RoR: Forum

Define moral perfection.

Post 1

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:11am

I would like have chosen a fourth option "I strive for moral perfection always" To me that 'breakdown' clause implies you concioussly choose to not be moral, which is different than making a best case decision and acting on it, attempting to be moral only later finding out you made the wrong decision. We are not omniscient after all.
(Edited by Michael F Dickey
on 7/21, 11:11am)

Post 2

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 2:47pm

According to some, I'm good to go. According to some others, my soul is as black as Satan's sheets.

According to me, I'm a great and interesting work in progress. So it depends. :)

Post 3

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 3:44pm

By the Objectivist standard of holding my own life as my own ultimate value and then employing the cardinal values and virtues in service to that ultimate value, I practice moral perfection consistently.

Post 4

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:23pm

Somehow that was creepy Luke, but I know what you mean. We may mean two things with perfection. The first is perfect perfection, meaning you are following everything that is objectively right and good in the universe. I suggest that this is almost beyond our reach.

The second is perfection in the sense that you never do anything that is against your best knowledge. I would imagine you to shy away from this definition, because in this sense, perfection is relative. Example: A senior in college earns perfect grades, as does a kindergarten student. Both are perfect, but at different levels, which are analogously our levels of knowledge.

I don't think I'm perfect in either sense, by the way.

Post 5

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 5:06pm

Along with Hong, I wonder what the standards of Moral, i.e., Human perfection are? To me, "perfection" in the Moral sense would mean omniscience, which isn't possible. Epistemological perfection would necessarily subsume any Moral perfection. Is Epistemological perfection possible? I doubt it, so I voted "Not Possible," but was tempted to vote for the third option, which is 100% true! :)

Post 6

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:55pm

Here's Ayn discussing the correspondence theory of truth in "Ayn Rand Answers" (p158):

"Be careful using 'perfect.' It's applicable in the realm of ethics; but in the realm of cognition, it is extremely dangerous. It's a mystical concept. What would 'perfect correspondence' be? According to some mystical uses, it would have to be 'omniscience'-knowing everything about some object. But that's not how the human mind works; that's not rational epistemology.

"In regard to correspondence to reality, you need only be concerned with two simple rules: In drawing a conclusion you claim is true, you must have (1) included everything relevant to your conclusion, and (2) omitted nothing relevant. In other words, you have considered everything open to your knowledge about a given fact or set of facts, so that when you say, 'My conclusion is true,' you have used all of the knowledge available to you and have not indulged in any evasion. These are the only rules for establishing that your conclusions correspond to reality."

That was not so much a definition but rather Rand saying that the term "perfect" is "applicable in the realm of ethics."

Also in AS she holds man's life as the standard of by which morality may be measured. "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is evil." (AS p940)

It would then follow, I suppose, that moral perfection would be always choosing actions which are proper to your life without engaging in evasion or rationalization.

Post 7

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:02pm

Michael Dickey

I think that according to my on-the-fly definition above, omniscience is not a prerequisite for moral perfection and you would therefore qualify for the description. I know I do! :)

Dave
(Edited by Dave Voigt
on 7/21, 11:12pm)

Post 8

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 9:41pm

For the record, Ayn Rand in Galt's Speech on moral perfection:

Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality�not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.

Michael

Post 9

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:56pm

Hong, have you ever heard of the woman pictured below?

Chien-Shiung Wu

1912 - 1997
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 7/22, 1:11am)

Post 10

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 3:58am

It would then follow, I suppose, that moral perfection would be always choosing actions which are proper to your life without engaging in evasion or rationalization.

Even if they may be in error?

Dave's next post:

I think that according to my on-the-fly definition above, omniscience is not a prerequisite for moral perfection and you would therefore qualify for the description. I know I do! :)

But this appears to assume one always makes the correct choice, which means they must know everything, including the actions of others, which can have devastating consequences for one's own good. We make choices according to what we know, right?

I suppose one can be extremely careful and take crippling amounts of time assessing the correct choice, every minute of every day, but that doesn't seem moral or good to me either.

If you're saying that one can practice moral perfection even when one errors in a given choice, because he/she can't know everything, who's to say what is evasion, and what is honest error? How would such a distinction be made? How much time should one invest into making the correct choice every minute of every day in order to avoid immoral "evasion," and fall just this side of honest error?

I enjoy the idea of "perfection" with regard to particulars: perfect spaghetti, perfect hair, perfect sunrise, perfect timing, perfect technique, etc., but I'm having a hard time embracing "moral perfection which may error." It sounds contradictory to me.

If anyone can help me understand this, I would be grateful.

"Every error can be avoided." I know my father can't be the only one who said this to us while growing up!

Post 11

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 9:13am

For as far back as I can remember, I've been becoming less and less morally imperfect.

;-)

Ed

Post 12

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 9:37am

Rand believed in what the ancients called the unity of virtues: if you truly possess one of the virtues, you possess them all. So if you are genuinely and wholly productive, you must have complete integrity, complete independence, and so on. (Even Aristotle subscribed to this doctrine, but if you want to see it carried to its ultimate conclusion, check out the Stoics, for whom Virtue was one big thing, qualitatively different from any other value or any other excellence in life.)

So moral perfection, for Rand, is being completely rational, completely independent, completely honest, and so on down the line--at all times.

The ancients also had a notion of unified or global practical wisdom--assessing every situation and every social interaction correctly, so as to act virtuously in that context. Rand had no notion of practical wisdom, but insofar as she rolled it up into general-purpose rationaliy, the implication that Teresa drew about omniscience is, at the very least, a defensible interpreation of Rand. (The Stoics bit the bullet and acknowledged that exercising unified practical wisdom required omniscience regarding oneself and any situation that one encounters, which is why they said that the truly Virtuous human being is "as rare at the Ethiopian phoenix.")

The problem with the unity of the virtues is that you are unlikely to find a single psychologist who believes that unified virtue is humanly attainable. In fact, the notion of complete unity *within* each virtue--say, equally developed independence in every possible setting--is pretty daunting from a psychological standpoint.

What's more, Rand seems to have intended that moral perfection means possessing the kind of character that her fictional heroes possessed, notably their near-imperviousness to all of the negative emotions, with the possible exception of anger. Peikoff, in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, does not hesitate to equate moral perfection with Roarkhood or Galthood.

Since Rand correctly rejected the idea of perfect knowledge, it is a shame she didn't go further and reject the idea of moral perfection.

Robert Campbell

Post 13

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 1:55pm

So moral perfection, for Rand, is being completely rational, completely independent, completely honest, and so on down the line--at all times.

That makes sense. Thanks, Robert.

The problem with the unity of the virtues is that you are unlikely to find a single psychologist who believes that unified virtue is humanly attainable. In fact, the notion of complete unity *within* each virtue--say, equally developed independence in every possible setting--is pretty daunting from a psychological standpoint.

Yeah. I can't even picture it. I can't grasp it in any way to apply it to my own life. I wish I could, but I'm "perfectly" aware of my various limitations.

What's more, Rand seems to have intended that moral perfection means possessing the kind of character that her fictional heroes possessed, notably their near-imperviousness to all of the negative emotions, with the possible exception of anger. Peikoff, in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, does not hesitate to equate moral perfection with Roarkhood or Galthood.

I've always known that, but thought it was the proverbial "brass ring." Something to aspire to and reach for. A way to keep me morally inspired. I never thought it was actually expected of me!

I think I'll stick to my idea of those heroes as spiritual inspiration and fuel, and reject the idea of them as vehicles to embody.

Post 14

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 4:45pm

I like this quote:

"In regard to correspondence to reality, you need only be concerned with two simple rules: In drawing a conclusion you claim is true, you must have (1) included everything relevant to your conclusion, and (2) omitted nothing relevant. In other words, you have considered everything open to your knowledge about a given fact or set of facts, so that when you say, 'My conclusion is true,' you have used all of the knowledge available to you and have not indulged in any evasion. These are the only rules for establishing that your conclusions correspond to reality."

If we can equate truth to honesty, and take it further with Rand's insistence on honesty as being of the highest moral value and then follow the rules above, it should be possible to arrive at a close proximity of moral perfection in regards to Objectivism.

Post 15

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 2:32am

Hi LW,

Where does that quote come from? Odd that 1 and 2 are the same, and that she chose �everything relevant to your conclusion� instead of everything relevant to the subject/issue/question.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/23, 2:36am)

Post 16

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 2:32am

Hi Teresa!

I love your posting here and hold you in the highest regard!! Thanks for all the thought provoking discussion!

You said:
"I enjoy the idea of "perfection" with regard to particulars: perfect spaghetti, perfect hair, perfect sunrise, perfect timing, perfect technique, etc., but I'm having a hard time embracing 'moral perfection which may error.'"

Behaving morally allows for making mistakes. As long as there is no evasion, and rational egoism (via the objectivist virtues) is employed while arriving at a conclusion, no breach of morality has taken place. However, to echo what Rand said about metaphysical perfection, the concept of perfect spaghetti seems mystical/arbitrary to me. I make some INCREDIBLE spaghetti, but never quite perfect. How could there be such a thing? I think "perfect technique" that you mention is quite reasonable, though.

So basically it seems much easier to claim moral perfection than people usually allow. Rand stressed that the key aspect of behaving rationally is context-keeping. Often time and physical constraints "force" us to make choices on the best information available at the time. This is not immoral. Obviously, I need to exhaust my ability to know as much as possible regarding any conclusions I draw, but action is required and choices must be made. It sounds like accepting original sin to claim that moral perfection is unattainable. Nobody will ever have all the information they need to be right all the time, but perfectly ethical behavior is still possible. I'd like to think I am a good example. After all, I am a rational egoist*!!

Dave

* to the best of my ability : )

Post 17

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 3:08am

Ed

I have a hard time believing that you are not morally perfect. Unbreached rationality is your trademark!

Dave

Post 18

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 6:39am

Jon,

I borrowed it from post #6 above, where Dave says it comes from "Ayn Rand Answers" (p158).

I then took her point and tied it to the conclusion I was arriving at. If you see a mistake in my line of reasoning please point it out as I was speculating out loud so to speak.*

L W

* Editing the post I would like to add that in my saying above "it should be possible to arrive at a close proximity of moral perfection in regards to Objectivism" my intent was trying to qualify what our goal would be which would not necessarily translate into having reached it..

(Edited by Mr. L W Hall on 7/23, 2:59pm)

Post 19

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 7:36am