, yet the process of premeditation even in it's most simplistic sense involves a degree of planning which belies an element of reason, of conscious application to the task at hand.

If Ruby was nuts, he was obviously not so nuts that he couldn't contemplate a means and an opportunity. And if the likes of Ruby are nuts, then how the hell could you ever convict a Hitler or bin Laden? Their crimes constitute irrationality on a scale that almost defies measurement.

Mark,

Last spring my Objectivist Club at The University of Montana invited Robert to campus to give a speech titled, "What's Wrong With Environmentalism?" He made time to have dinner at a nice restaurant with me and two other club members, gave a fantastic lecture, followed us to a coffee shop for some more wonderful conversation long into the night, and never once complained about me putting him up in a Porta-Potty-sized room for forty bucks a night on the ass end of town! Just the other day a friend of mine who is taking "Environmental Rhetoric" asked for my VHS copy of Robert's speech so he could find some good points for a paper he's writing on DDT. I simply can't recommend Robert highly enough. If you have some way to receive large files, I think I have a digital copy of Robert's speech lying around somewhere ...

Hmmm - am surprised, since I acted in the play back in the 60's at the University of Wisconsin... perhaps it was a local play written, tho at the same time am remembering seeing a production on television [which was why entered into trying out]... sorry, no longer remember who wrote it to help...[gee - and thought googling brought up EVERYTHING... ah well]

At anyway, it was, if memory serves right, about a situation where a joke was played on a visiter to a valley village, wherein, in the name of justice, a person was to be put to death for a supposed crime - which was, unknown to the visiter, not real but a joke played on him... except he in turn made it real, and, as a matter of the same sense of justice, elected to pay the price...

OK, that reference is too cryptic even for Google to decipher... Care to elaborate for the ignorant among us (ie me)?

Reminds me of the play, "The Joke and the Valley"...

Robert Winefield: "Perhaps my problem is that when a innocent man is convicted, the perverters of justice (whomever they may be: politicians, police, judges, lawyers, scientists) who put him there never seem to pay for their crime. Perhaps, if you proposed that those who sentanced a man to death would face the same penalty if they were wrong? I mean, if you are absolutely certain of their guilt, you shouldn't mind betting your own life now should you..."

Bravo, Robert W! This is an excellent, practical standard. "If you are absolutely certain of their guilt, you shouldn't mind betting your own life now should you..." If anything destroys the claim that Ayn Rand's standard is "impractical" or "Platonic," this proposal is it. Every time I fly a plane or drive an automobile, I literally bet my life on the certainty with which the facts of reality on which its operation depends are known. There is no reason why those who wield the force of the state should not be held to the same standard, as an engineer who drives a car that he designed. Winefield's proposal is an exact implementation of the principle of reciprocity: if I am not certain enough to bet my own life, then how can I be certain enough to take the life of another, possibly innocent man?

Robert Winefield: Brilliant. This is the exact solution to the problem of sufficient knowledge (contextual certainty) in criminal justice.

Robert Bidinotto: If this is the standard you have in mind, or at least if this is a standard that you can agree with, then I'll take back my previous (mis?)judgement about your command of Objectivist epistemology.

Context matters!

"Excuse-Making Industry": that vast industry of psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, therapists, etc., who have made lucrative careers out of concocting excuses for society's predators."

I too share your skepticism and some of your disgust for the state of the social science(s) that supports that industry. I hold out some hope that they may improve somehow and actually get to the point that they can help law-enforcement detect such monsters and seperate them out from the criminals who can and should be "rehabilitated," who can serve their time and come back to society, chasened - but still better men.

I believe that there are two sorts of prisoners. Those who recognise their crimes and genuinely want to start again with a fresh slate, and those who just don't give a fuck. The problem, as I see it, is that we cannot - with any certainty - tell the difference at the moment.

Robert B,

I'm not saying that there isn't enough evidence to convict these scum to life in prison, I'm fine with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. But you suggested that in those special cases where guilt can be established with absolute certainty that the state can be allowed to kill them.

I'm just saying, that today, with our current knowledge and our current system of law & order that establishing guilt without even a skeric of a doubt - so that you can execute a man already sentenced to life in prison - is extremely difficult.

I'm weary of giving the government the power of life over death in "special" cases. So yes, I am inclined to mis-trust the government just a tad, throughout my life my government has given me ample reason to mis-trust it and any like it.

So I do not apologise for "continue raising platonic "uncertainty" nonsense" because a government with permission to execute people in "special" cases is far more dangerous to me, and everybody else, than a criminal, in chains, behind concrete and steel walls, doing hard labour for the rest of his life.

I do so for selfish reasons. I would rather 9 Wayne Gacey's remain alive but behind bars so the one innocent man (and judging from the stats the ratio on death row is much less than 10:1 guilty:innocent) in there with him isn't robbed of any chance at freedom because the cops or judge or lawyers or scientists or jury or all of those people (notice how many people have a hand in imprisoning someone) made a colossal fuck up.

But I'll freely admit to having blind spots on the issue. What I have said above is what I believe to be the way things should stand - based on what I know, with absolute certainty, about what happens when you give a government/politicians an inch. However, if the soldier who found Saddam had kicked him back down that spider hole and thrown a live grenade in after the bastard I'd have foregiven him. The reason? I would have done the same thing and taken any punishment associated with the act.

So I'd love it if someone could show me a way to rationalise away the state-ordained execution of such monsters.

Perhaps my problem is that when a innocent man is convicted, the perverters of justice (whomever they may be: politicians, police, judges, lawyers, scientists) who put him there never seem to pay for their crime. Perhaps, if you proposed that those who sentanced a man to death would face the same penalty if they were wrong? I mean, if you are absolutely certain of their guilt, you shouldn't mind betting your own life now should you...

    "Osama bin Laden...Osama bin Laden..."





     Look, you can try to toss as many "doubts" into your mix as possible, but there are a large number of cases when you've got a sociopath -- someone not lacking mens rea, but who fully knows what he's doing, knows that it is evil, and likes it -- and you have his culpability in premeditated murder absolutely nailed down. Osama being a perfect case. Saddam another. There are countless domestic examples as well, our more notable serial killers being among them.





     Ted Bundy is a classic example: his bite mark on the body of one victim absolutely matched his teeth impression. Or does anyone wish to argue that some COP bit the girl, post-mortem, and that his dentalwork just so happened to be a perfect match for Bundy's? Mentally ill? Bundy was diabolically clever, so much so that he was able to avoid capture for years, conduct himself "normally" in the world among all those around him, and even lead his own courtroom defense. He knew exactly what he was doing...and enjoyed it.





     What is the nonsense about "trail of evidence" doubts in the case of John Wayne Gacy? He was a successful building contractor, even a socially adept member of the local Chamber of Commerce. He hired kids to work with him, got them inside his house, then showed them a "rope trick"...which enabled him to get behind them and strangle them. That "trail" began and ended right under the bastard's house, in heaps of boys' corpses that he had deviously covered in lime, accessible by a secret entrance, all of which he had arranged in advance to try to hide the evidence of his guilt.

     Or the Hillside Stranglers, one of whom was so deviously clever that he read up on "multiple personality disorder," faked the symptoms (supposedly under hypnosis) so convincingly that he conned several shrinks, and who was only unmasked when a world-class hypnotist absolutely proved in court that the killer had also been faking his hypnosis sessions.





     These guys, and many more like them, knew exactly what they were doing; they premeditated and carried out their crimes in cold-blooded calculation; they took great pains not to get caught...precisely because they knew that what they were doing was wrong, they knew the consequences, and they were in full control of their actions.

     I have read scores upon scores of books about such cases. I personally investigated many while writing on crime for Reader's Digest -- cases in which mens rea and the culpability of the killers was so well-established that the only remaining psychiatric question would be regarding anyone who would continue to doubt the mountains of evidence.

     For Objectivists, of all people, to continue raising platonic "uncertainty" nonsense in such cases is tantamount to joining philosophical skeptics, the political Left, and what I have labeled (http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=228) "Excuse-Making Industry": that vast industry of psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, therapists, etc., who have made lucrative careers out of concocting excuses for society's predators.





     So again, repeat after me: Osama bin Laden. Suppose we catch him. Tell me exactly what Objectivist-based argument, ethical or epistemological, you would employ to insist that this butcher must NOT be put to death -- even by a sloppy legal system. Tell me also exactly how we COULD put him to death with some blanket prohibition against the death penalty.





     Then go try out your excuses on the families of those who were working in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.







--Robert

I'd go Kevin Spacey. Or Brad Pitt.

Do you ascribe to the theory that the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty? The idea being that someone of diminished capacity can kill, but their act isn't one of murder (I haven't read your essay or book - that's why I ask.)

As I see it, in Ruby's case the question isn't one of whether he did it, but whether his actus reus was accompanied by mens rea.  Was Ruby in his right mind? Can anyone be absolutely certain of that, given our current knowledge of the brain and it's inner workings?

I mean he did kill someone on live international television. That isn't very sane! Then there is what he said after the killing, speaking about wanting to show the world that "Jews have guts," redeeming Dallas and sparing Jacky Kennedy the ordeal of appearing at Oswald's trial.

As to other cases, most people see DNA evidence as infalliable. When considering legally gathered physical evidence you are making one huge assumption, that the chain of custody is unbroken. That the evidence gathered at the scene is the same as that being presented. To do this you need a competent, incorruptible police-force/ crime-lab/ evidence-storage-facility.

Are you certain that the police force we have now is uniformly competent and incorruptible?
My problem with capital punishment is that you can't take it back when you find that a mistake has been made or injustice been committed.

...and drop-dead handsome, too, Ashley. Just look at that photo. No mystery why people on the street keep hounding me for my autograph, confusing me with Brad Pitt.

I get George Clooney a lot, too -- but frankly, in his case I just don't see the resemblance...

--Robert

Life imprisonment can be revoked if it's discovered a mistake was made. The innocent party can be released & compensated. Death is irrevocable. Innocent people *have* been executed. They cannot be brought back to life. Best indeed to err on the side of caution. Now, this obviously doesn't apply to the likes of bin Laden, who should be put to death in the slowest, most painful way possible. How you codify that I don't know. I'm happy to follow Rand & say these are matters not strictly of philosophy per se but of the philosophy of law (& international relations).

I *said* I hoped I wasn't being presumptuous because I knew what I was saying could come across that way & that I could rely on you to get bent out of shape & put that, the worst possible construction, on it. You haven't disappointed. Bottom line - I truly respect your ability as a speaker. I recommended you in good faith in response to a good-faith inquiry. I got worried when Adam brought up the death penalty matter. I got unworried after you supplied your caveat. Nothing to get panties in a knot over. Now, behave, or I'm going to call on my weapon of last resort - calling you B ... calling you Bo ... well, I'll show mercy for now.

Robert, you just wrote:

"So, does anyone here care to argue against killing him if we catch him? If so, in the name of what Objectivist principle?"

You just trumpeted a fanfare for the anarchists to stampede over here in droves!

Michael

Er...well...YEAH. Good question.

   Jody, that was my point about the exemption made in the Objectivist epistemology for one and only one thing: the death penalty. On any other issue, even life-and-death choices, Objectivists do NOT endorse or use an "absolute" (platonic) standard of certainty.

   For example, nobody denies that in some criminal "hot pursuit" situations, where an APPARENT criminal APPEARS to be an imminent mortal threat to innocents, cops on the scene (or citizens) have the right to use deadly force against him. Those are circumstances with a lot LESS epistemological certainty than we have in the aftermath of a lengthy legal process, with endless appeals. Yet ironically, it is the latter that we subject to "principled" opposition.

   Again, a three-word refutation of this nonsensical platonism: Osama bin Laden. Is there any epistemological doubt here about his status as a mass murderer? No. Any Objectivist moral argument against putting him to death? No.

   So, does anyone here care to argue against killing him if we catch him? If so, in the name of what Objectivist principle?

For all of those arguing against the death penalty, why would your logic not equally apply if you substituted the word 'incarceration' for 'death penalty'? If absolute certainty is needed for the death penalty, then why is it not also needed to take away a man's life via imprisonment?

what's to keep those certainty ones as the ONLY ones given the penalty?

[mind you, not disagreeing with you, just a thought here in light of how the real world functions...]

Jeff, I came here expecting an Objectivist forum. But (seeing enemies rushing en masse into the thread) NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!! They operate by fear, surprise...uh...yes...fear, surprise, and FANATICAL DEVOTION TO THEIR POPE....

Lindsay, I expound some more on this above. As for your generous change of heart in deigning me WORTHY of speaking to KIDS about Objectivism...I...ah...Gee!!!!!! (snif) Golly!!!!!!! (sob) THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I JUST DON'T (sob, sniffle) KNOW HOW TO THANK YOU ENOUGH!!!! (groveling and bowing now) WE'RE NOT WORTHY! WE'RE NOT WORTHY...!

    More seriously:

    Of course the legal system is not perfect. But does anyone care to argue that a system must be infallible in order to deal justly with obvious cases of guilt, such as those I cited?

    How, for example, could one conceivably attribute the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, witnessed by millions on national TV, to anyone but Jack Ruby? I suppose it is metaphysically possible that space aliens did it, and used a secret gas to instill a giant delusion in the minds of the global viewing public...or perhaps that the Illuminati took over all the TV networks and framed Ruby by doctoring the video...or that the Chinese communists, taking a page from The Manchurian Candidate, hypnotized Ruby into being a murderous zombie.

    I suppose such things are...uh...er..."possible."

    But is entertaining such baseless, hypothetical fantasies rational?

    On what grounds do we suddenly begin to entertain groundless flights of fancy -- arbitrary assertions of preposterous metaphysical "possibilities" -- in the face of the direct evidence of our own senses? What, conceivably, could be the "mistake" in convicting Ruby of premeditated murder, and sentencing him to death for it? What could possibly mitigate a death sentence against Gacy for all those kids whom it was PROVED IN COURT that he brought into his house, drugged, strangled, then buried under his floorboards? How about the guy caught recently ON VIDEOTAPE abducting the young girl he later raped and murdered?

    And what if we capture Osama bin Laden? Care to raise the "certainty" issue, anyone?

    Do you need a perfect legal system in such cases before passing a death sentence? Or do you simply need five senses, reason, and a commitment to justice for the victims?

    The issue has been raised about DNA exonerating incarcerated inmates who have been wrongly convicted of murder. That is supposed to show our legal system is flawed. Actually, DNA evidence cuts both ways: it constitutes a wonderful new check against injustice in the legal system. It can now add even more credibility to certain murder convictions. It can be employed to assure that you have the right culprit -- especially in cases of rape-murder. It can add to our epistemological certainty.

    If so, doesn't that constitute additional grounds to give the death penalty to a killer so convicted -- a penalty that Ayn Rand herself acknowledged the killer morally deserves?

    Folks, there are cases in which you do not need to have a perfect legal system in order to determine a murderer's guilt with epistemological certainty. Or even a particularly good system. There are some cases in which there is simply NO doubt. My question to you is: On what rational grounds can you STILL oppose giving the undoubted murderer what he deserves?

    In those cases where there are simply NO RATIONAL GROUNDS TO DOUBT GUILT, there comes a point at which opposition to the death penalty becomes itself irrational -- an article of blind anti-governmental faith, rather than a reasoned conviction.

    Finally, to bring us back to the original point of this thread:

    Even if you disagree with my conclusions, do these arguments sound as if they are coming from someone unqualified to speak about Objectivism and its epistemological standards?

My god, now we have TOCers here being funny. I might have to rethink my impressions of the entire O-ist realm soon.

That's very funny, Robert, & I'm glad it made you feel better. But no one here is adopting the caricature position you're pillorying. I wouldn't have a bar of capital punishment within your (& our) current justice system. Just last week James Heaps-Nelson posted the latest instance of the posthumous discovery that an executed man had been innocent. Such a disgusting, unconscionable travesty is precisely what Rand was on about in the rest of the quotation which other quoters have stopped short of supplying. The fact of fallibility means that unless there are criteria for certainty in place way better than appear to be there now, and a mechanism for ensuring that "beyond reasonable doubt" means "beyond ANY doubt" then I wouldn't go near capital punishment.

That said, having been given cause for pause, and having seen your actual statements on the matter, I've now stopped pausing & am prepared to reiterate my initial enthusiastic recommendation of you as speaker for Mark, who is now spoiled for choices. I hope I'm not being presumptuous. I chimed in only because Mark said my comments about ARI elsewhere were putting him off seeking an ARI speaker.

Robert,
On another thread they are discussing uploading audio to the site. Beware, lest I lapse into my Monty Python accent (I know many scenes by heart!) and smite you a second time.

Kaniggitt.

Jeff, for daring to defend an obvious Enemy Of Objectivism -- me -- I hereby morally repudiate you. Irrevocably.

Jeff! How COULD you??? You dared to question Rand's application of an Objectivist epistemological principle to a single specific issue, capital punishment! This means that you CLEARLY don't understand the principle itself...which means you don't understand Objectivist epistemology in general...which implies that you don't understand the ethics or politics either, since they stand on the epistemology...which means your aren't really an Objectivist, qualified to speak to others, such as campus audiences...which means that in calling yourself an Objectivist in spite of these OBVIOUS FACTS OF REALITY, you are a fraud and liar...which means you are actually...an ENEMY OF OBJECTIVISM!!!!!!!! YES!!! THAT'S IT!!!! ENEMY, I say. In supporting capital punishment, in DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO RAND, i.e., THE FACTS OF REALITY, you are an ANTI-OBJECTIVIST...and ANTI-LIFE AND ANTI-MAN, TO BOOT. A IS A, YOU BASTARD!!!! (pant) (pant) ..............there.......feel better...now.....feel Moral again.......

"but whether it can be achieved in the procedural context of the current American legal system - and I agree with Rand that no, in the procedural context of the current American legal system it is not achievable."

Whether or not this is entirely accurate, and I do find your suggestion about the Swiss system intriguing, we can all agree that the current system is a mess. That is a large part of what Robert's essay is all about. I haven't read the full book, perhaps he addresses epistemelogical issues there, I don't know. But whether he does or not, I think that essay is not the place for such a discussion.

It seems unreasonable to fault that one essay for not addressing the subject. I'll look for others of his, though the issue isn't likely to be covered in Reader's Digest articles either, and see what he has to say.

But one thing needs to be said. Given his intelligence and rationality, as well as his long, serious, and in-depth immersion in Objectivism, it is extremely unlikely that he has as shallow an understanding of Objectivist epistemology, or as wrong, as you imply.

Further, if he never said anything whatever about epistemology, Objectivist or otherwise (which is not the case --- he mentions Platonism, Kantianism, etc in the essay), it would still be irrelevant. He's not designing a judicial system. He's discussing the current one and showing -- ethically and politically -- what's wrong and how to make it better.

Must one do everything in order to be credited with doing many things well?

Robert,

It is a pleasure to have you here speaking to substance, rather than a personal attack. The question is not whether or not sufficient epistemological certainty is achievable through the application of objective epistemology - I agree with Rand that it is - but whether it can be achieved in the procedural context of the current American legal system - and I agree with Rand that no, in the procedural context of the current American legal system it is not achievable.

As you may remember from our conversation on this topic, I think that the scientific method, which conforms to Objectivist Epistemology much more closely than the adversarial method currently used in America, can provide not just a yes-no verdict but also the measure of certainty without which the death penalty poses an unacceptable risk of executing an innocent person. The first step toward this would be to require an impartial investigation of crimes, under the supervision of a magistrate with scientific training, in the judicial branch (rather than the prosecution) to assure objectivity. This is the system already implemented in Switzerland, and it has a much better record in avoiding the execution of innocent persons than the adversarial system used in the Anglo-Saxon world.

As I wrote, you are well-qualified on ethics and politics. But I don't see in your writings on crime any semblance of Ayn Rand's careful atttention to epistemology.

David Kelley just spent the week at the Univeristy of Arizona. He held several symposia and a colloquium with the faculty, which is one of the top philosophy departments in the country. (By the way, I just gave a talk to the Praxis Club at Hillsdale on "Having Your Economics and Ethics Too: Or From Mises' Subjectivism to Rand's Objectivism." But that was more of an analysis and application rather than simple description of Objectivism.)

From The Objectivist Newsletter: "If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error..."

I put it to everyone: Does this sound like the Objectivist standard of epistemological certainty, or the platonic standard of metaphysical certainty?

"Capital punishment never should be applied in cases where a murder conviction depended largely on circumstantial evidence. But in cases of pre-meditated murder in which there is no question of guilt, it should be the standard sentence." [emphasis added]

   --Robert Bidinotto, "Restoring Responsibility," Criminal Justice: The Legal System vs. Individual Responsibility, hardcover, p. 291.

    Note the caveat. For the record, I believe that precisely because of epistemological considerations, the death penalty should not be applied in a cavalier fashion. It should be applied only in cases of epistemological certainty.

   But that raises an interesting question. Do those presuming to lecture me on Objectivist epistemology wish to deny one of its cardinal and distinctive principles -- that we should and must operate in life not on the basis of a platonic standard of metaphysical certainty, but on the basis of epistemological certainty?

   If you do not deny this Objectivist epistemological principle, are you then saying that we should employ it in cases of all crimes except homicide? Are you saying that we can achieve "epistemological certainty" in all categories of judgments -- including many life-and-death decisions made every day in medicine, engineering, construction, travel, etc. -- but never in cases in which somebody commits the crime of murder?

   If so, are you willing to adhere to this curious exception to Objectivist epistemology even if a particular murder were to be eyewitnessed by hundreds, along with the on-the-spot capture of the killer with weapon in hand, and a full confession? Or even if it takes place on national TV -- such as Jack Ruby's murder of Lee Harvey Oswald? Or even if, as in the case of serial killers like John Wayne Gacy, dozens of his victims' corpses are buried right under his own house?

   To my presumed Objectivist philosophy lecturers: Why do you exempt only one category of events in the universe from the principle of acting on epistemological certainty -- murder -- and why do you grant that exemption to only one class of beneficiaries: those who can be proved to have committed the ultimate crime of taking a human life?

   I shall depart now, leaving anyone interested to debate with each other my understanding of Objectivist epistemology, and my worthiness to explain it to a college audience.

Jeff,

I don't have a tape recorder in my head - no one does; "tape recorder memory" is a thoroughly disconfirmed myth. All I can remember, and all that anyone can ever remember, is one's own interpretation. All claims to verbatim quotes in the absence of an audio recording or of stenographic notes are fiction.

Since it's relevant, and his fitness has been questioned, I post this here, as well as on the Capital Punishment thread.

For those debating this issue, I have just completed reading Bidinotto's essay:

Crime and Moral Retribution

http://www.econot.com/page15.html

Though there are parts that one could reasonably disagree with, and many questions raised (some, perhaps, answered in the full length treatment of his book), I second Michael's recommendation of this essay. It discusses at length many of the topics raised here and addrsesses many of the questions raised about retribution vs. restitution vs ....

And for those who might be influenced by Mr. Reed's expressed opinion that Mr. Bidinotto's views are not worth hearing, or presents views inconsistent with Objectivism, because of his alleged consorting with conservatives.... well, all I can say is: read it for yourself and see to what degree or in what ways he does or does not agree with conservatives' views.

Fred!!!!!!! I didn't think of you. Must be because Mark was asking for a lecture on OBJECTIVISM!!!!!! Hahahaha!

Now Mark, by all means invite Fred. He is a captivating speaker - performer would be more accurate - but be prepared for the following:

1) Plato, Kant & Hegel were all raving Objectivists.

2) Sex.

3) Sex.

4) Sex.

5) Sex.

Seriously now, & taking nothing away from Fred, who would be excellent, it has just struck me that I've left out the most obvious contender: TIBOR MACHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

I might be interested. You could ask Linz about me and my lecturing style to see if I'm what you would like.

Fred

Jody,
Thanks you saved me some time. I've read that many times. It leaves some things open, doesn't it?
1) "If it were possible" -- is it?
2) "possibility of error" -- thorny
3) "Would be appropriate and just" -- but is it? I think so, because
I believe the answer to (1) is "Yes, certainly", and (2) Difficult, but achievable.

One could interpret her remarks either way, but given that she was not a skeptic, and believed her ethical theory could actually be lived by 100%, I would say she WAS in favor of the death penalty -- at least, in principle.

And so am I.

Hope this is useful Jeff. This was in a response from her in the Q&A segment of the Objectivist Newsletter.

"In considering this issue[capital punishment], two seperate aspects must be distinguished: the moral and the legal.

The moral question is: Does the man who commits willful murder, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, deserve to have his own life forfeited? Here, the answer is unequivocally: Yes. Such a man deserves to die-not as "social revenge" or as an example to future potential murderers-but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may take the life of another and still retain the right to his own, that no man may profit from an evil of this kind or escape the consequences of having commited it.

However, the legal question: Should a legal system employ capital punishment?-is of a different order. There are grounds for debate-though not out of sypathy or pity for murderes.

If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just."

Thank you for that information. Can you remember, as specifically as possible, what she said? I.e. Not your interpretation or conclusions -- which I'm not here doubting or debating -- but her actual words, as well as you remember them.

On your other statement, is it fair to say that you are then not opposed to the death penalty in principle, but are so long as there're no viable mechanisms for achieving objectivity and sufficient evidence in this area?

Ayn Rand commented on the death penalty frequently, especially when talking with people interested in epistemology, as an illustration of the contextuality of knowledge. She pointed out that while certainty is achievable, it can only be achieved by consistent application of objective principles, and only when there is actual, sufficient evidence. Neither is required in the existing American system.

When Robert Efron collaborated with Rand, he invited a small group of graduate students and a few selected undergraduates to meet with her after her Ford Hall Forum speeches. I do not remember whether Robert Bidinotto was there when she talked about it, but Michael Beliner was there, Ron Merrill, Harry Binswanger, I and several others.

Thanks Joe, I'll check that out. Mr. Reed's view of AR's view, however, far pre-dates the publication of that book. Perhaps he attended the Q & A, or some other, from which that material is drawn.

Jeff, I believe she comments definitively in AYN RAND ANSWERS. Not sure, though.

Spaceplayer: "The Music Listens To YOU."

I don't recall seeing anywhere she definitively opposed the death penalty.

What some are suggesting strikes me as the view that "we can never be sure" and since the decision is irreversible we should err on the side of caution. That premise is certainly not consistent with AR's epistemology, and definitely not with her practice.

"Adam, I didn't know about RB & the death penalty."

RB is for. Enthusiastically so. As it happens I just blogged on this very topic, and when preparing it came across his endorsement. I've submitted my own post on the subject in the article queue.

Anyway, from RB's article 'CRIME AND MORAL RETRIBUTION,' online at: http://www.econot.com/page15.html

"...The issue isn't deterring future killers, but justice for the murder victim. As for a life sentence, it is rarely the case that it really means "life" or anything remotely approaching it. Even if it did, a life prison term still allows the murderer a multitude of values, options and experiences his victim will never know—especially if he spends it in a place such as Mercer. It also prevents the victim's survivors—who were every bit as much victimized by the killer—from ever burying their pain, achieving emotional closure and resuming their lives.

"To deny the death penalty for premeditated murder, then, is to deny the very principle of fitting punishments to offenses. On what grounds can we uphold that principle of equity for lesser offenses, if we dismiss it for this, the most serious of crimes?

"Moral arguments against capital punishment are based on the view that every human life has intrinsic value: even the murderer's life is supposedly sacred, inherently valuable “in itself.” On these grounds, all lives are equal—and of equal inherent value. Ethical intrinsicism thus morally equates the victim with his executioner..."

As Adam says, RB's problem here is epistemological. The moral argument is entirely sound; however the cautionary epistemological hand-brake against the state killing innocents just isn't even mentioned.

Adam, I didn't know about RB & the death penalty. I am a fervent opponent of it on precisely the grounds stated by AR, which have been repeatedly vindicated in real life/death. If RB is a strong advocate of it, this, coupled with his flirtations with religious conservatives, gives me cause for pause. A one-hour lecture is plenty of opportunity to do damage.

Hmmmm. Mark, stick with ARI is my suggestion.

Linz

Bidinotto has earned a deserved reputation as a strong advocate for the death penalty in the context of the current American "justice" system. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, opposed the death penalty because she applied the standard of the objective epistemology that she herself discovered and described - and found that our trial system cannot achieve the level of certainty required to preclude the execution of innocent men. Thus, Bidinotto comes with an earned reputation for contradicting a direct result of Objectivist Epistemology. How can a man be qualified to give a lecture - even an introductory lecture - on a philosophical system whose foundations he contradicts in the very work on which most of his reputation is based?

I agree with Jason and Linz. Bidinotto would make an excellent speaker for an introductory lesson in objectivism. Even though I disagree with Adam, even if he were correct, we're not talking about a PhD course here.

Come on, you know very well that Robert Bidinotto would do an excellent job with an hour long lecture about the basics of Objectivism -- easily as good and likely much better then whoever ARI would send out.

Linz,

I agree with your recommendation of ARI speakers. ARI does a great job in training and in quality control. And ARI does not send their curmudgeons - of whom they do have several - on campus speaking trips.

I disagree with your opinion that Robert Bidinotto has "a fine grasp of Objectivism." He is OK on fundamentals of metaphysics, ethics, and politics, but less so on issues of epistemology - and those aspects of the rest of Objectivism that depend on a solid grasp of epistemology. Two areas in which Bidinotto may have (as I suspect from implicatures) gaps in understanding Objectivist Epistemology are (1) the contextual scope of the relevance of specific types of knowledge (such as statistics,) and (2) the requirements of grounding (such as the grounding of principles of political action in self-interest.) ARI at least imposes very strict quality control on their speakers - they would not send someone with possible gaps out as a campus speaker.

An ARI speaker would be fine for this kind of thing. Their people are well trained in the fundamentals of Objectivism and so are most likely give a good account of Ayn Rand's philosophy. These types of university club activities are things they do on a regular basis and so for this type of thing ARI would probably be the first people to call.

- Jason

Mark,
I'd love to hear more if your group sets up a lecture. I live in Lawrence.

Mark - you should be safe with ARI. Most things I've heard latterly about their speakers have been excellent. I think they've been making a bit of an effort to be human. A thought, though - Robert Bidinotto (TOC) is an excellent speaker with a fine grasp of Objectivism. He's been popping up on the Casey Fahy thread here. I can't speak for him, obviously, and I think he's been on the wrong side in that particular debate, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him if you could make it happen.

Linz