Ayn Rand on the Necessity of Moral Judgment

In contrast to the "judge not, lest ye be judged" commonplace, Ayn Rand thought we should never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
But there is confusion among her readers about what this means, about why moral judgment is necessary, and how this view relates to the rest of her philosophy.
Rand's fiction and nonfiction philosophical work both shed light on the meaning and importance of moral judgment. Join Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer to explore the philosophical roots, implications, and applications of this provocative view.
Among the topics covered:
● Why Ayn Rand thought the slogan “judge not, lest ye be judged” is radically wrong;
● Why moral judgment is necessary for living life;
● The importance of moral judgment in Rand’s novels;
● The need for moral judgment in foreign policy;
● How to be rational when making moral judgments;
● Cases in which one lacks sufficient information to reach a final judgment;
● Rand’s view that a person’s ideas are subject to moral judgment;
● Whether someone can innocently adopt evil ideas;
● What to do after reaching a negative moral evaluation of one’s own actions;
● The difference between Objectivist and intrinsicist views of moral judgments;
● Judging people whose moral character has changed over time.
Mentioned in this podcast are Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, her essays “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?” “The Psychology of Psychologizing” and “The Cult of Moral Grayness,” Leonard Peikoff’s essay “Fact and Value” and his course “Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic.”
The podcast was recorded on June 22, 2022.
0:00:00 Introduction
0:01:39 "Judge not" is wrong
0:12:29 Moral judgment is necessary
0:19:49 In Ayn Rand's novels
0:24:46 In foreign policy
0:28:01 Judging rationally
0:31:43 Insufficient information
0:39:12 Judging ideas
0:45:35 Adopting evil ideas
0:50:32 Judging your own actions
0:55:45 Objectivist vs. intrinsic views
1:03:54 Character changing over time

[@milenacontreras3485]

Thank you . Ayn Rand´s foundamentals are a very beautifull and important orientation for humanity.

[@GiovanniH91]

Thanks for this discussion!

[@nicosilva4750]

I know you show the reading resources links in the video, but it is odd that you don't include those same links in your description so that we can simply click on the links.

[@benbayer5943]

It will include those links once the program notes are inserted, which usually happens by Friday.

[@nicosilva4750]

@@benbayer5943 Thank you.

[@jbwentworthe6082]

Recall, the translation of our word"Sin", man's natural " instinct", when asked, is to cover up - invent a story to deny the wrong, he knows was "wrong behavior". Very rarely is a child's natural inclination toward altruism. " I didn't do it, Johnny ate those cookies" !

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

I got the idea that ideas are not open to moral judgement from Rand. In an article in THE OBJECTIVIST concerning to sin in "thought word and deed". She wrote that ethicks (of which morality is a product) can only be applied to *action* (emphasis hers). Also that thoughts come into one's mind in random ways beyond one's control so one cannot be held responsible for one's thoughts From this, I gleaned 1. The evil inherent in an idea is only a potential and CANNOT become actual unless acted on. Can a potential be subject to moral judgement? To be subject to moral judgement, it must be actual or it is not real How can what is not real be subject to moral judgement since it has not reached the level of "A"ness in "A is A" since it not yet is? Also, ideas are INANIMATE.. That puts them lower on the scale of life than animals or even plants. Would you subject a caterpillar to moral judgement? It has no choice in its actions. So how much less could you make such a judgement on an idea, which has no choice about anything at all; nor CAN it have any 2. It is one thing to have a radom thought that has evil implication. It is quite another to ENTERTAIN such thoughts; i.e. rethink and/or dwell on them. Since that follows an act of choice to do so, that IS an act, albeit internal, and includes evasion or "blank out" which Rand called "the blackest mark on a human soul [THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO], which is also an act. One CAN and OUGHT to be held responsible for THAT. since one makes a choice which uses volition and consciouness. In some ways, this IS Original Sin, since it is the act that makes the chain of evil actions possible and it stand at the origin and is the first cause of those actis which cannot occur without it. In fact most evil acts come from trying to enact a false idea, which requires the intiation of force or fraud of some kind. Even if it no longer done consciously and volitionally, There was a point where it was controllable but one chose to do so thus "ratifying" the act and the evasion that tries to make it stick and there are means to break bad habits by an adult if one so chooses. That ratification and the habits they engender becoe part of a person's CHARACTER Vide Donald Trump. I cannot tell if he is knowably evil or in a state of total non compos mentis. His stuff is so wildly false that one is tempted to say "That crap is so out of touch with reality that there has to be one or two blades missing from the windmill of his mind"

[@drstrangelove09]

I have a problem where I often hate people who are doing better than I am. For example, I was thinking that I was going to retire (I'm 65) and then, in the last 6 months , my portfolio has dropped to the point where I no longer eel like I can... so when I talk to people I know and they say "my financial advisor told me I'm in good shape so I'm going to retire" I start to hate them.

[@BinanceUSD]

It's good that others have made better decisions and created wealth

[@drstrangelove09]

@@BinanceUSD hmmm... not a great answer

[@drstrangelove09]

@@BinanceUSD BTW, this view that "those who have not lost large amounts money on the recent downturn have made good decisions and those that have have made bad decisions" is a bit naïve, IMO.

[@BinanceUSD]

@@drstrangelove09 by definition its a fact. Sorry you can't accept or see this. If someone made more money he made better decisions for society.

[@drstrangelove09]

@@BinanceUSD what's a fact? they made better decisions? yes, they were apparently not affected by the downturn. that does not mean that they made a better decision. had it gone differently they would have likely lost out... also they may not have ultimately made as much money as I did, nor might they ultimately do as well as I have... also they may have done what they did based on poor reasoning and it was simply dumb luck that right now they might be doing better... also I see no reason to say that what they did is better for society... also, it is very strange that you are here watching Objectivist content and arguing that something is good because it is "better for society" (which, again, I do not accept that it is) have you invested in the stock market? if so, for how long?

[@robabiera733]

If you believe in Original Sin there's no need to pass judgement because you've already been judged.

[@jbwentworthe6082]

Maybe - How can those who try to live in accordance with The Law, do so, in a world where those who do not, destroy the fabric of Society? Protect The Lambs ?

[@nyogaraj]

Judging people for who they are is a complicated process - people change over time and have a mix of good and bad traits; claims such as there is no good or evil and 'do not be judgy' cloud peoople's judgments; have come to realise through Ayn Rand that rational thinking and judgement and choices determines one's happiness in life and is the only way out of this quagmire

[@dougpridgen9682]

You don't judge a person's traits, that's determinism, you judge whether they choose reason or the irrational and the consequent decisions they make.

[@nyogaraj]

@@dougpridgen9682 Of course!

[@SDC214]

It's only complicated if you don't fully accept the law of identity. Establish what philosophy, moral code someone claims and watch.

[@nyogaraj]

@@SDC214 Let us look at it this way - a person applies rationality in decisions at work but do not apply the same when it comes to other life choices; it takes time and effort to unravel such identities

[@joecizin9357]

👍👍

[@6foot7dad]

Where does morality come from?

[@jafco9]

Morality comes from the discovery of the values that are necessary for a man/human to live as a man/human (a rational being)

[@CarlosAguilar-xq4xp]

Government Tolerates too much bullshit evil thrives and innocence surfers.

[@PandazRUs]

honestly, ayn rand just proves the bolsheviks didnt go far enough

[@csitprof]

Did you just make a judgement? Who are you to judge anything? lol Or worse, are you making a threat? "Judge not least you be judged" rofl "Live and let live." Where is your toleration man? Coexist, and Chill lol To be clear I am judging you to be a monster to the extent you honestly believe the bolsheviks should have gone farther. I am trying to interact with the good in you.

[@PandazRUs]

@@csitprof I am memeing chill out. Just saying that the bolsheviks democratized Russia to an extent hitherto unknown to that part of the world. Ayn Rand was just salty that her aristocratic family got their land confiscated and redistributed. However, Bolsheviks were based, and justified in all that they did.

[@csitprof]

@@PandazRUs Wow.

[@PandazRUs]

@@csitprof what? do you thin the tsar was better?

[@csitprof]

@@PandazRUs The Romanovs were the flip side of the Bolsheviks and the progenitor of Putin. In the Randian perspective, they are all evil. Many in my family and my coworkers fled from the abuse and destruction at great personal cost. They suffer the trauma of literal guns to the face. For Russia, there are three empires (Rome, Constantinople, and Russia). I've seen the graphic presentation of an upper-class Rand moping about losing her toys and the family having to pay taxes. It seriously does not paint the brutality of the time and the continuous effect that reaches our time and will persist far into the future. Until it is cut down from the roots.

[@covidiotseverywhere2179]

Just putting this out there: please if anyone is interested in a fair debate on ideas, please debate Sam Seder. It will be worth it. His ideas are opposed to yours. He is always looking for people to debate with: kzbin.info