A Final Discussion With My Professor

I had a final discussion with my loosely small "O" objectivist professor about a week ago. We were discussing my final paper a two important subjects came up, which are slightly related.

The first important point strictly concerned my final essay for my Political Theory class in regards to Allan Bloom's essay Our Listless Universities. In one section of his essay Bloom discusses how an increase in promiscuity has led to a decrease in morality because morality is replaced by amorality. Basically, his argument is that sex and morality are linked and inseparable. Depending on how one acts sexual, meaning is overall sexual lifestyle, determines if the man is moral or amoral. The discussion did not really focus on these points; therefore, I will explore these points more extensively in a later post. The point that became important was when I explained in my essay that Bloom appears to make a distinction between rational selfishness and absolute selfishness, which I believe I have discussed in earlier most, and will most definitely discuss in later posts. The distinction between rational and absolute selfishness is that the former is concerned with virtue and the latter is concerned with the body. The best way to capture the difference is in comparing a man who loves his wife to a promiscuous man. The man who loves his wife chosen his wife from all others. He values his wife as better than other individuals. Also, he values her based on her actions, which are directly related to her morality. A virtuous person commits virtuous acts, such as producing and creating for one's own happiness, while the vicious person commits vicious acts, such as murder. Now, the man has obviously not chosen to value a vicious woman as his wife. This would be a moral compromise for the man. The man wants to be the best man he can be. He selfishly desires to be virtuous. Therefore, he selfishly values his wife as also virtuous. He chooses to be with his wife because she values his virtues as greatness. This is clearly rational selfishness.

The promiscuous man, however, is the opposite. He does act selfishly, but he is not concerned with virtue. He is completely concerned with satisfying is sexual animal desire. In other words, he is only concerned with satisfying his body. Therefore, the absolutely selfishness individual does not choose partners based upon whether or not they are striving for greatness as he is. He is not even striving for greatness. He is only striving to have his body satisfied. This is selfish because he is only concerned with satisfying his body; however, it is not rational. The promiscuous man will have sex with a Nazi, slave driver, communist, serial killer, priest, thief, torturer, and then try to have sex with a producer. I assume the producer will say no and foil his plans. The point is the promiscuous man does not care if the person he has sex with his virtuous or vicious.

The problem between my professor and I arose when he could not determine the difference between rationally selfish and absolutely selfish. His argument was simply that they were both selfish; therefore, they were not different. I have absolutely no idea how someone can argue this. Rational and absolute clearly denote a different. His argument was comparable to, "Well, they are both fruits; therefore, there is no difference between an apple and an orange."

The second important issue with my professor arose when we discussed my summer internship with the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). My professor's problem was that he was not convinced that legalizing marijuana would be a sound governmental decision. Obviously, I argued it would be sound, meaning logical. Otherwise, I would not be interning with them. I argued that it would make the government more moral. Since the government exists to protect natural rights, enforcing the criminalization of marijuana, or drugs in general, compromises their purpose and morality. Using a distributing drugs does not violate anyone's natural rights. Drug users and distributors are innocent, they initiate no force. Therefore, in order for the government to enforce the criminalization of drugs it must initiate force against drug users and distributors. Consequently, the government violates natural rights, and no longer protects them. Thus, the government compromises its purpose, and acts viciously. Subsequently, by legalizing drug usage and distribution the government would act morally. However, my professor could not accept this. He stated that arguments in favor of legalization to decrease the number of imprisoned and to seize the economic benefits were more convincing. He argued the moral argument was extremely week. However, several times over the semester he told me that morality and government could not be separated. I completely agree, but obviously his argument for not separating government and morality is not consistent with his argument for criminalizing marijuana. His argument for criminalizing marijuana was that using drugs is immoral. I also completely agree with this. However, using marijuana or drugs, though an immoral choice, should not be reduced by immorally violating one's natural right to liberty. It is comparable to drinking alcohol. Drinking alcohol, especially to excess is immoral because it inhibits one's mental capacity, one's ability to reason. Drugs accomplish the same thing. However, one's inhibition of his own reason does not violate anyone's natural rights; therefore, one's choice, one's liberty, to inhibit his own reason should not be infringed.

Therefore, my professor's argument confused me. He said government and morality could not be separated - true. Using marijuana and drugs was immoral - true. However, the government should act viciously to stop viciousness - false. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Two wrongs never make a right, and the ends never justify the means. These I will discuss in a later post. I just want to point out the inherent contradiction is saying that government and morality are inseparable, while also condoning the government's vicious acts. This is basically to argue that the government should create morality, while existing outside of morality. I disagree with both. First, morality is objective. It exists outside of man's desires, actions, or environment. My professor would agree with this point I believe. Secondly, the government existing outside of morality, not subject to moral criteria, excuses the government to act viciously. My professor would not agree with this point. However, my professor is arguing for the way of the tyrant. Carl Schmidt, a political philosopher I read in my Political Philosophy class wrote The Concept of the Political. In the book, he argues that a perfect tyrant, sovereign, gets to create the law, while existing outside of the law. For example, the sovereign can declare killing innocent men to be illegal. However, the the sovereign can kill innocent men without being charged with committing any crimes. My professor argues for the same. A government that creates morality, while existing outside of it. A government that declares the initiation of force as vicious, while using the initiation of force without just punishment.

This also causes a problem in the way my professor identifies himself. He claims he is an objectivist, but small "o" objectivist. This means he believes in an objective morality. However, he is not willing to subject the government to this objective morality. In turn, the morality is not objective. The government is allowed to exist under different standards, making morality subjective pertaining to whether the entity was an individual or the government. He cannot be any kind of objectivist without applying the objective morality to every entity controlled by man. However, he did argue once whether it was just to hold God to the same standards God holds man to. He would probably make the same argument in regards to government. Now, I do not believe in God; however, I do believe governments exist, and my answer would be: absolutely.