Month: November 2021

The Ethical Status of Kyle Rittenhouse

“She looked out at the country. She had been aware for some time of the human figures that flashed with an odd  regularity at the side of the track. But they went by so fast that she could not grasp their meaning until, like the squares of a movie film, brief flashes blended into a whole and she understood it.  She had had the track guarded since its completion, but she had not hired the human chain she saw strung out  along the right-of-way. A solitary figure stood at every mile post. Some were young schoolboys, others were so  old that the silhouettes of their bodies looked bent against the sky. All of them were armed, with anything they had found, from costly rifles to ancient muskets. All of them wore railroad caps. They were the sons of Taggart  employees, and old railroad men who had retired after a full lifetime of Taggart service. They had come, unsummoned, to guard this train. As the engine went past him, every man in his turn stood erect, at attention, and raised his gun in a military salute.” (Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) (p. 242). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition, emphasis added. )

I was rather surprised with the negative reaction some people closely associated with the Ayn Rand Institute had for Kyle Rittenhouse, back when the story of his self-defense shooting first came out last year. I watched a great deal of the videos of the shooting and events leading up to it, and was fairly confident he had acted in self-defense. Most of the criticism coming out of Objectivist  circles seemed to center around the fact that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, and, in some sense, “put himself” into danger, such that he had to shoot three people.

In my experience, the people associated with the Ayn Rand Institute have an aversion to guns, in general. My perception is they will “grudgingly” acknowledge some right to keep and bear arms, but many of them clearly  have a distaste for guns. This may have to do with their cultural backgrounds. Most ARI people appear to be from the north-eastern United States, California, or foreign countries. They aren’t used to armed civilians. I don’t particularly hold this against them, but I think it plays into their perception of self-defensive shootings, like the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Is it wrong to go someplace where there is lawlessness and defend property? Certainly Ayn Rand must have thought there is some such right in certain circumstances, or she wouldn’t have had the teenage sons of Taggart Transcontinental  Railroad employees guarding the tracks of the John Galt Line. (This situation is, admittedly, a little different from that of Kyle Rittenhouse, since he appears to have had little association with the property he was defending. More on that, later.)

Is Kyle Rittenhouse a vigilante? Perhaps. Is that wrong?

What is a “vigilante”? An online source says it is:

“A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.” (https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=define+vigilante)

Is Vigilantism always unacceptable? I am not convinced of that. When the legal system breaks down in an emergency, extraordinary actions can be taken to defend life and property. In essence, a riot is an emergency return to a state in which there is no government. A state of anarchy is a form of tyranny:

“Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare.” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/revolution_vs_putsch.html )

During a riot, what a rational person faces is the abrogation of law, which means the abrogation of the state’s protection of individual rights. In such circumstances, one faces not tyranny by the state, but tyranny by a gang of criminals. In such an emergency, one can take extraordinary measures to defend one’s life and property. That said, I think that once order is restored, one must also be prepared to face trial for any excessive force used under the circumstances. (But, what is “excessive” under those circumstances is probably also different.)

I do not think Kyle Rittenhouse could be described as a “vigilante”, because Kenosha was in a state of anarchic tyranny. But, if one insists on calling him a “vigilante”, then, during an emergency, vigilantism, within certain limits, is probably justified.

Was there no police support for what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing?

There does appear to have been actual police support for Kyle Rittenhouse and the others in his group, at least amongst the “rank and file” cops. Those cops made no effort to remove Rittenhouse or the group he was with, and gave them water and verbal support:

“‘About 90 minutes into the livestream at 11:30 p.m. — 15 minutes before the fatal shooting — the following exchange with police occurs as Rittenhouse and another armed man walk outside a business.

Police officer (over a loudspeaker): ‘You need water? Seriously. (unintelligible) You need water?’

Rittenhouse, raising his arm and walking toward the police vehicle: ‘We need water.’

Police officer: ‘We’ll throw you one.’

Rittenhouse then walks out into the street amid several police vehicles, holding his hand in the air for a water bottle. An officer surfaces from a hatch at the top of the police vehicle and tosses a water bottle to a person located just out of the camera’s view, where Rittenhouse would likely be standing based on the preceding footage.

Police officer: ‘We got a couple. We’ve got to save a couple, but we’ll give you a couple. We appreciate you guys, we really do.‘”
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/29/fact-check-video-police-thanked-kyle-rittenhouse-gave-him-water/5661804002/)

How would I describe Kyle Rittenhouse?

“‘Don’t be shocked, Miss Taggart,’ said Danneskjöld. ‘And don’t object. I’m used to objections. I’m a sort of freak here, anyway. None of them approve of my particular method of fighting our battle. John doesn’t, Dr. Akston doesn’t. They think that my life is too valuable for it. But, you see, my father was a bishop— and of all his teachings there was only one sentence that I accepted: ‘All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’….Even John grants me that in our age I had the moral right to choose the course I’ve chosen. I am doing just what he is doing— only in my own way.…'” (Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) (p. 757). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.)

I wouldn’t recommend that anyone do what Kyle Rittenhouse did. Furthermore, I discourage it. I would not go into the middle of a riot to defend the property of strangers, and I wouldn’t recommend that anyone else do it. That said, John Galt didn’t think Ragnar Danneskjold should attack the relief ships for the “people’s states” of Europe, but he didn’t condemn Ragnar for it. He said Ragnar had a right to do what he was doing, but he didn’t think it was, in some sense, “prudent”. That is my position on Kyle Rittenhouse going to a riot to defend the property of others. He had the right, but it was, in a word, “quixotic“:

“Exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.”
https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=quixotic

My perspective as a forty-seven-year-old is different from that of a seventeen-year-old, however. Young men can be so committed to doing good that they may act rashly or imprudently. I cannot say for certain I wouldn’t have done the same when I was a teenager. As such, I will never speak ill of Kyle Rittenhouse.

[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]

2021 Objectivism Conference: Day 4

August 29, 2021

The first lecture was related to the concept of purpose, using the novel Atlas Shrugged for many of the examples to illustrate the Randian view on purpose.

For Rand “purpose” is a value to be pursued. It is something which one acts to gain and or keep. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html) Rand presents three “cardinal values” of the Objectivist ethics: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem.

I think these three “cardinal values” for Objectivism all have to do with states of the human mind. An online dictionary gives one of the definitions of “reason” as “…the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic..” Reason concerns having a connection between the content of your mind and the facts of reality. As was discussed in an earlier blog post concerning day 3 of the 2021 OCON, Objectivism says some of the methods used to achieve this correspondence between your mind and reality are “reduction” and “integration”. Additionally, we use deduction to draw inferences about the things around us based on generalized principles, and we use the scientific method to learn general principles of nature. Learning these methods of rationality helps us to achieve the value of reason -the goal of corresponding the contents of our minds to the facts of reality.

“Self-Esteem” is defined by an online dictionary as “…a feeling of having respect for yourself and your abilities…” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-esteem) Rand defines it as a person’s “…inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html)  Self-Esteem is about valuing yourself -having self-love. This is clearly a mental state, which requires you to implement certain standards of action to achieve. Someone who has no job, sits around all day playing X-box, smoking pot, and living in their parent’s basement, with no plan for the future, will have great difficulty avoiding a feeling of self-contempt. (At least not without evading the facts, which is a “mental house of cards” that will eventually fall.)

An online dictionary defines “purpose” as “….the feeling of being determined to do or achieve something…”,as in: “She wrote with purpose…” Another definition that is illuminating is “…the aim or goal of a person : what a person is trying to do, become, etc….”. For Rand, “purpose” is very connected to having some meaningful work that one does, but I cannot find a satisfactory definition of it in her non-fiction writing, now, although she does state that a person without purpose will be, essentially “rudderless” in life:

“A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find…” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html)

Clearly, her characters, like John Galt, Howard Roark, and Hank Reardon are all examples of men with a purpose, and you can gather a clear understanding of what she means by reading about these characters. I would refer anyone to her novels, especially The Fountainhead, for understanding the man who has purpose.

In my view, “purpose” is similar to self-esteem, in that it is a more of a feeling in your mind. Reason concerns having an ordered thought process. Purpose is more of an emotion -a sense of satisfaction or mental ease.

The speaker at this OCON lecture also presented the concept of “purpose” as a “…some state of our psychology we are trying to achieve…”

The lecturer then said: “But what is that state?”

He also presents various characters and scenes from Atlas Shrugged to illustrate what Rand meant by “purpose”. He noted that Francisco d’Anconia always asked as a child, “What for?” when he was presented with a proposed task or activity. Francisco is a character from Rand’s novels with purpose. James Taggart, one of the villains from Atlas Shrugged, is presented as a man without purpose.

I would note that most very religious people do not consider “Reason” or “Self Esteem” to be values. In fact, they are likely to regard them as vices or “sinful”. However, religious people tend to be very interested in some concept of “purpose”. In a sense, there are three “types” of people out there when it comes to purpose. First, there are the people like Francisco d’Anconia and Howard Roark -men who find purpose primarily in their creative work. Second, there are men like James Taggart, who essentially have no purpose. On a smaller scale than James Taggart, I think these are the people who live in their parents’ basement, smoke pot all day, play X-box, and don’t even look for a job. A third “mental attitude” concerning a sense of purpose are the religious types. They claim to find purpose in following the commandments of some alleged supernatural authority.

I’d say one of the two most common retorts you will hear from a religious person if you are atheist is: (1) What will keep people moral without religion, and (2) What is the point of life without god? This second question reflects the religionists’ belief that purpose is important, but they don’t believe there can be any purpose if the universe is simply a mechanism that exists without some sort of creator and a divine plan.

I think that the sense of purpose we feel, that psychological state, reflects our nature as living beings. Evolutionarily speaking, unless human beings had a sense of accomplishment or happiness when they achieved the values necessary for their survival, they wouldn’t last long. The sense of purpose, that psychological state, is ingrained in our minds because of what we are and what we need to live. I also believe that religion hijacks our desire to achieve that state of purpose and puts it out of our reach. By seeking something that is outside the realm of reality as their ultimate purpose, the religionist makes the things that they can achieve, such as family, career, friendship, and love, seem meaningless by comparison.

The second lecture I attended that day was given by a medical doctor who is an infectious disease specialist, who works for the Centers for Disease Control. He also seemed very familiar with and friendly towards Objectivism. His lecture concerned the COVID-19 outbreak, and his views on the public and private sector’s responses to it. (Especially the CDC’s response.) He presented Taiwan as a good example of how to deal with a pandemic. He said Taiwan had no lock-downs.  (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-coronavirus-covid-response)  He said the primary failure in the United States was the failure to test enough people for COVID-19 early on. The FDA wouldn’t let the CDC hand out test kits or market them. There was government opposition to home test kits, and the Maryland governor had to hide COVID-19 test kits purchased from South Kora, for fear that the Federal government would confiscate them. (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maryland-hiding-testing-kits-purchased-south-korea-us/story?id=70434840)  As a result of the poor Federal government response, by March of 2020, state governors were panicking, and started imposing lock-downs.

The  speaker said there are essentially two different “philosophies” on how to handle a pandemic. One is the “abstinence only” approach proposed by some when it comes to HIV. In other words, just telling people not to have sex. With COVID-19, this “abstinence” approach takes the form of government lock-downs. The other approach, preferred by the speaker, is “harm reduction”. I’ve heard this term used to describe how to deal with the drug problem. For instance, instead of telling people not to do drugs, they are provided with clean needles to avoid disease transmission. The speaker said that the Federal and State governments in the US mostly went with the “abstinence only” approach when it came to COVID-19.

The speaker also discussed the role of experts when it comes to something like a disease pandemic. He said their role is to brief, and inform the public and public officials. However, I think the problem with most government-funded experts is that they tend to become nothing but a mouthpiece for the status quo. As Ayn Rand noted in her article “The Establishing of an Establishment”, when government money is used to fund scientific investigation, politicians have insufficient knowledge to know which scientific theories or ideas are good or bad. Even a conscientious politician is not omniscient. He cannot be expected to know if a particular theory in physics, chemistry, biology, or medicine represents the work of the next Isaac Newton, or of some charlatan looking to make a quick buck from the public trough with his design for a perpetual motion machine. All a well-meaning government official can do is rely on the known experts in the field to tell him who should get government money. In other words, government money goes not to the innovators, but to those who are already established:

“How would Washington bureaucrats—or Congressmen, for that matter—know which scientist to encourage, particularly in so controversial a field as social science? The safest method is to choose men who have achieved some sort of reputation. Whether their reputation is deserved or not, whether their achievements are valid or not, whether they rose by merit, pull, publicity or accident, are questions which the awarders do not and cannot consider. When personal judgment is inoperative (or forbidden), men’s first concern is not how to choose, but how to justify their choice. This will necessarily prompt committee members, bureaucrats and politicians to gravitate toward ‘prestigious names.’ The result is to help establish those already established—i.e., to entrench the status quo.” (Philosophy: Who Needs It, “The Establishing of an Establishment”, Ayn Rand.)

More generally, I’m always suspicious of experts because so many of them seem to have a political agenda. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of whether human beings are responsible for changes in average global temperatures. It’s such a politicized issue, that I don’t know what to believe. I don’t trust government-funded academics to tell me the truth, as opposed to just wanting to make sure they keep the government funding coming in.

The Ayn Rand Institute has presented a white paper regarding how to deal with pandemics and infectious diseases for those who are interested in a deeper dive into this issue. (https://newideal.aynrand.org/pandemic-response/)

The last thing I have in my notes for that day wasn’t a lecture, but a dramatic presentation of a play, “Mona Vanna”, followed by a Q&A with the actors and the producers of the play. (https://www.amazon.com/Monna-Vanna-Play-Three-Acts/dp/1561141666) It’s the story of a woman who offers herself sexually to an invader in exchange for sparing her city. Since she’s married, that presents some obvious conflict with her husband, amongst others. I was unfamiliar with the play, and knew nothing about it, going into it. I enjoyed the actors’ dramatization of it. Afterward, there was some lively discussion with an audience member concerning how realistic the motives of some of the characters were. Additionally, there was a lecture regarding the biography of the author of the play.

[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]