Philosophy in Action: NoodleFood : Page 590

Thoughts on “A Life of One’s Own”

David Kelley, Ethics, History, Responsibility, Reviews, Welfare

Mar 052002

I’m in the middle of David Kelley’s short book on welfare rights, A Life of One’s Own. For some silly reason, I haven’t ever read it before. It is sheer delight. For example:

In the opening pages, DK contrasts our personal to our public sense of each person’s responsibility for his own life. In our private lives, we see supporting ourselves as our own responsibility. We have to find a job, show up on time, pay our bills, feed our children, and so forth. In contrast, as a matter of public policy, we expect the government to provide these good and services for everyone. The world does not owe us a living, but the world does owe everyone a living. DK then goes on to show that similar contradictions crop up in our personal versus public views about helping those in need.

(Sadly, that summary does not come close to doing the introduction justice. The point is that the introduction lays bare a very interesting and common contradiction between what we expect of ourselves and what we expect of others.)

In general, the book exhibits the same patience and fairness found in most of DK’s work. He clearly separates his discussion of the content of the opposing ideas from his evaluation. He presents those opposing views in their most plausible form. His analysis is slow and painstaking, but crystal-clear in the end. It was this patient and fair method that first caught my attention in reading Truth and Toleration (now The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand). As I said: sheer delight!

Re-reading Ayn

Children, Ethics, Honesty, Objectivism, Parenting, Rights

Mar 042002

I’ve been re-reading Ayn Rand’s fiction and philosophical essays in preparation for teaching the six-lecture Objectivism 101 course at the 2002 Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center. It’s been a while since I’ve read Ayn Rand’s writings in full. Usually I’m just looking up particular paragraphs here or there to find a quote.

So it’s been particularly delightful to re-acquaint myself with her work. I particularly enjoyed reading The Fountainhead again after so many years. It has a light touch, giving it much more psychological realism than found in Atlas Shrugged. But perhaps AS is simply more direct, more blunt than The Fountainhead. Given what I regularly hear on talk radio and read in advice columns, people’s thinking is often so much worse than we tend to charitably assume.

For example, check out the second letter in this Ann Landers’ column. The woman is feeling guilty over modest punishment for her son’s stealing and wondering whether to return the stolen property. That’s silly enough already. But then Ann Landers’ suggests fixing the problem by lying, by telling the store manager that her son “took the cards by mistake.” (The phrase “to take something by mistake” indicates confusion about whether you were in possession of an object or had paid for it, not stealing!)

Call me crazy, but lying just doesn’t seem to be a good remedy for the problem of theft! Confused thinking indeed!

Update: Due to serious philosophic and moral objections, I am no longer associated with The Objectivist Center in any way, shape, or form. My reasons why can be found on my web page on The Many False Friends of Objectivism.

Preventing Horror

Communism, Compromise, Ethics, Literature

Mar 042002

After a lengthy discussion on Saturday with Paul on whether the horrors of the Soviet Union could have been prevented, he recommended the quick World War II alternate history Triumph in which Churchill assassinates Stalin during the war. Although competently written, the possible changes in the timeline precipitated by Stalin’s early death are merely hinted at rather than explored in depth.

If we must make common cause with an evil regime (like the Soviet Union) in order to defeat a even more evil regime (like Hitler’s Germany), the least we can do is be honest about the compromise being made. To sell a ruthless dictator as “Uncle Joe Stalin” is an unpardonable sin. But given FDR’s politics, perhaps Stalin really was an ideological uncle of sorts.

Intellectual Fraud

Academia, Ethics, Honesty

Mar 042002

The fraudulent scholarship of Menchu, Bellesiles, and company is a rather interesting case study in the importance of honesty in professional life.

As Nathaniel Branden points out in his discussion of honesty in The Basic Principles of Objectivism, fraudulent scholarship brings about the very opposite of the desired ends. Intellectual frauds want their work to be noticed. Without notice, they will neither advance their cause nor become famous. Of course, by attempting to achieve these ends dishonestly, they risk damaging their cause and reputation. But actual detection is not their only problem.

The mere possibility of detection frustrates the lying scholar’s goals because popularity of his work engenders scrutiny. The very same attention to the ideas which motivated the original deception becomes a threat. The attention of other scholars must be avoided, because such attention risks exposure. Who doesn’t pose a threat? People too dumb to understand the ideas. People who are too lazy to investigate them. People who are too dishonesty to care whether they are true or not. What a pathetic crowd of admirers that would be!

The Lying Left

Academia, Ethics, Honesty

Mar 042002

Yesterday, I stumbled upon this 1999 article “I, Rigoberta Menchu, Liar” by David Horowitz summarizing the lies and deceptions multicultural darling and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Rigoberta Menchu. I wonder whether her book is still being taught at universities. I hope not but suspect so, given the left’s lack of concern for truth. The Amazon reviews are worth reading in and of themselves, as a case study in opposing views on the importance of truth. Those who like the book gloss over the lies, using bland words like “inconsistencies” and “a composite version.” Critics of the book, meanwhile, are merely “nitpicking” and “hairsplitting.”

David Stoll’s book Rigoberta Menchu and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans apparently originally exposed the book as dishonest. Don’t read one without the other!

The First

Personal

Mar 042002

My first post to my blog ought to be something particularly exciting. But alas, it is rather mundane. Let me at least introduce myself:

I am an active writer and lecturer on philosophy, particularly on issues of practical ethics. My major philosophical influences include Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill. I earned my B.A. in philosophy from Washington University in 1997 and will be pursuing graduate study in philosophy this fall. I live on a small farm in Sedalia, Colorado with my husband Paul, as well as two horses, two dogs, and three cats. I can be reached via e-mail to diana(at)dianahsieh.com.