Objectivism 101

Lesson 5: Living in Society

The problem of sanction

Having judged people appropriately, we can now explore the last question : what to do with that evaluation from an ethical perspective.
On daily life relationships, it is relatively easy to do so. If a person is acting in harmony with your values, one should be benevolent towards them : if the reverse is true, then we should try to take emotional or physical distance from them, while remaining non-violent whenever possible.

The typical example here is battered wives. People are often amazed at how much mistreatment a partner can take, while clinging to a relationship.
The reason is emotional attachment. In the same way than emotionalism in epistemology can entail all kinds of irrational ideologies, emotionalism in ethics can make people do seemingly absurd things.

In an abusive relationship, one person is using physical or verbal violence to control and scare the other person into compliance.
Since the accomplishment of our own values requires an active, self-interested process on our part, such arrangements, even if voluntary, are usually not conductive to such an accomplishment. Yet most battered wives stay with their husband, because their emotional attachment blinds their judgment. To read more about the effect of emotionalism on values, see O:PAR p228-229.

Judging people's ideologies is more complex than judging the particular behavior of people, because the degree to which our actions support that ideology and support our own interests is difficult to circumscribe.

The standard example we can use here is the traditional "communist butcher" situation. This situation is one where you buy your weekly meat at a butcher whom you find out is a communist, and uses his profits to support communism.
The question is, knowing these facts, should you keep trading with the butcher, knowing that his promotion of communism is against your interests ?

The concept that covers this kind of question is the concept of sanction. How do we determine what organizations or people to sanction and who not to sanction ?
It depends on your goals. If your goal is simply to get meat, and there is no other butcher in town, it might not be such a problem to support a communist butcher. The profit he will get from you, anyway, would be hardly comparable to the value you get from him. You may decide that the opposite is true, and not trade with him.

David Kelley discusses the problem of sanction as it applies to his own work as an Objectivist philosopher and lecturer, in his essay "A Question of Sanction" :

I weigh the costs of association against the possible gains. Before I accept a writing or speaking engagement, I consider whether my sponsors are offering me access to an audience I could not otherwise have reached; or whether I would be helping them attract an audience they could not otherwise have earned. I consider whether my sponsors have a definite editorial policy or ideological commitment opposed to Objectivism, and, if so, whether they are willing to have me state my disagreement explicitly. I consider whether the format of my appearance would suggest that I endorse other speakers and their views. And I consider what I know of their moral and intellectual character. In weighing these and other matters, I am always looking for long-range strategic gain at minimal cost. That's how you fight a war of ideas.

When David Kelley wrote these lines, he was not being light about it. He was answering to his Peikoffian critics, who accused him of making speeches to libertarian groups.
Kelley was booted out of the Ayn Rand Institute, and subsequently formed the Objectivist Center, an organization dedicated to expand Objectivism into the world.

Tolerance, justice, sanction are not just abstract issues I am talking to you about because they are pleasant to study (although they are) : they have repercussions in real life. Everything in Objectivism has consequences in real life, or is a part of concepts which have consequences in real life.
Objectivism and its principles are not an idle study : there is no ivory tower to hide in. Only the facts of reality, and our relation to them.

Kelley's example obviously does not apply to most of us : we are not all professional philosophers (that would be one intelligent but unproductive society !). We are not involved in the "front lines" of this war of ideas.
But the concept of sanction still applies to our own lives. Every time you trade any kind of resource with anyone else, the question of sanction is involved.

  1  2  3  4  5  6  7