The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

OBJECTIVIST ROUND UP #163

From EGO: Martin Lindeskog, cross-posted by MetaBlog


(Editor's note: This post could be updated after Rational Jenn has checked it out.)

Rationally Selfish Q&A #004

From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog

Is it immoral to have a sexually-oriented job, such as stripper or pornography actress/actor? Is it wrong of me to enjoy having a sexually-oriented job?

Imagine giving a person the key to your home because you found him/her pretty interesting after an evening of casual chat.

Imagine allowing your co-workers to read you personal journal, including your doubts about your upcoming wedding, if willing to pay a few dollars.

Imagine posting your financial records on the internet for anyone to see -- or exploit.

Imagine asking perfect strangers on the subway to inspect the infected wound on your shoulder.

Should that seem like revealing too much of yourself? Yes!

Would that invite nasty people to abuse and exploit you? Yes!

Would that be a massive failure to recognize that different relationships warrant different degrees and kinds of intimacy? Yes!

Unfortunately, many people don't apply these basic lessons about intimacy to their sex lives.

By its very nature, sex is an intimate act, not merely physically but spiritually too. It requires exposing one's most delicate parts to handling by another person, in pursuit of the most exquisite pleasure the human body has to offer. Sex can be an exaltation and celebration of life.

Yet sex can also be deeply degrading too, precisely due to its inherent intimacy. For example, the intimacy of sex is degrading when done with an unworthy person, e.g. someone abusive, callous, brutish, or even just dreary. It's not enough for a sexual partner to be merely tolerable, however. The inherent intimacy of sex demands a serious bond and well-earned trust between two people. It requires a deep and mutual interest in the well-being of the other person. Without that foundation for intimacy, you might as well stay home and play with your own sex toys.

Obviously, such selectivity is precisely what sex workers -- strippers, prostitutes, pornographers, etc -- cannot exercise. Even if able to refuse the worst of the lot as clients, he/she engages in the most intimate of acts with merely tolerable partners. And to do that well enough to earn money, he/she must create the illusion of intimacy -- meaning the pretense of concern for and trust in the other.

In so doing, the sex worker is deeply warping his/her own view of sexuality -- such that the reality of sex is smutty and bestial, and the spiritual meaning of sex is mere pretense. A person who develops that view of sex closes off his/her capacity for truly deep and meaningful sexual relationships. Given the value of such relationships, I can't but regard that as self-destructive.

That being said, I don't condemn all sexual commerce. Instead, I celebrate what aims to enhance the experience of people seeking genuine pleasure and intimacy in sex, such as sex toys, lingerie, and erotica.

I'm sure that makes me a prude by some people's standards, and a libertine by others. So be it!

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for next week's "Rationally Selfish Q&A"! The questions and votes are due by Tuesday at 10 am, and I'll post the question and answer on Wednesday.

Demand Destruction

From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlog

Sales of existing homes are occurring at their lowest rate in fifteen years and employers aren't hiring. Why? Because making such big financial commitments when one has no rational basis for expecting to meet the obligations that come with them makes no sense.

The housing market is ... being hampered by the weakening economic recovery [sic]. Unemployment remains stuck at 9.5 percent and many potential buyers worry they might not have a job to pay the mortgage.

On top of that, there's concern that the financial outlay associated with a home purchase made today will prove unrealistically high tomorrow.

One reason the market is hurting is that buyers and sellers are in a standoff over prices. Many sellers are reluctant to lower their prices. And buyers are hesitating because they think home prices haven't bottomed out.

This situation parallels the one employers face when considering whether to buy the services of a new employee, as outlined by John Stossel.

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden.

With myriad new regulations which will affect the price of labor and "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies" hanging over the financial sector, employers are hesitant to buy and their willing, potential new hires sit around unused. The only difference here is that the direction the buyer fears his price will go.

We really need to start shrinking the size of the welfare state, but even just maintaining the status quo (if that were even possible) for some time would be an improvement over our current situation in one sense: It would allow businessmen to figure out what the hell is going on.

An economist made headlines yesterday, not so much for laying all this out, but for calling a spade a spade: He said that our economy is in a depression. I completely agree.

If, as the saying goes, "Admitting the problem is half the battle," this is the best news about the economy I've heard in years.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.

Party Pooper

From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlog

Michael Gerson, formerly George W. Bush's chief speech-writer and, according to Time magazine, one of the nation's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals," declares war on the Tea Party movement (permalink) in his column at the Washington Post.

Predictably for an evangelical, he attacks the movement for not being altruistic and, predictably for an altruist, his attacks are dishonest. Here's an example of both in the two successive paragraphs that essentialize his point and his method of "argument":

First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional? This seems to be the unguarded view of Colorado Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and other Tea Party advocates of "constitutionalism." It reflects a conviction that the federal government has only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution -- which doesn't mention retirement insurance or health care.

This view is logically consistent -- as well as historically uninformed, morally irresponsible and politically disastrous. The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, granted broad power to the federal government to impose taxes and spend funds to "provide for . . . the general welfare" -- at least if Alexander Hamilton and a number of Supreme Court rulings are to be believed. In practice, Social Security abolition would push perhaps 13 million elderly Americans into destitution, blurring the line between conservative idealism and Social Darwinism. [bold added]

Along the way to accusing advocates of capitalism of throwing old ladies into the streets, Gerson conveniently ignores the fact that if we don't find a way to phase out the massive welfare entitlements we already have (let alone ObamaCare, which his argument supports), we'll all be impoverished (at best) from massive government theft, be it in the form of astronomical taxes or inflation.

Along the way to pretending that the Constitution justifies the welfare state, Gerson fails to mention that "general welfare" is a vague-enough term that "not looting ordinary citizens" could just as well be included, and that, in any event, the institution of slavery was more arguably enshrined in the law of the land at one point. Should we have kept slavery? Or might taxation be yet another mistake we could stand to correct? Clearly, since we can not only interpret the Constitution, but change it as well, neither Buck nor Gerson has made much of an argument here -- although Gerson has made an interesting admission regarding what he feels to be the proper purpose of government.

And finally, along the way to condemning one particular "tea party" candidate, Gerson pretends that this spontaneous revolt against Obama's unambiguous moves towards tyranny is a "political movement" in the same sense that others began "as intellectual arguments." Considering how inconsistent the views of any one such candidate are, this is patently untrue -- but it does allow Gerson to treat the idea of the government protecting individual rights as if it were on a moronic par with, "the collected tweets of Sarah Palin." It also allows him to later pretend that such an idea is as nutty -- and wrong -- as the xenophobia espoused by some "tea party favorites," not to mention the talk by others of rebellion. Oh, and it also allows Gerson to pretend that such thinkers as John Locke never existed.

On some level, Gerson plainly realizes the nature of the tea party as a vaguely pro-individual rights revolt against Obama's undiluted welfare state, but as he makes clear, he wants to keep the welfare state. Game on!

Gerson has now, thanks to Barack Obama, seen the power the federal government can seize, and is prepared to do whatever he can to preserve that opportunity, even if it means grinding out with his heel the last embers of support for the ideals of limited government among the American people. He does this at a time when, instead, he should be helping to properly explain these ideas, and, in doing so, providing the tea partiers some much-needed intellectual ammunition.

-- CAV

Contra Peikoff on Swinging

From Erosophia: JasonStotts, cross-posted by MetaBlog

by Jason Stotts

Recently, Leonard Peikoff took a question about swinging on his podcast and I think his answer fails to address the reality of swinging and of non-monogamy more generally.  In his analysis, Peikoff glosses over important distinctions that are relevant to a moral analysis of swinging and even goes so far as to call swingers no better than rutting animals.  I, however, think the issue is much more complicated and that by glossing over important distinctions, Peikoff is attacking a straw-man version of swinging.  This is confusing, since in his more carefully thought out lecture “Love, Sex, and Romance,” Peikoff goes so far as to lay out conditions under which a threesome, an instance of non-monogamy, might be moral.

The Question and Peikoff’s Response

Let me preface this section by saying that I did the transcription myself and I take responsibility for any mistakes in the transcription.  The original audio is here.

Question:

What is wrong with “swinging” at parties?  Isn’t this only an expansion and augmentation of sexual activities and the pursuit of the pleasure that sex brings?

Peikoff’s answer:

Well no, I think that you could define swinging as “adultery without deception” or “promiscuity without pretense;” in other words, without saying, or implying to the woman, “oh I love you, you’re so great” and then going next door to the next one.  This time you’re telling her right there: “I’m waiting for the next one right now, but I’ll just get through you first!”

If you know the Objectivist view of sex and that it is not primarily physical, it rests on basic values, then you wouldn’t even consider this.  If you find your “basic values” all over the place, in a whole gathering of neighbors, or in any gathering, you have no values and sex to you is just physical sensation, like an animal.  Well, you’re free to live that way, but I suggest you give up cooked food and just eat nuts and berries, live in a cave, and go whole-hog with it.

I actually think that the true motive of swingers has nothing to do with enjoying sex; I think they get a thrill because they are free of morality and they’re thumbing their nose at reality.  “I can do whatever I want!  I don’t care what’s right or wrong, I don’t care about anybody!  I don’t care about anything!  Nobody can touch me!  This is my little realm to flaunt my whims.”  And the proof that it’s not any emotional attraction to the other people is that a lot of them love doing it in the dark, where they can’t see a blessed thing and they have no idea who they’re doing it with, what age, you know, partly, maybe, they just want group membership.  They like to feel “I’m not alone in the room, there are a lot of other bodies here.”  But, you know, for that the New York subway is a much better experience, with a lot more people jamming into you a lot more tightly than in a group orgy.

Anyway, that should give you an idea of my opinion of swingers.

So, let us now turn to Peikoff’s major points, where we shall see why I find Peikoff’s analysis unsatisfactory.

An Analysis of Peikoff’s Major Points

1. All swingers are orgiasts.

One of the first, and most serious, problems in Peikoff’s analysis is his idea that all swingers are orgiasts.  This is clear throughout his discussion, as when he says:

[Swinging is] “promiscuity without pretense;” in other words, without saying, or implying to the woman, “oh I love you, you’re so great” and then going next door to the next one.  This time you’re telling her right there: “I’m waiting for the next one right now, but I’ll just get through you first!”

Or:

[Swingers] love doing it in the dark, where they can’t see a blessed thing and they have no idea who they’re doing it with, what age, you know, partly, maybe, they just want group membership.  They like to feel “I’m not alone in the room, there are a lot of other bodies here.”  But, you know, for that the New York subway is a much better experience, with a lot more people jamming into you a lot more tightly than in a group orgy. [emphasis added]

This claim is obviously false and is one of the biggest problems with Peikoff’s analysis.

There are, in fact, many people who consider themselves swingers who do not attend orgies.  Conversely, there are many people who go to orgies, or who have been to an orgy, but who do not consider themselves swingers.  Part of the problem might be the way the question was phrased or it could be in Peikoff’s conception of a swinger, which is likely influenced by the way swinging was practiced in the 70’s at clubs like Plato’s Retreat and has been characterized by the media ever since. However, there are many different kinds of swingers and those who participate in orgies are only one kind among many.

Swinging, as a phenomenon, is characterized by couples that seek sexual activities with others outside of their relationship, but with the knowledge and explicit consent of their partners.  Additionally, they almost always act together as a couple and most swingers would see this joint action as a necessary condition of swinging: that is, they would say that if each individual in the couple was acting alone, then it’s not swinging.  Swingers would consider acting individually much closer to an “open relationship” or polyamory than swinging proper.  In “Relationships: A Continuum of Permissiveness” I drew distinctions about different kinds of couples and showed that there are multiple types of couples: jealously exclusive, the traditional exclusive relationship, swinging relationships, and open relationships.

Swingers are non-monogamous sexually, but emotionally exclusive.  This is important because it distinguishes them from other kinds of relationships.  By non-monogamous, but emotionally exclusive, I mean that they separate love and sex for the purposes of swinging, reserving deep emotional connections only for their partner.  This does not mean that they feel nothing for their other sexual partners, but that they draw sharp lines and do not allow any attachments that might compete with their primary relationship.  However, they frequently feel great affection for their outside lovers and often form lasting bonds with them.

Among swingers, there are many different kinds: some couples only occasionally have a threesome, while others will form sexual relationships with other couples, while others will go to organized swinging events, and still others participate in group sex.  As they generally describe themselves, swingers are of two kinds: “soft-swap” or “full-swap.”  The former term, soft-swap, generally means that the couple will engage in sexual acts with others, like manual stimulation or oral sex, but not vaginal or anal sex.  In contrast, full swap couples are willing to engage in a wider range of sexual activities with others.  From my research into the subject, most swingers are not into full out orgies where one has sex with whoever is proximate.  This is born out in books like The Lifestyle: A Look at the Erotic Rites of Swingers and my personal interviews with couples that self-identify as swingers.  It is not the case that there are no swingers who are orgiasts, but it is also not the case that all swingers are orgiasts.  Especially today, with there being so many sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) around, most swingers seem to avoid orgies and not engage in sexual activities with those couples who do engage in orgies.

Unfortunately Peikoff’s analysis hinges on this conflation of swingers and orgiasts, and thus he ends up attacking a straw man version of swinging.  This is not to say that Peikoff could not still condemn swingers, but given that the class is much more nuanced than he realizes, he certainly can’t give the kind of blanket condemnation that he gave above.  In fact, it seems like it would be hypocritical for him to condemn all swingers, including those that only occasionally have threesomes, since, as we pointed out above, he seems not to have a problem with threesomes in his lecture “Love, Sex, and Romance.”

2. Adultery is possible even with the expressed consent of one’s partner.

“I think that you could define swinging as ‘adultery without deception’.”

The claim that adultery can occur with the consent of one’s partner is quite peculiar and indicates that either Peikoff is using the term “adultery” in a non-traditional way or else relying on an implicit premise that may or may not be warranted.  For example, dictionary.com [link] defines adultery as “marital infidelity” and defines infidelity as “disloyalty, unfaithfulness, or breach of trust.”  This, I think, gets close to the heart of the problem of adultery.  Regardless of the dictionary definition we pick, I think that the colloquial use of the word “cheating” to describe adultery is apt.  Cheating, in this context, is a violation of the agreement that underlies a relationship; a transgression against the foundation of a relationship itself and upon its most important pillars, like honesty, open communication, and commitment.  However, in cases in which a couple agrees to non-monogamy, it’s not clear how non-monogamous activity would be a violation of their agreement.  This is important, then, because a couple who agree to non-monogamy and who engage in non-monogamy together, and with each other’s explicit knowledge and permission, could not, in fact, commit adultery because they would not be violating the agreement that underlies their relationship.  It’s just not clear to me where the violation is when a couple explicitly agrees to non-monogamy.

Now, it’s still possible for Peikoff to claim that one can engage in adultery even with one’s partner’s consent by bringing in a premise that would change the above analysis.  Specifically, if he could show that monogamy was the only moral way to have a relationship and that all kinds of non-monogamy were immoral, then he would invalidate the above and be justified in his claim.  This however, doesn’t seem possible for him to show.  I don’t think it’s possible for him to show that monogamy is more “natural” than non-monogamy.  Consider, for example, cultures that are non-monogamous, such as ancient Athens.  In Athenian culture a man was expected to maintain a household with a wife and children, as well as to engage in pederasty with younger males (16-25, not children), so that they would be properly raised and incorporated into society.  That is, a man was expected by society to have both a female wife as well as male lovers.  For the Athenian in this time period, non-monogamy was very much the expectation and monogamy would have been not only atypical, but also culturally frowned upon.  Were these ancient Athenians living in an “unnatural” state?  Even if they were, which it’s not clear one could show, was this kind of behavior immoral?  Remember, by “immoral” we don’t mean a moral rule given to us by an imaginary friend in the sky, but something that demonstrably causes harm to an individual’s life.  It seems to me that not only were the Athenians living in a more natural state, their non-monogamy was actively improving their lives and allowing them to express the full, and natural, range of their sexuality.

I just don’t think that one can claim monogamy as a premise for which no argument is necessary.  In fact, both biological and physiological evidence suggest that non-monogamy is more natural than monogamy (for further elaboration, see the new book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality or my forthcoming essay “In Defense of Non-Monogamy”).  For example, the very makeup of our bodies, such as the shape of the human penis, the existence of female breasts, the dichotomy between female orgasmic response and male orgasmic response, all point to a non-monogamous human past.

Given that there is much evidence that humans are naturally non-monogamous and that this does not necessarily hurt one’s life and happiness, monogamy cannot be assumed as a premise without argument.  Thus, it seems to be clear that a couple could agree to a non-monogamous relationship.

If Peikoff cannot show that monogamy is morally necessary for a good life, then he will not be able to show that one can commit adultery with the consent of one’s partner.  In order to claim that this purported adultery is immoral, he must show that it causes harm.  If both partners consent to the sexual activity freely and with the full understanding of what they are doing, then it’s not clear to whom the harm is being done.  Unless, that is, the harm is being done to both people, even though they don’t realize it, if monogamy were necessary for a good life.  If monogamy is taken away from the analysis, since we’ve seen that it’s not morally necessary, then we can get to a much more interesting analysis: that of the connection between emotions and sexuality and mind/body integration, which is Peikoff’s next point.

Before we move to that point, however, I want to state that I do not think that one can commit adultery if one has the full consent of one’s partner who has a complete understanding of what he or she is agreeing to.  I think that the precise nature of a relationship should be determined by its members and should not be imposed as a cultural standard that may or may not maximize a person’s life: a relationship should be an expression of love between two people that takes the form that works best for them, not a straightjacket of cultural expectations.  If both partners are full moral agents, then the idea that they could not consent to engaging in sex with people who are not their partner is absurd.

3. Sex is a response to fundamental values.

“…the Objectivist view of sex [is that] it is not primarily physical, it rests on basic values…”

On this point, I agree with Peikoff.  Sexual attraction is an emotional response and, as such, functions as an automatic response to our antecedent value judgments.  The more fundamental the value, or the more dearly we hold the value, the stronger the emotional response from it.  (For a more thorough account of sexual attraction as a response to values, see my essay “Sexual Attraction.”)  It should also be noted that sexual attraction is distinct from, but directly related to, physical sexual arousal.  Sexual attraction leads to sexual arousal, but the converse is not true: just because a person is physically aroused does not mean that they are currently experiencing sexual attraction.

Now, let us explore Peikoff’s more complicated claim that: “If you know the Objectivist view of sex and that it is not primarily physical, it rests on basic values, then you wouldn’t even consider [swinging].”  Peikoff’s argument seems to be that sex simply for the physical pleasure, absent shared values and a relationship, would be animalistic and would encourage a mind/body dichotomy as a person would actively have to try to suppress intellectual and emotional responses in order to have purely physical sex, as Peikoff seems to be claiming happens in the case of swingers.

To the extent that a person evades his emotions and judgment in order to have a purely physical sexual experience, I can certainly agree that Peikoff is right in his analysis.  However, it is the evasion, not the sex, that is morally problematic.  Pleasure itself is not morally problematic: my pleasure from good food, or exercise, or contemplating beauty is not a moral issue.  As Objectivists, we must remember that the basis of morality is the very simple question: does this improve my life or detract from it?  It’s clear that pleasure, itself, improves one’s life.  However, pleasure is not a simple thing.  Pleasure is a physical response that has both physical and mental aspects to it.  One cannot just have spontaneous, uncaused pleasure; such a thing does not exist.  One has pleasure from sex, from eating good food, from exercising, from contemplating beauty, et cetera.  Every pleasure has a cause: pleasure attends certain actions, but cannot be sought for its own sake.  Thus, in order to make a moral judgment, one must judge a person’s intentions and whether or not the activity that gives rise to the pleasure improves a person’s life or whether it detracts from it.

So, to judge whether pleasure from sex is moral, we need to ascertain a person’s intentions and whether the activities they are engaging in are beneficial or detrimental to their life.  However, just as in most moral analysis, the issue is rarely so clear as whether any particular sex act is causing physical harm.  As we noted above, there can also be problems of evasion and of intention, among others.  The problem with sex is that it is so interconnected to our emotions and our personal identity that to have sex purely for the sake of the physical pleasure is likely impossible.  Never are we more vulnerable or open to another person than in a sexual situation.  Sex is just not like many other actions that can be done without an emotional response.

Furthermore, even in cases where the origin of sexual attraction is physical in nature, it is never purely physical.  The characteristics, traits, personality, style, etc., of a person that we find attractive is a function of our judgments and values.  One cannot simply say that all men find large breasts attractive.  Some men are not attracted to women at all, nor are they interested in their breasts.  Some men like large breasts, while other men prefer small breasts.  The fact is that one cannot just claim that some characteristic is inherently attractive: such is not the case in humans.  Our attractions are the result of our antecedent value judgments: our attractions flow from our values.

Moreover, even in cases where one knows little to nothing about a person’s character or values, the allegedly “pure” physical attraction, our sexual attraction operates by overlaying desirable characteristics onto the person in a process I call projection.  In fact, projection is made easier the less we know about a person.  If we metaphorically have a blank canvas, we can paint whatever picture on it we might like, thus guaranteeing the kind of response we desire to have to a person.  If I know nothing about the attractive female I just met, other than the fact that I am physically attracted to her, then I can project characteristics on her that I am mentally attracted to as well, giving me a fuller attraction to this person and in some sense justifying my initial attraction and making it more intense.  Indeed, one reason why some people prefer sex with complete strangers is precisely due to their ignorance of the other person.  Because they know nothing about the other person, they are able to project their ideals onto their partner and have an intense response to their ideals as apparently embodied in this other person.  The problem with this is that it is fundamentally self-deceptive: a person knows that the response he or she is having is to a projected ideal and not to their actual partner, about whom they know nothing.  The more that they know about the other person, the weaker their sexual response to them becomes as they fail to live up to their ideals.  The process of projection shows that there is simply no way to actually separate sex from our emotions and to attempt to do so is self-deceptive and evasive, and thus immoral.  This is Peikoff’s objection and it is a fair one.

Now, the fact that sex with a person with whom one does not have a perfect alignment between values can be engaged in self-deceptively does not mean that this kind of sex is always self-deceptive and this is the key to the question of whether such sex is moral.  Just because it is true that sex always has some emotional aspects, does not, therefore, mean that sex must only be done with the “perfect partner” whom one will marry and any sexual activity other than this is immoral.  There is certainly a range of value alignment where sex is permissible: as Objectivists we are not looking for the Platonic other half of our soul.  There is nothing inherently wrong with two teenagers who care about each other exploring sex.  There is nothing inherently wrong with two people who are considering having a relationship having sex with each other to make sure they are sexually compatible.  There is nothing inherently wrong with spouses having sex with each other.  Yet, in each case the sex could be immoral; for example, spousal rape does exist.  Sharing values, or value alignment, is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the moral permissibility of sex.

This, of course, raises the question of whether there are other necessary conditions that a person must satisfy in order to morally engage in sex.  The answer is, of course, yes!  Beyond just having value alignment, two people who are going to engage in sexual activity with each other should also be a value to each other.  There must be at least some positive emotional response to the person’s character in order to morally engage in sex with a person.  Typically, these feelings will follow naturally from having value alignment, but it is not true they follow inexorably.  It could be the case that there is another person who holds all of the same values I do, but because of some difference, say in sense of life, we do not enjoy each other’s company and we find no value in any kind of relationship with each other (whether a sexual relationship or even a friendship).  Liking a person for themselves, and not merely what values they hold, is a necessary condition for moral sexual activity.

Further, and as we mentioned above, a person’s intentions play a heavy role in a moral assessment of sexual activity.  Am I going to engage in sexual activity with a person because I want to fake a sense of self-esteem or do I sincerely value them for their own sake and would find value in a sexual relationship with this person?  In general, we can say that as long as one is self-reflective and honest about the reasons he wants to engage in sexual activities with another, as long as there is no evasion on his part or deception to his partner, and as long as the sexual relationship will not damage other values that he holds dear, like a pre-existing relationship, then a person has a good shot at having a morally permissible sexual relationship with another.  I will elaborate more on the conditions for moral sexual activity in the follow up essay to this one: “In Defense of Non-Monogamy.”

4. A person who is always finding the “perfect” person has no actual standards.

The above considerations lead us to Peikoff’s point that “a person who is always finding the ‘perfect’ person has no actual standards.”  This point is primarily misapplied, since Peikoff was working in a framework that equated swingers with orgiasts; yet, the point is still true and could apply to many other situations.  A person who finds everyone to be sexually desirable or who thinks every person they meet is a good match for them does lack any real standards.

If a person has standards, then they have to judge the people they meet by these standards and there will be at least some people who are necessarily excluded.  If you value an education in a partner, then anyone who lacked one, or who was not an autodidact, would be excluded.  If you value your partner being reasonable, then religious people are excluded.  For anything you value in a partner, some people are excluded who lack these qualities.  Now, obviously sometimes we have to make concessions and let go of lower values in order to secure the greater values that are more important to us.  In fact, there is likely no perfect person in existence that would be a “perfect match” if one were to consider every single value that a person held.  But this is an unrealistic standard to even try to achieve.  The salient point is that if a person finds everyone to be sexually desirable or desirable for a relationship, then they have no standards by which to judge, for if they did, then some people would necessarily be excluded.

5. Swingers are not truly interested in sex or sexual pleasure, but are actually only enjoying the moral violation and the sense of false power they have from the transgression.

“I actually think that the true motive of swingers has nothing to do with enjoying sex; I think they get a thrill because they are free of morality and they’re thumbing their nose at reality.”

Frankly, it is unclear to me what Peikoff’s reasons are for asserting this.  Even in the case of orgiasts, this claim seems unfounded.  There is no doubt that there are some people who are perverted and who enjoy moral violation and a sense of false power from moral violations.  However, perversion is not a necessary aspect of swinging and there could be perverts engaging in any particular sexual action; but that is not a reason to claim that any particular action is immoral, just because a pervert may engage in it.  In fact, the moral objection against perversion is against the fact that perversion causes a decline in life and not against any particular action that a pervert might engage in.

Thus, while it is likely true that some swingers are perverts, it’s exceedingly unclear that all swingers are perverts.  It seems much more plausible that those engaging in swinging are doing it for the sexual pleasure and the experiences.

6. Swingers are completely sexually indiscriminate and that many of them have sex in complete darkness, since they don’t care with whom they are having sex with.

This point also seems to be completely unsubstantiated.  Even if we assume Peikoff was working in the context of orgiasts, it doesn’t even seem that it would be true there.  Swingers, as distinct from orgiasts, are usually sexually discriminate and there seems to be no evidence that they always have sex in complete darkness.  Interestingly, many people of all sexual proclivities have sex in low light or darkness and there doesn’t seem to be any particularly poignant moral considerations regarding this choice.  While, again, I agree with Peikoff that being sexually indiscriminate is immoral, this does not necessarily apply to swinging: some people could engage in swinging and still be sexually discriminate.  Additionally, his point about swingers having sex in complete darkness, presumably to avoid having to see their partners or themselves, and thus face the reality of their actions, is just absurd.  In all the existing literature, studies, documentaries, and anecdotes, there is no evidence that all swinging is done in the dark.

Conclusions

After a thorough analysis, we can see that Peikoff’s position does not do justice to the nuanced issues involved in the case of swinging.  While it is true that swinging can be done immorally, it is also true that one could be a moral swinger if one follows some simple principles.  In my next essay, “In Defense of Non-Monogamy,” I shall examine the conditions that one would have to satisfy in order to morally engage in swinging.  I will also further explore the reasons why a person might want to engage in non-monogamy and whether there could be any objective values from such a pursuit.

————-

Disclosure: if you click on the Amazon links and purchase the books, I will receive some small amount of compensation.

Nancy Pelosi, Pen Pal

From The Rule of Reason: noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline), cross-posted by MetaBlog

Levity can be leveraged.

Roger L. Simon, writer, critic, and regular columnist for Pajamas Media and other news outlets and blogs, responded to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s remark on KCBS Radio in San Francisco that the funding behind the effective and influential opposition to Imam Feisal Rauf’s Ground Zero mosque (once Cordoba House, now called Park51) should be investigated. Doubtless she had been informed that about 65% of Americans are opposed to the mosque, and that this is largely a consequence of not only the blogosphere, which is doing the MSM‘s job of actually reporting news that‘s fit to report and print.

It is also the result of the dedicated, concerted, and collective efforts of critics operating independently on a total budget perhaps one one-hundredth the size of her House of Representatives income. This does not include her various Speaker perks, travel allowances (e.g., commandeered military aircraft for junkets, for getting home to have dinner with her very quiet, frightened-turtle, multi-millionaire hubby in San Francisco, and other pressing, “official“ business), a premium health care plan which most taxpayers who are paying for it could not afford, a multitude of reimbursable expenses, and other elitist benefits.

Roger Simon, in “Investigate Me, Nancy!” begs her in his “open letter” to Pelosi to please, please investigate him, because it’s her patriotic duty to, well, squelch all criticism of the Ground Zero mosque, ObamaCare, and other matters. It would give her so much satisfaction. Otherwise, he might be taken for a racist, or a bigot, or a cretin. He asks her to find and follow the money trail, although he admits there is no trail to follow. Never mind Imam Rauf’s own money trail, that’s completely “legitimate” it would certainly not lead to states that sponsor terrorism and who plotted and funded the 9/11 attacks on this country. And as for Rauf’s credentials as an “out-reacher” to all faiths and persuasions, well, he did attend some suspicious conferences and once said (rather amusingly) that the only place “interfaith dialogue” occurs is in hotel conference rooms, nowhere else if he could help it, and that he really didn’t believe in it.

I left a comment on Mr. Simon’s article which the satirist in me compels me to enlarge upon. It is an imaginary but wholly credible “open letter” reply from Nancy to Roger Simon. After all, they are both public figures, so, why not be “open” about it?

Dear Roger:

Are you serious? Are you, really? You’re not joking? I don’t know what I’ve said or done to earn such…well…not to put too fine a word on it: Sarcasm? Invective? Hate? I’ve half a mind (and I DARE you go comic about that!) to propose to the House that someone introduce a bill that would ban all hateful thoughts and words by outsiders (meaning the electorate, and especially Tea Partiers and bloggers), spoken or printed, about the members here, including me, to preserve the respect and dignity of my office and the House’s that we deserve.

We’d only need to dither over punishments and penalties -- behind closed doors, of course, transparency has its limits and we couldn’t concentrate on the bill’s particulars with lots of ignorant people shouting at us all the time. Of course, you and everyone else “out there” would need to wait for the bill to be passed and sent up to the Senate and the White House so you can see what’s in it.

Of course, that would require the creation of a new federal enforcement agency, and setting aside some budget money for it, or raising taxes, or just ordering the Treasury Department to print the necessary funds. What would the new agency be like? Something, well, a little like the Gestapo, or the Stasi, or the KGB, but without any scary faces or anything. No trench coats or fedoras or anything like that. You want effective, efficient government? We can oblige you. I understand those people were very effective moral conditioners and dispellers of bad feelings, even though they lacked the sophisticated SWAT gear that exists today. So, do you really want me to propose an investigation?

Now, I really wouldn’t want to do such a thing, but you must admit it would be good for the country, good for communications, a necessary corrective to preserve the power and dignity of those who know better than you what’s good for you in every little thing. You know how bad feelings and bad thoughts can simply ruin perfectly good relationships, and here I thought we had one, until people began asking me questions, and saying that “we lie,” and insisting on poking their noses into the House’s business, and just behaving like Americans gone wild. It’s intolerable and very saddening and I wonder just what this country is coming to, what with all those disrespectful town hall meetings and people waving silly flags and signs in Washington and all over.

About the Ground Zero mosque matter: We have reviewed all the information available about Imam Rauf and his partners and his funding sources, and have concluded that they’re irrelevant and the mosque will pose no security threat to this country. Of course, all the available information is hard to interpret, because all references to Muslims and Islam and terrorists have been banned from intelligence memos and the like, so it’s just your word against ours. Very difficult for you.

And, besides, to build or not to build the mosque is a local issue, very pedestrian, hardly a national security one. Mayor Bloomberg said so -- bless his heart, even though he’s a Republican -- and there’s the kind of bipartisan cooperation I’ve been talking about for the longest time! And now the archbishop of New York has endorsed the mosque, and he’s hoping Muslims and Islam will let bygones be bygones, because it was a couple of Catholic monarchs who kicked the Muslims out of Spain, wasn’t it? In 1492, when Columbus discovered America? Or was that later? What a shame. Those poor Muslims and Indians over here got such a raw deal in the same year. I’m told that Indians contributed as much as the Muslims to this country, they discovered the wheel and corn and stuff and I think I read somewhere that it was a Muslim pilot who had a magnet or compass or something on the Piñata or Pinto, one of those ships, that got Columbus over here in the first place.

Besides, this whole “affront to the country” thing and claiming the mosque at Ground Zero would be a victory symbol for Muslims overseas or the Taliban people, is just a lot of emotionalism and horse apples, as my father used to say. Smacks of the Ku Klux Klan and Rotary Club or Shriner bigotry. It would be a victory for religious freedom in this country, and I challenge anyone to prove to me that Islam is some kind of intolerant ideology bent on replacing our beloved Constitution with Muslim law, like some kind of sneak, as some right-wing paranoids are saying. I mean, I’m not an expert on Islam or Muslims, but I did go to the Mideast and wore a scarf or negligee or burqa or whatever that’s called. I admit Muslims wear funny clothes and do funny things -- not at all like the solemn things we do in my parish church -- you did know I’m a Catholic, right? -- but we must be tolerant of the peculiar ways of all creeds.

Now, Roger, if you want me to propose an investigation into your opposition funding, I will. All I have to do is slip the word to the right people. But wouldn’t you just rather I hit you over the head with my special Speaker’s gavel? I’ve acquired quite a swing! It would be so much simpler a solution, and it would save time and taxpayer money! Don’t just think of yourself, think of all the hard working Americans who’d have to pay for your incarceration.

By the way, don’t write me off as un-reelectable. Our Leader and I and Mr. Reid have some pretty tricky cards up our many and ample sleeves, so we’ll have the last laugh.

And, Roger, you know how I can laugh. In your face, or to the side, or up my sleeve.

As always, cordially, and impishly, your “public servant” (chuckle, chuckle),

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
United States Congress

Hsieh AT OpEd: The Real Problem Is Not The Mosque But The Nukes

From NoodleFood: Paul Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog

The August 17, 2010 American Thinker has published another one of my OpEds, this time on foreign policy:

"The Real Problem Is Not the Mosque But the Nukes"

My theme is the NYC Mosque would become a non-issue if the US would adopt a proper foreign policy, explicit identify our enemy, and take the necessary action against Islamic Totalitarianism and its primary state sponsor Iran.

I also cite and quote John Lewis' article from The Objective Standard, "No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism".

Here is the opening of my piece:

All the energy devoted to this issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is distracting us from the far more serious problem of Iran's nuclear weapons program. If this more fundamental problem is properly addressed, then the NYC mosque issue will become irrelevant. Conversely, if America doesn't deal with this more fundamental problem, then any legal or political maneuvers to stop the NYC mosque -- even if successful -- will make little difference in the long run.

Opponents of the mosque argue that allowing its construction near the ruins of the World Trade Center would symbolize America's weakness and would embolden anti-American, anti-Western Islamists around the world. While true, the reason why America is perceived as weak against the Islamists is because we are. And nothing illustrates this more than our current policy (or lack thereof) toward Iran's nuclear program...

(Read the full text of "The Real Problem Is Not the Mosque But the Nukes".)

Reminder: NoodleCast: Subscriptions, Ratings, and Reviews

From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog

Just as a reminder... if you don't already subscribe to my NoodleCast podcasts, you can do so in iTunes via these links:

 
If you're already a fan of my podcasts, then I'd ask that you rate and review them in iTunes, using the links above. Many thanks to the people who have rated and/or reviewed already. I appreciate that hugely!

Two More ARI OpEds

From NoodleFood: Paul Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog

ARI's revamped writing division is hitting its stride now with two recent OpEds in major publications:

The August 18, 2010 Wall Street Journal published Alex Epstein's piece, "Obama Follows Nixon On Oil Spills".

The August 17, 2010 Forbes published Don Watkins' and Yaron Brook's piece, "The U.S. Anti-Business Epidemic".

I'm very encouraged to see their work get such good media exposure. And as long as Americans are willing to discuss and debate their ideas, this country still has a chance.

Cool -- or Real?

From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Wall Street Journal has an article on "The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity" which, like the Paul Graham article I discussed the other day, is about advertising, this time by churches.

There are two things I find interesting about this one so soon after the Paul Graham piece: (1) It touches on an issue somewhat related to an important problem faced by legitimate cultural activists: How do we pique interest in our message in as much of our potential audience as possible? (2) Christianity, based on faith as it is, has no way to appeal to the minds of its audience, so its advertising will necessarily be misleading. Bearing this in mind, can we still learn anything from the experiences of churches that try to promote themselves as trendy to a young demographic?

I think we can, and to do that, we have to consider the marketing tactics adopted by these evangelical churches as well as what (in generic terms) they are trying to sell. The following two paragraphs give a sense of the marketing approach:

There are various ways that churches attempt to be cool. For some, it means trying to seem more culturally savvy. The pastor quotes Stephen Colbert or references Lady Gaga during his sermon, or a church sponsors a screening of the R-rated "No Country For Old Men." For others, the emphasis is on looking cool, perhaps by giving the pastor a metrosexual makeover, with skinny jeans and an $80 haircut, or by insisting on trendy eco-friendly paper and helvetica-only fonts on all printed materials. Then there is the option of holding a worship service in a bar or nightclub (as is the case for L.A.'s Mosaic church, whose downtown location meets at a nightspot called Club Mayan).

"Wannabe cool" Christianity also manifests itself as an obsession with being on the technological cutting edge. Churches like Central Christian in Las Vegas and Liquid Church in New Brunswick, N.J., for example, have online church services where people can have a worship experience at an "iCampus." Many other churches now encourage texting, Twitter and iPhone interaction with the pastor during their services.

Setting aside the inherent problems of attempting to package deal today's somewhat diluted forms of an ancient mystery cult with what are commonly regarded as the benefits of modern, rational civilization, there could be pitfalls inherent to such an approach even for proponents of a rational philosophy.

One could, for example, end up looking patronizing or phony to the target demographic. To wit:

"And the further irony," [author David Wells] adds, "is that the younger generations who are less impressed by whiz-bang technology, who often see through what is slick and glitzy, and who have been on the receiving end of enough marketing to nauseate them, are as likely to walk away from these oh-so-relevant churches as to walk into them."

If the evangelical Christian leadership thinks that "cool Christianity" is a sustainable path forward, they are severely mistaken. As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with a marketing attempt that keeps up with the latest trends (to the extent that they aren't irrational), or of (appropriately) applying new technology to the problem of getting a message out. In fact, both things are good and necessary.

That said, Wells knows of which he speaks: There is a mass exodus of the young from such evangelical churches once they become independent adults. Why is this happening after all these attempts to aim specifically for this audience? What -- again, aside from and on top of peddling irrationality and discounting misapplication of technology or badly executing modern styles -- could they be doing wrong?

Part of the answer lies in what kind of product they're attempting to sell -- a comprehensive way of understanding the world in order to lead one's life. These marketing attempts are all about appearances. The target audience wants to hear a specific worldview. They might even be willing to listen to an entire lecture or two without interruption, or overlook the fact that the speaker isn't a dolled-up metrosexual. This last is what I think author Brett McCracken is driving at when he says, "[W]e don't want cool as much as we want real."

So I think several types of problems can arise that one can generalize beyond just marketing attempts to the young: (1) To target a demographic, one necessarily makes hypotheses about that demographic. Done badly or taken beyond a certain point, this can seem patronizing or phony. (2) Too much emphasis on catering to what some demographic (presumably) wants at the expense of what one has to say can dilute one's message, or even seem so far from it as to look like an attempt to put something over.

Either of the above can put off the very people one is trying to reach before one has really said anything.

-- CAV

The Latest Hieroglyph

From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlog

If you don't know what the symbol at the right means just by looking at it, the government thinks you're (not even) an idiot.

If you guessed a low tire-pressure warning, you are right. If you didn't recognize the symbol, that's also understandable because one out of three drivers do not, according to Schrader, a company that makes tire pressure monitoring systems.

...

The issue here seems to be that the public hasn't been properly educated on the warning symbol, which is supposed to be "idiot proof" and understandable across a wide variety of cultures and languages. Yet 46% of drivers couldn't figure out that the icon represents a tire and 14% thought the symbol represented another problem with the vehicle entirely, according to Schrader. [bold added]

While I can see the case for having a small vocabulary of international hieroglyphs for ubiquitous products like cars, I have always bristled at the notion that they are somehow "intuitive", and thus superior to the written word. I take a small measure of grim satisfaction in the bolded sentence above, whose self-contradiction induces a sort of bracing cognitive whiplash along with a smirk.

If we need to be told about what this symbol means, how can anyone say it's idiot-proof? If it's idiot-proof, why do we need to be told what it means?

And then there's the whole matter of the government effectively training people not to check their tire pressure regularly by this mandated warning light.

When you design cars for idiots, ...

-- CAV

Sic transit dignitas donatorum.

From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlog

The title is my translation into Latin of the sentence: Thus passes the prestige of the givers. If you see signs of rust, feel welcome to correct me or offer a better translation.

Although I expected to see something like this sooner or later, based on the influence of the abject altruism of Immanuel Kant in our culture, I am still amazed at how quickly and thoroughly Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have been tarred and feathered in the aftermath of their drive to raise $600 billion for charity from the world's wealthiest, which they call the "Giving Pledge."

The first bile spilled, predictably, from Germany. But now, the American website Slate has published a three-pager loaded with insults for Gates and Buffett, along with a suggested remedy for their not emptying their pockets out fast or thoroughly enough for the satisfaction of one Ron Rosenbaum.

[T]o make the "Giving Pledge" more than a vague promise to do good, billionaires should be asked to put an audited 50 percent of their net worth on the table for charitable use now, when it can make a difference to people starving today, not later, after they've worked up a heart attack from their third wife on their fourth yacht. Look at how the Forbes list changes, how many billionaires lose their fortunes and drop off it from year to year. Gates and Buffett are right to use the Forbes list as a symbolic target, but let's get these big-talking "givers" to give now, when they've still got it.

This screed also approvingly (and with great gall) quotes Honoré de Balzac on wealth -- "Behind every great fortune there lies a great crime." (!) It ends with a "friendly" threat to vandalize the yachts of any who don't comply with his -- Rosenbaum's -- plans for their property. But I guess preemptively calling potential philanthropists hypocrites, equating achievement with crime, and making mealy-mouthed threats are all okay because Rosembaum "cares."

A commenter here yesterday raised an excellent point about those who permit others to bully them through a desire for approval:

Most people can remember some kid in high school who was visibly desperate to fit in with and be regarded as being part of the allegedly cool, trendy set - and the harder he tried the more pathetic he looked to everybody, most especially those whose approval he was trying to win over.

The moral currency of altruism is exactly nothing except such prestige. To the degree Gates and Buffett buy into it, they richly deserve such treatment. Otherwise, they should proudly stand up and say something to the effect of, "It's my own damned money, and I'll donate it or not as I please."

In the world, there are genuinely benevolent people, and there are doormats. The former will stand up for themselves in the face of those who would take advantage of them. The latter will announce their hunger for prestige and invite the filthy feet of Rosenbaum and his ilk, and they will happily run roughshod all over them.

-- CAV

Activism Recap

From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

• 09 August 2010: Get Ready For the Bureaucracy by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• 10 August 2010: Ten Inconvenient Truths by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• 11 August 2010: What To Expect Under Berwick by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• 12 August 2010: Haynes on Social Justice and Medical Ethics by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• 13 August 2010: Medicare Miscounting by Paul Hsieh, MD

This week on Politics without God, the blog of Coalition for Secular Government:

• 12 August 2010: Eric Daniels: Religion in American History by Diana Hsieh
  
• 14 August 2010: Ed Quillen on the Slavery Argument by Diana Hsieh

This week on Modern Paleo Blog, the blog of Modern Paleo:

• 09 August 2010: Beef Pumpkin Curry by Diana Hsieh
  
• 10 August 2010: Chocolate Review: Lindt's 85% by Benpercent
  
• 11 August 2010: Leg Cramps, Electrolytes, and Pickle Juice by Christian Wernstedt
  
• 12 August 2010: Supplements: Pros & Cons Brainstorm by Christian Wernstedt
  
• 13 August 2010: The Paleo Rodeo #021 by Diana Hsieh
  
• 14 August 2010: Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life by Diana Hsieh
  
• 14 August 2010: Objectivist Roundup by Diana Hsieh
  
• 15 August 2010: Open Thread #022 by Diana Hsieh

Total, Abject Selflessness

From Gus Van Horn: Gus Van Horn, cross-posted by MetaBlog

In his book, The Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff describes how the influence of German philosophers, particularly Immanuel Kant, on its popular culture paved the way for the rise of Nazism and made possible Adolf Hitler's rise to power.

Reader Dismuke sends in a clear and disturbing example of that very influence alive and thriving today. In a recent interview with Spiegel, German shipping magnate Peter Krämer criticizes an initiative, spearheaded by several American billionaires, for the rich to give away most of their wealth. This initiative he criticizes for exactly the wrong reason: It's too selfish.

SPIEGEL: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what were your first thoughts?

Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable.

SPIEGEL: But doesn't the money that is donated serve the common good?

Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.

Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.

SPIEGEL: Do the donations also have to do with the fact that the idea of state and society is such different one in the United States?

Krämer: Yes, one cannot forget that the US has a desolate social system and that alone is reason enough that donations are already a part of everyday life there. But it would have been a greater deed on the part of Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet if they had given the money to small communities in the US so that they can fulfil public duties.

SPIEGEL: Should wealthy Germans also give up some of their money?

Krämer: No, not in this form. It would make more sense, for example, to work with and donate to established organizations.

So even the last tiny shred of control of their own property, deciding where the money goes, is unacceptable to Krämer. The ability to get a tax write-off bothers him because this makes Buffett, Gates, and company "powerful" at the expense of the Leviathan state. Indeed, even to the extent that these men get any form of personal satisfaction from what they are doing bothers this obdurate altruist because they're "indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal."

Not that I hold giving things away to be a moral ideal, but: God forbid someone feel a single degree of benevolent warmth after improving the lot of another!

Considering this initiative in terms of how it pales next to what the government is looting from us, I solicited my readers for an Ayn Rand quote and, thanks to Jennifer Snow, was able to find the one it reminded me of:

In view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated [or given away --ed], it would not feed her family -- and millions of other, similar families -- for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . . . How would she know it, if all the voices she hears are telling her that we must soak the rich? ("The Inverted Moral Priorities," in The Ayn Rand Letter, vol. III, no. 21. 1974, p. 345)

Considered in light of how paltry Gates and Buffett's effort really is and how pervasive the call to (human) self-sacrifice is in our culture, the above interview shows us just how malevolent and devoid of genuine good will altruism -- Immanuel Kant's and Peter Krämer's moral philosophy -- really is.

Dismuke further supplies an Ayn Rand quote on that matter which I think bears passing on.

As to Kant's version of morality, it was appropriate to the kind of zombies that would inhabit that kind of [Kantian] universe: it consisted of total, abject selflessness. An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.)

Those who accept any part of Kant's philosophy -- metaphysical, epistemological or moral -- deserve it. ("For the New Intellectual" in For the New Intellectual, p. 32.)

In addition to being consistent with his moral ideals, Krämer's worship of the all-powerful state is telling, and should serve as a warning to anyone who holds, understands, and cares about values. Should we permit much more power to the state, it will be the means by which the Krämers of the world force us to live in their cold, nasty little universe.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Corrected "Dietmar Hopp" in second paragraph to Peter Krämer. (2) Corrected "Dietmar" to "Peter" later in the post.

I Support the Strippers

From Erosophia: JasonStotts, cross-posted by MetaBlog

by Jason Stotts

In what I think is one of the best ideas ever, a strip club outside Coshocton Ohio (not too far from where I used to live) is now picketing the church that is picketing them.

Every weekend for the last four years, Dunfee and members of his ministry have stood watch over George’s joint, taking up residence in the right of way with signs, video cameras and bullhorns in hand. They videotape customers’ license plates and post them online, and they try to save the souls of anyone who comes and goes.

Now, the dancers have turned the tables, so to speak. Fed up with the tactics of Dunfee and his flock, they say they have finally accepted his constant invitation to come to church.

It’s just that they’ve come wearing see-through shorts and toting Super Soakers. (The Columbus Dispatch)

Good luck girls!

This, as is the case with most sexual issues, is an issue of life and death and we must fight the preachers of death (religion) at every turn lest they pervert and corrupt human life.  Always remember Nietzsche: ”The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

Chapter Overviews for Eros and Ethos Now Available!

From Erosophia: JasonStotts, cross-posted by MetaBlog

by Jason Stotts

Chapter overviews for my book in progress Eros and Ethos: The Ethics of Modern Sex are now available!  Head on over to the Eros and Ethos tab and click on “Chapter Overviews” or just use this direct link.

Towering Babble Over Cordoba House

From The Rule of Reason: noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline), cross-posted by MetaBlog

What should one write about first and foremost? The “greening” of America? The “socialization” of America? The “de-exceptionalism” of America? Or the “Islamization” of America?

I do not think Charles Krauthammer saw it coming, but in a rare alignment of political planets, he agreed with President Barack Obama by opposing the planned site of the Ground Zero mosque in lower Manhattan for the same reason that Obama endorsed it. Krauthammer claims that Ground Zero is “sacred” and that no mosque should be built on or near it. Obama, on the other hand, claims that it is the right of Muslims to build a mosque on private property as an instance of “religious freedom,” which one guess he regards of “sacred,” as well.

One shakes one’s head over Krauthammer’s confusion, and is tempted to laugh at Obama’s citation of “private property,” an institution he is devoted to abolishing.

Krauthammer disappoints, because he is otherwise so perceptive in his criticism of Obama’s policies. In this instance he practically sides with Obama in the latter’s evaluation and esteem of Islam. In his Washington Post article of August 13, “Sacrilege at Ground Zero,” he repeats the politically correct notion that Islam was “hijacked” by “extremists.”

Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Calling the attack on this country by “Islamists” a “mass murder” without any qualifying description of it reveals that Krauthammer is utterly ignorant of the nature and ends of Islam. 9/11 was an attack on this country, a more emphatic declaration of war on America than was any previous terrorist depredation. 9/11 was not merely an act of “mass murder”; it was an attack designed to inflict the greatest number of casualties possible. In the next paragraph, Krauthammer compounds his ignorance.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

On the contrary, that “strain” of Islam is its core philosophical and political nature in action. It is fundamentally viral, vitriolic in its position on non-Muslims, and destructive. There is nothing “extreme” in how terrorists practice it. Their actions are not antithetical to it. It is as Islam is meant to be practiced. Run-of-the-mill, non-violent Muslims who do not practice Islam in its essentials are “sham Muslims,” who wish to have their mysticism and banal anonymity, too, passively content with their “submission.” It saves them from the task and responsibility of thinking.

Islam does not require agreement with its tenets, either with its violent or with its “pacific,“ esoteric ones; it demands mindless agreement with them. It is intolerant of internal dissension (witness the feuding between Sunnis, Shiites, and other Islamic sects), and of other religions. It cannot be “reformed” without destroying it. If it admitted disagreement, “reform” of Islam might be possible. But it forbids disagreement or dissension. So, there are no redeeming elements in Islam whatsoever. It is a moral code for manqués, for men and women who are human but who have voluntarily dispensed with their volition. It is for people who willingly surrender their minds and their identities to mysticism, either from fear of retribution for questioning it, or from a comfortable pragmatism.

This is what Krauthammer does not grasp. Further, he reveals his “conservative” take on property in his concluding paragraphs.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred….

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

There are no “bridges” Rauf seeks to build, except those that would more easily allow Islam to cross them to invade, occupy, and conquer America. The governor of New York was wrong to offer Rauf and his backers help in finding land to build the mosque (whose land? State-owned land or land seized by eminent domain?), and was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibiting federal and state governments from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.

As for zoning laws prohibiting liquor stores near schools and strip malls that “offend local sensibilities,” together with architectural codes and the like, these are wholly arbitrary statist laws that violate property rights. “Common decency,” moreover, is what apparently Rauf and his backers lack. And employment of the term “sacred” -- the nub of Krauthammer’s whole argument against the mosque -- is merely an unexamined emotional response to the prospect of a mosque being near Ground Zero.

“Build it anywhere but there”? Krauthammer should be perceptive enough to know that “there” is precisely where Rauf and his backers want the mosque, not for any “decent” reasons, but to erect a victory monument in Dar el-Harb, a country in which Islam is waging a war of conquest.

It is not so curious that some of the most prominent statists have come out in favor of the Ground Zero mosque: Obama, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Governor Paterson, state Attorney General Cuomo, and others. They are all nascent totalitarians, as well. Of course they would be friendly to a totalitarian ideology, and practice what could be called “infidel taqiya” by posing their arguments for the mosque in terms of “religious freedom.”

Obama’s April 13th endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is not an error based on ignorance of Islam, nor is it a surrender to political correctness. It is a sugar-coated expression of malice for a country that is resisting his desire to transform it into one huge socialist penitentiary, and a particular verbal middle finger extended to those who died at Ground Zero and their survivors. Continuing a practice begun by his whipping boy predecessor in the Oval Office, George Bush, Obama presided over a Ramadan dinner at the White House.

"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at a White House iftar, the traditional breaking of the daily Ramadan fast.

Perhaps “anyone else” does have a right to practice his religion in this country, as long as he does not advocate murderous jihad against “anyone else” in this country. Muslims, however, are not “anyone else.” They are the self-effacing ciphers of a creed whose spokesmen boast that Islam will conquer America and urge the rank-and-file to engage in violent and stealth jihad. I cannot help but suspect that Obama knows this.

That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he continued. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

"
Some “private property,” apparently, is more equal than others, as Obama’s own “jihadist” socialist agenda can testify. The overall “writ of the Founders” has been abused and ignored in the pursuit of that agenda. But, that issue aside, he must also know that Islam’s commitment to religious freedom is nonexistent. What is not there cannot be “unshakeable.” How often have we heard those same spokesmen boast that America is destined to become a Muslim-ruled America, and that the Constitution is an abomination, contrary to “Allah‘s will,“ and must be eliminated?

As Leonard Peikoff noted, rights exist in a context. If a religion or a state has declared war on America, we have no obligation to "respect" its property rights and "point of view," here or abroad. We have every moral right to eliminate them as a threat and stop them from achieving their agenda. Rauf and his ilk pretend to extend the “olive branch” of peace and tolerance and “interfaith dialogue.” What he and his ilk are actually offering is poison ivy coated with arsenic.

Obama spent more time “honoring” Islam and its alleged contributions to America than he did those who were killed on 9/11 with the destruction of the World Trade Center. He tossed this offensively brief fillip in their direction:

Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

And,

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -- from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we're fighting against, and what we're fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it's a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

Always make sure, one can imagine Rahm Emanuel advising Obama and his speech writers, to mention “innocent Muslims” killed on 9/11, in order to level the empathy. But, so what? Are any Muslims “innocent” who do not for any reason question the tenets of their faith? Those that do, become apostates who repudiate the faith -- and earn a death sentence. And, so what if al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than non-believers? It can boast that it killed 3,000 non-believers in one day, together with a handful of disposable Muslims.

One grows weary of hearing that 9/11 was “tragic.“ Earthquakes, tsunamis, nightclub fires, and head-on train collisions that result in innumerable deaths, are “tragic.” 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali, and the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing were acts of war. The thousands killed were casualties, not “innocent victims.” This is a reiteration of George Bush’s position on Islam, that Islam has been “hijacked.” Islam cannot be “distorted.”

As a political/religious ideology, Islam is the apotheosis of the psychotic. Listen to the speeches of prominent imams and mullahs on YouTube. Better yet, watch Geert Wilders’ Fitna, or Three Things about Islam You Didn’t Know, which clarifies the essentials of Islam. Any terrorist, living or dead, was exhorted by his Islamic religious leaders to do what he did or will do. Al Qaeda’s cause is the Taliban’s cause, as well as Hamas’s cause and Hezbollah’s and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s. And the Cordoba Initiative’s Imam Feisal Rauf’s.

Pamela Geller ruthlessly parses Obama’s pre-Ramadan dinner remarks in her Big Peace article of August 12th, "Obama Ramadanadingdong.”

Islam is more a political ideology than a religion or creed. Its critics, apostate Muslim and expert non-Muslim, know this, for otherwise they would not feel compelled to weigh in on the subject. What politicians ever felt compelled to defend Quakerism, or Amish-ism, or Scientology, for example, the way they do Islam?. I cannot think of any. There is no hidden agenda woven into those creeds' tenets. A totalitarian one is intricately woven through the whole fabric of Islam, in the Koran and the Hadith. Obama, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and other politicians focus on the religious face of Islam, and ignore the far more important political face of it.

This is for two reasons: it earns them brownie points with liberal/leftists (and with Muslims, of course), and because they are nascent totalitarians themselves. Examine their statist careers. Of course they are friendly to Islam. It is their own brand of deception, a kind of infidel taqiya. “I’m for ‘religious freedom’ and private property, too” -- wink, wink.

We are confronted with a tower of babbling rhetoric concerning the Ground Zero mosque, a literal “confusion of tongues” opposing and defending the structure. All of it, so far, ignores or disguises the true nature of Islam. The babble is a consequence of an abandonment of reason.

Colorado Senate Candidate Ken Buck on Abortion

From NoodleFood: Diana Hsieh, cross-posted by MetaBlog

[Crossposted from Politics without God.]

Much to my dismay and disgust, Colorado's two Republican candidates for Senate, Jane Norton and Ken Buck, have endorsed Colorado's 2010 "personhood" amendment, a.k.a Amendment 62. That proposed amendment would grant full legal rights to zygotes from the moment of fertilization.

As Ari Armstrong and I explained in our soon-to-be-updated 2008 policy paper -- Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person -- this "personhood for zygotes" amendment would have dire legal consequences if passed and enforced. It would require abortions to be punished as first-degree murders, except perhaps to save the woman's life. It would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus -- including the birth control pill. And it would ban viable forms in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. In short, the measure poses a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.

Many Republicans in Colorado seem to be evading the plain meaning of the amendment. As Ari Armstrong explains, they claim to support it, while denying that it's anything more than a symbolic gesture. So where do the Ken Buck and Jane Norton stand?

Ari Armstrong has discussed Jane Norton's anti-abortion views here. She's in favor of Amendment 62, because she believes that "life begins at conception." Of course, when "life" begins is not relevant: my pancreas is alive -- and human. The question is when rights begin -- and that happens at birth. Moreover, Norton would allow abortions in cases of rape and incest, even though such abortions would violate the supposed rights of the zygote or fetus just as much as any other abortion.

Even more than Norton, Ken Buck seems to endorse "personhood for zygotes" wholeheartedly. Via the Colorado Independent, we find Buck's basic statement of his views:

QUESTION: How do you feel about abortion? Are you for abortion, against abortion, are you for it? In what instances would you allow for abortion?

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I'll answer the next question. I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it's truly life of the mother.

To me, you can't say you're pro-life and say -- if there is, and it's a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.

So if the life of a pregnant woman is merely in peril, as opposed to facing certain death, then Ken Buck would deny her an abortion, until perhaps too late. Or if the pregnant woman's health would be permanently ruined, such that she'd be disabled for life, Ken Buck would deny her an abortion.

Ken Buck seeks to force women to sacrifice their lives, their health, their dreams, their values to a tiny clump of cells without any human qualities except DNA.

That's not "pro-life" ... it's frightfully anti-life. And if it's not opposed on moral grounds, people like Ken Buck will eventually have their way.