Proposed Answers for “How does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”

Here are the answers I came up with for the questions I posed for "How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society" (from The Virtue of Selfishness)

1) What is the theme of the essay “How does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”?

Answer: What principles of action are necessary for a man of reason to live in a society that Rand regarded as so opposed to reason?

2) “How does One Live a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?” was written in 1962. Was American society really as irrational as Ayn Rand seems to think it was at this time? (Point to historical facts that would tend to prove or refute her belief.) Even if American society in 1962 could have been described as “irrational”, is this still true of American society today? (Point to facts that tend to prove your position on this.) Was Ayn Rand speaking of American society in particular, or did she mean world society as a whole, in 1962?

Answer: [group discussion]

3) What one principle, that is described in “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society” as “…the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today…”, does Rand regard as most important to live a rational life in an irrational society?

a) “One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.” (pg. 71, Sig. Ed. First Para, H.D.O.L.A.R.L.I.S.)

4) What does “pronouncing moral judgment” consist of (focus on what it means to “pronounce” something)? Does this mean that you must tell every person you see on the street, wearing a Christian cross (or a Jewish star, or a Muslim crescent moon, or displaying a statue of the Buda), that they are helping to perpetuate 2000+ years of irrationality and human misery? Does this mean that you must approach your Socialist (or Christian) boss, and, completely unsolicited, and without provocation, tell him or her what you think of the philosophy of Socialism (or Christianity)? Does this mean that a student at college must raise his hand to disagree with every ridiculous thing his left-wing feminist/environmentalist/multiculturalist professor says? Does this mean that you must tell a mugger holding you at gun point, and asking for your money, that he is initiating physical force against you and therefore morally evil? Do you have to debate every Mormon/Jehova’s Witness that comes to your door for hours, in an effort to convince him that he is wrong? How does one determine when it is appropriate to tell someone, morally, “what you think of them”, and how much is it appropriate to say?

Answer: Pg. 73, top, “The policy of pronouncing moral judgment…means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s moral evaluation of every person, issue, and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.” (pg. 73, top, Italics mine)

5) In her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” Ayn Rand describes Rationality as “…man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues…” (pg. 25, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics”); she also says that the Objectivist ethics holds “…man’s life as the standard of value –and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man…” (Id.) For Ayn Rand, “virtue” is the act by which one gains/keeps the values necessary for maintaining one’s own life. How would one’s “…never failing to pronounce moral judgment…” (as recommended in “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) tend to promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own life? What virtue is involved with “…never failing to pronounce moral judgment…”?

a) Never failing to pronounce moral judgment would tend to promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own life by encouraging people who behave in a way that enhances or promotes man’s life, and discouraging people who behave in way that inhibits or damages man’s life.

b) The virtue involved is the virtue of justice.

6) What is “moral agnosticism” for Ayn Rand?

7) Ayn Rand says that “To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil.” (pg. 71, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness, “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”) Does this mean that one can only engage in judgment of others if one has never engaged in a moral breach? What is the “court of appeal from one’s judgments”? Why would this be considered to be the final court of appeal according to Ayn Rand’s view of consciousness and how it relates to reality? What does a man reveal when he pronounces judgment on others?

a) I tend to think Ayn Rand simply means one must have a present commitment to morality, not that one can never have committed any moral breaches in the past, in order to judge others.

b) The “court of appeal” for Ayn Rand is “objective reality”. (pg. 71, bottom.)

c) Reality would be considered the “court of appeal” for Ayn Rand because her view is the “primacy of existence” view. This means that reality is what it is, regardless of human wishes or desires to the contrary. This means that, ultimately, one must conform one’s mind to reality, which means that if one’s judgment is mistaken, it is because the facts of reality are other than one believes them to be, which means that since reality cannot change, one must change one’s mind.

d) Since judgment of others is based on a reference to some abstract standard, when one judges others, one reveals “…his own moral character and standards…” (pg. 72, top)

8) Why does the fact that men must make choices mean that there is “…no escape from moral values…” (pg. 72, Second Full Para Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”)? What is the proper moral principle to adopt on the issue of other men’s choices? Is the issue of “judgment” wider than judging other men’s character?

a) Since human beings must make choices, it means that their choices will not automatically conform to reality and the requirements of man’s life. Furthermore, since certain actions will tend to promote their life over others, this means that they must have certain principles of action that will help them to act in conformance with the things that will promote their lives.

b) “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”

9) What does “to judge” mean for Ayn Rand? Describe a situation requiring “judgment” (not necessarily judgment of another human being’s character), and explain exactly how it represents an example of “judgment”.

a) “To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard.” (pg. 72, last para.)

b) Example of Judgment: You are buying a house. You look at several houses, and must pick one to make an offer on. You must make a judgment about which house is best for you. To decide which house is best for you, you must think about things like: How many people will live there? (Just you? Do you have a wife? Do you have children, and how many? How old are your children?) What colors do you like? What colors don’t you like? If you have children, are the good schools in the area? Is the asking price for the houses you are looking at similar to the prices of other houses in the area? Is the house you are looking at in good repair and upkeep? (Will it need a lot of work to fix it up?) Will you have to make “trade-offs” between different possible houses? (For instance, maybe the first house you look at is in a neighborhood with a closer school for your children, but the second house you look at has an extra bedroom so that all of the kids can have their own room.) This represents judgment because you are looking at different possible houses, and then deciding based on a standard (or standards), which one is best for you, given the ultimate standard, which is the context of your own life. (This example inspired by the TV show House Hunters.)

10) Ayn Rand says that “When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer ‘Why?’ and to prove one’s case –to oneself and to any rational inquirer.” (pg. 72, Last Full Paragraph, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Imagine the type of personality who can be described as “the perpetual debater”, which I encounter from time to time. Basically, this person will debate an issue with you, seemingly, forever (why they do this is probably a complicated issue for the science of psychology). Eventually, you get so “worn down” that you simply do not want to discuss the issue any further with them, usually because of time constraints. Does the fact that you tell someone, “I don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to discuss this issue at length with you.”, especially someone that you know tends to be a “perpetual debater” mentality, mean that you are not being true to Miss. Rand’s recommendation that you be prepared to prove your case?

Answer: No, because you know that the “perpetual debater” is not behaving in a fully rational manner.

11) What is an “error of knowledge”? How is it different from “human evil”? (pg. 73, Third Paragraph Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Give an example of an “error of knowledge”, and explain why it is morally blameless.