Note: This comment system was replaced with Disqus in May 2010.
Comment #1
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 12:51:27 mdt
Name: Paul Hsieh
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
One consequence of listening to Leonard Peikoff's course on the "DIM hypothesis" is that I've started becoming more attuned to the dangers of the religious conservatives, and the threat they pose to America.
Hence, it will be interesting to see if this sort of incident becomes a trend, namely where religious conservatives seek to use the power of government to stifle what would 20 years ago be regarded as a clear case of free speech, in the name of religious or "family" values. If this attitude becomes widespread, then this means that America as we know and love will have ceased to exist.
Other canary-in-the-coal-mine issues to keep abreast of will be the debate over so-called "intelligent design" and the debate over legal restrictions on stem cell research.
At least with stem cell research, if the religious fundamentalists succeed in enforcing a total ban on all such research including private research (as opposed to the current ban on federal funding of such research), we know that such work will continue to proceed in places like Great Britain and South Korea.
Then when Americans start seeing that people in other countries can receive life-saving medical treatments that aren't available in the US, the obvious concrete benefits may cause some people to rethink their positions (much like when the old East Germans could receive television stations from West Germany, and could see that life in the west was much much better than life under Soviet domination.)
Comment #2
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 13:35:25 mdt
Name: James Heaps-Nelson
Paul,
I agree with you on the danger of the religious conservatives relative to the left. People are crying out for an antidote to our nihilistic culture. The left is crumbling. Union membership is almost obsolete. However, people need values and a way to order their consciousness in a fast-changing world. Religion provides people with a false sense of security and a short cut to psychological order.
I agree that stem cell research will probably be carried out in the UK, South Korea or maybe Sweden. It is more than the lack of treatment that will result. Stagnation of the economy where a thriving biopharmaceutical industry should have existed will result.
Jim
Comment #3
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 13:48:17 mdt
Name: David Arceneaux
Yet another example that the Religious Right demands the abortion of the American mind. (There's an Op-Ed title for ya)
Comment #4
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 14:03:26 mdt
Name: Dave Jilk
DEAR ABBY: I live in a reason-oriented neighborhood. My problem is my next-door neighbor flies his Christian flag in his front yard. Because we have a lot of families with young children who do not need to be subjected to that kind of thing, I have asked him numerous times to remove it.
His response is it's a free country and he does not subject anybody to his lifestyle.
I strongly feel that in a neighborhood devoted to children's morals and the way life should be, he should not be allowed to have that flag in his front yard for everyone to see. I threatened if he didn't take it down, I'd call the police. I feel it's harming the children to see that flag flying, especially on a busy street that everyone travels on. What should I do? -- RIGHTEOUS IN BOULDER, CO.
Comment #5
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 14:49:43 mdt
Name: Dave Jilk
I guess the last paragraph really should be re-written:
I strongly believe that in a neighborhood devoted to reason and the way life should be, he should not be allowed to have that flag in his front yard for everyone to see. I threatened if he didn't take it down, I'd propose an amendment to the HOA covenants (to which charter he agreed in buying the property). I think it's harming the children to see that flag flying, especially on a busy street that everyone travels on. What should I do? -- RIGHTEOUS IN BOULDER, CO.
Comment #6
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 16:38:37 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
I agree with "Righteous", although not necessarily for the reasons he gives.
It is one thing to express your views. It is quite another to express them in such a way that others cannot avoid or turn them off, i.e. they are expressed in such a way that it is in your face and specifically designed to provoke, offend, or annoy others.
Would you feel differently if it were a Nazi flag?
There are a whole host of issues here, I know - from bumper stickers to T-shirts and relatively innocous signs like "We Support our Troops", etc. It's a tough one to define and I wouldn't envy the challenge of threading the exact lines of demarcation between a proper expression of freedom of speech and being unnecessarily intrusive on the sensibilities of others.
But I do think there is a valid issue here.
Comment #7
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 16:59:48 mdt
Name: L.S.
Hello Fred,
You have a problem with the flag only because you must morally disapprove of homosexuality very strongly. Otherwise, why the comparison to the Nazi flag?
Of course I would feel differently if it were a Nazi flag--how are the two related, if not by your personal view that homosexuality is something profoundly immoral? This view isn't part of philosophy, as far as I understand, so not part of Objectivism. Further, Leonard Peikoff does not agree that homosexuality per se is immoral, as indicated by his comments over time--fair enough if you feel differently, but wouldn't such a view have to be a philosophical certainty for you to object to the flag?
Last time I checked, the "gay flag" didn't feature any kind of homoerotic imagery or profanity or anything that would be innapropriate for children or others to see--it's a rainbow. So, what's the problem outside of your personal dissproval of gays, just as is the case with Mr. Righteous?
Comment #8
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 17:12:20 mdt
Name: Eran Dror
URL: http://www.erandror.com
I always thought the gay flag was quite fetching. When I first saw it I thought - Woah, that must be one happy nation! ;-)
I would most certainly support the rights of any home owner to put up any flag he wants on his property. If he happens to raise a flag of an enemy nation or organization (such as the Nazi one) he would only be attracting attention to himself, and suspicions which will soon turn to indictments if he supports the enemy in any more substantial way.
And regarding not being able to avoid the flag - what about the simple act of looking away from this guy's own back yard? Doesn't that count?
Comment #9
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 18:19:01 mdt
Name: Luke
Fred, the sensibilities of others are not the same things as the rights of others, and you should know better. You're not drawing a line around free speech, you talking about drawing it right through the damn middle like a no smoking sign.
Comment #10
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 18:49:58 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
L.S., if you have a problem with a Nazi flag, then I don't quite get the principle you are on. It has nothing to do with my personal views on homosexuality and it was entirely gratuitous for you to start lecturing me on the subject. I'd have a similar problem with someone planting some kind of "Objectivist" flag on their lawn.
As for Eran's point that one could just look away, why should I have to? That is precisely the point, that such displays are offensive and intrusive.
No one here I assume has any objection to people watching pornography if they wish. But how would you react if someone planted their large screen tv in their front window so that any passerby was subjected to it? Or how about on a large billboard near a busy pedestrian intersection?
Comment #11
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 18:52:44 mdt
Name: Steve Jackson
LS,
Ayn Rand said homosexuality is "disgusting" and "immoral." AR didn't express condemnations like this lightly.
Comment #12
Saturday, August 27, 2005 at 10:02:49 mdt
Name: Dave Jilk
Steve said:
>Ayn Rand said homosexuality is "disgusting" and "immoral."
>AR didn't express condemnations like this lightly.
Diana,
Is this true, and if so, in what context did she say it? Is this considered part of Objectivism? I'm cool with "disgusting" -- that's part of what makes sex so gooood ;-) -- but immoral is of course a philosophical term implying that it's not just her personal preference.
Comment #13
Saturday, August 27, 2005 at 10:12:09 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Dave: It is a moral judgment -- but (1) it's not a principle and even if it were, (2) it depends upon psychological premises (like a homosexual's capacity to choose otherwise). Either of those exclude it from being part of Objectivism.
Comment #14
Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 1:18:05 mdt
Name: Adam Reed
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
Fred:
About "offensive" displays. One of my former supervisors at Bell Labs was a devout Roman Catholic. She and her husband are bringing up their children in a "Christian Family Community" - essentially a gated community of private family homes sponsored by a Roman Catholic religious order. Inside their private community they have their rules, which I would assume include a prohibition on displays they don't want their families to see. People who object to rainbow flags - or for that matter to nude statues etc. - are free to set up such communities and live without the "intrusion" of expression they disapprove of. It is when such people, instead of setting up their own communities, demand that the government impose their censorship on the rest of us, that free people can and should object to the violation of our rights.
Comment #15
Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 3:33:03 mdt
Name: Volens
It is certainly an advantage to bring up children in surroundings where they are not exposed to irrationality (not that homosexuality is neccessarily irrational). AR certainly believed this - as shown by the comments of the "mother" in Galt's Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged".
But this can be handled contractually, using agreements that are included in transfers of property, amounting to a sort of unionization of the inhabitants of an area.
Comment #16
Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 8:08:45 mdt
Name: Steve Jackson
Diana,
What reason is there to believe that Rand based her condemnation of homosexuality on psychological premises? Would shoplifting become OK if certain people were born with a compulsion to steal?
If Kelley or Branden said Rand's teachings were subject to change based on a new and improved psychology, that would be denounced as a compromise of Objectivism.
Comment #17
Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 9:40:22 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Steve -- Because I've bothered to think five seconds about the premises required for such a judgment.
That assessment of homosexuality, I should note, has no bearing upon the philosophy of Objectivism, unlike NB's supposedly psychological criticisms of the objective moral judgment.
As for an innate compulsions, that's simply impossible. A person would have to have an innate idea of property to have an innate compulsion to steal. I do not believe that homosexuality is innate, but I strongly suspect that it is too engrained in a person's childhood psychology to change in most cases. I regard homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not think any case can be made that a loving homosexual relationship is immoral.
Comment #18
Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 9:42:17 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Adam, about "offensive" displays, it hardly makes the case in the name of rights when such displays are *imposed* on people and thereby violates their rights. I don't care what views my neighbors hold, so long as I'm not subjected to them unwillingly.
Most of us avoid this sort of thing by choosing to live in areas where it is not done. And you certainly couldn't object to Nazi flags flying all over the neighborhood when they were clearly on display when you moved in. On the other hand, a Nazi moving into a Jewish neighborhood can hardly stand on his "rights" when his neighbors are justly outraged at the Nazi flag he plants on his front lawn.
Comment #19
Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 11:15:50 mdt
Name: michael
In regard to the "disgusting" and "immoral" comment, I was under the impression that these were not considered part of Objectivism because they were stated as a response during a question-and-answer period at the end of one of Miss Rand's talks. So far as I know, she never wrote on the subject.
Many of the most contentious debates in Objectivism -- usually surrounding human nature -- seem to rest on an attempt to interpret a single printed sentence or an off-the-cuff comment like the one above. For example, "On a Woman President" is a very logical piece which relies entirely on a single statement as its premise: that "the essence of femininity is hero-worship." The arguments on this piece are never about the conclusions Ms. Rand draws. Instead, the controversy surrounds the founding premise, which, sadly, Miss Rand did not directly explore further.
I am confident that she came to both conclusions inductively. In the absence of anything further from her, I would love to see some sort of formal paper or study from a philosopher, -- or, better yet, philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists and maybe a medical doctor or two -- analyzing and explaining the elements of these conclusions in detail. For those of us without enough data to draw conclusions inductively on these matters, it would be a great help. :)
Comment #20
Monday, August 29, 2005 at 22:28:23 mdt
Name: Dave Jilk
Michael, your answer was what I was really looking for earlier -- the context was that Rand's comment was an off-the-cuff answer to a question, so we can't really hold her to it at a philosophical level.
Diana said:
>As for an innate compulsions, that's simply impossible. A >person would have to have an innate idea of property to >have an innate compulsion to steal.
Be careful with this. The assumption you make is the same one that scientist/philosophers like Stephen Pinker make when they claim that innate concepts do exist. There is plenty of evidence that "high-level behaviors" manifest innately, for example, identical twins raised apart that end up in the same careers, with the same hobbies and favorite foods. It's totally possible for higher level behaviors to emerge from innate characteristics WITHOUT innate ideas -- because various neurological and chemical predispositions, existing in a particular environment (physical and cultural), will have a tendency to result in similar behaviors.
So although I don't have any particular evidence that some people have an innate compulsion to steal, it is easy to envision an innate enjoyment of adrenaline rushes in combination with a mild autism that reduces one's "theory of mind" that would otherwise help them grasp the impact of their behavior on others, leading to someone who "innately steals." There are plenty of other behaviors that could manifest these two predispositions, but once a person lands on stealing as a form of satisfying them, the habit begins to form. "Innate propensity to steal" is therefore mischaracterizing what is happening, but that doesn't mean the behavior that is manifested does not emanate from innate predispositions.
These are of course *just* predispositions and compulsions. Except in extreme cases (broken units, if you will), people can oppose their predispositions with their will. Presumably, one should do this when the behavior is irrational, violates the rights of others, etc.
In general, though, it seems to me that one's preferences, if not irrational, are neither immoral nor suboptimal, but merely one's preferences.
Diana further wrote:
>I do not believe that homosexuality is innate, but I >strongly suspect that it is too engrained in a person's >childhood psychology to change in most cases. I regard >homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal, but I do not >think any case can be made that a loving homosexual >relationship is immoral.
The evidence is pretty strong that many homosexuals are inclined that way (predispositions again) from birth. Two fairly recent results: a study using purified pheromones with no apparent conscious smell distinguished homosexuals from heterosexuals by their response to a sample distilled from female urine vs one from male sweat. Another study provided evidence suggesting that intrauterine chemistry affects sexual preference, which would explain the lack of 100% twins-raised-apart correlation.
Of course, if it is immoral, then this doesn't matter... but if it is not immoral, then I don't see why it is even suboptimal or unfortunate, except for the way they are treated in current society.