January 7, 2007
Between Creation and Destruction
The events of this infant new year have already given us plenty of opportunities to ponder the imponderable:
- A popular young football star was murdered on New Year's Eve, most likely by urban gang member(s) for "dissin'" them.
- The "endangered" status of a growing Polar Bear population has been cited as further justification for anti-industrialization measures in the U.S.
- The motives and deductive reasoning abilities of a starving rap-metal band's lyricist have been questioned for declaring "Open Season" on murderous Muslim hate mongers.
- A spokesman (err, spokeswoman) [excuse me: "spokesperson"] for non-profit group PETA declared cattle and wild animals whose lives are threatened by Colorado's blizzard "not worth saving" because "in six months they're going to be killed and end up on someone's plate" and "it's an act of God" respectively.
Believe it or not, there is a philosophical theme that runs through all these events: In each case, the motive of the actor can be plotted on a scale between creation and destruction: (Where creation is 10 and destruction is 0.)
The gang-banger destroys human life without pause in order to create some sort of personal "rep." - Zero
Penalize business and redistribute wealth to create an illusion of helping wild animals. - Zero
Popular musicians glorify the destruction of hate filled, religiously inspired murderers to create peace and liberty. - Ten
An animal "welfare" advocate blithely dismisses efforts to create conditions for survival of untold thousands of animals while reserving financial resources for efforts to destroy commercial enterprises that create animal life for productive use. - Zero
As you can see, all of my rankings are either 0 or 10. As with the scale between freedom and tyranny, the continuum from creation to destruction calls for one thing: Extremism. There is no such thing as "too free" or "too creative." I submit that these are the true scales upon which events, ideas, politicians - everything - should be judged. Not left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It is more practical (and desirable) to maximize freedom and creation than to balance between two opposing styles of minimizing them.
Philosophy Posted by JohnGalt at January 7, 2007 6:23 PM
I suppose I get a zero for daring to question the motives and deductive reasoning capabilities of a starving rap-metal band (not sure the band's success or lack thereof is not exogenous to my critique). Pardon me if I take a little personal umbrage, but I have been lumped in a wall of shame with the likes of PETA, urban gangs, and the Department of the Interior.
After such shame, I'm sure you'll see the valor in my defending myself. By grading everything a zero or a ten, jg, you expose the millenarian and utopian characteristics that have frightened me away from the Objectivist camp. Though we share many ideas -- I'll not defend anyone else who "took a thumpin'" in your post -- the absolutism that is so prized as moral integrity within the Objectivist community turns me off. The Jacobins and Bolsheviks were committed to ideological purity as well. They weren't afraid to break eggs to make an omelet as it were.
Whittaker Chambers famously said in his NR review of "Atlas Shrugged" that the subtext was "to the gas chambers, go..." I never got that from the author herself but I get it loud and clear from Tracinski and Peikoff.
I've always admired your pragmatism that you have seen the GOP at its best as advancing the ideas of liberty. I hope that's not an insult -- does that make you a nine?
Peace, brother.
Posted by: jk at January 8, 2007 11:13 AMAlas, I see you missed the point.
Posted by: johngalt at January 8, 2007 3:01 PMLast night I learned that dagny found my response to your reply "rude." I have to say that wasn't my intention. I was merely disappointed that you don't appear to grasp the distinction between subjective and objective scales of measurement.
Perhaps I was subconsciously manipulated into rudeness by your suggestion (with the "gas chambers" quip) that I, along with Tracinski and Peikoff, endorse mass murder. (Speaking of missing points - monumental ones at that.)
I have more time today to respond, and more incentive as my better half is not yet satisfied with my performance. Here goes:
There's nothing wrong with questioning anything, as long as you listen to the answer and make a rational judgement about it. I ranked Stuck Mojo's lyrics a ten. The concomitant zero goes to "hate filled, religiously inspired murderers."
Your equation of Objectivists with Jacobins and Bolsheviks on the basis of "ideological purity" is many things (a listing of which I shall defer) but it certainly is not valid. It's analog is to equate Mahatma Gandhi with Charles Manson because neither wore shoes.
To the man who is "turned off" by absolutism I ask, is there nothing in which you value the absolute? For example, could there ever be too few rapes or murders or abortions in the world?
The moral integrity of Objectivists you so misunderstand comes not from simple absolutism, applied to every idea, but from holding as an absolute value man's life in general (and his own life in particular as the highest value) and an abolute refusal to allow inconsistent values and beliefs to hold a place in his mind. Are these such objectionable premises?
If a man's own life is his highest value the he can't improve it by imposing suffering upon himself to improve the life of another. If this is true for him then it is also true for all men, making compulsive altruism tantamount to murder.
Men who believe this aren't sending other men "to the gas chamber" nor even inviting them to go. But the men who DON'T believe this do precisely that.
And my point, the original point which I suggested you fail to grasp, is that everything - events, ideas, politicians - should be judged on an objective scale of man's right to his own life. In this way man's inate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may be advanced. Subjective scales lead to disagreement, compromise and stagnation, and leave the door open to tyranny.
Ironically, your invocation of Whittaker Chambers illustrates exactly the obstacle which prevents many, Buckleyites at least, from doing so - atheismophobia. (fourth paragraph)
Posted by: johngalt at January 9, 2007 4:12 PMYour "alas" comment induced a little eye-rolling but I probably deserved it. My words were strong but they were not spoken in anger. The point is that Jacobins had some good ideas and intentions (though I'll take the Objectivists on economics) but their utopian objectives made the ends justify all means.
There are times to not be subjective but there are also times for a little humility. Supreme righteousness puts me off, whether it comes from Pat Robertson or Dr. Piekoff. I remember the latter on Bill O'Reilly's show calling for nuclear strikes in the Mideast before the liberation of Iraq had begun.
Can there be too few murders? Some would call Saddam Hussein's execution murder. I'm glad there was not one fewer of those. Abortions? Nobody who frequents this blog shares the same view of abortion. Even rape has some fuzzy margins with married, committed, generally consensual couples.
You attempted to pick three easy ones and could not find what I'd call an absolute. What about freedom? I favor drug legalization and recall you do not. Right to assert American interest overseas? You and I may be close but there would be much principled and intelligent opposition.
Ones and zeros have been the keys to my success in the professional world but there are shades of grey in governance And I will continue to be distrustful of those who do not see them.
Posted by: jk at January 10, 2007 6:54 PM | What do you think? [4]