How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?

(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)

How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Nothing corrupts men more than moral agnosticism. Moral agnosticism holds that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that goods exist regardless of good and evil.

Judging morality is an enormous responsibility. To judge one must have 'unimpeachable character', 'un-breached integrity' and not let emotion play in the judgment.

A man is to be judged by the judgments he makes.

The fear of being judged is why most men wish to maintain a neutral moral stance. No moral neutrality is possible.

"Judge, and be prepared to judge" (Rand, 72).

"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard" (Rand, 72).

But just because we are to be judges, does not entail a responsibility to be a missionary aimed at saving everyone's soul.

Linehan - just when I was beginning to agree...

One doesn't have to break out in debate at every moment, but one cannot remain silent when one's rational principles are attacked.

Moral neutrality necessitates a progressive sympathy for vice and a progressive antagonism for virtue.

Virtuous people are treats to moral neutralists. They become exposed in their hypocrisy and fear their system can be toppled.

"An irrational society is a society of moral cowards - of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals" (Rand, 74).

Linehan - In this virtual desert of useless, harmful words, I find an oasis in this essay. I agree with Rand on virtually every point, but struggle with two things, one implicit and one explicit. The explicit disagreement is the responsibility we have to others who are morally neutral or morally evil. Rand maintains that we needn't be missionaries to them. I contend that if morality is worth anything then it demands that we serve as missionaries and work to help others find salvation. The implicit disagreement lies in what we are to condemn. Rand is too dismissive of people she calls 'irrational'. She condemns the irrational men, not the irrationality of men. I hold that it is the vice that we ought to condemn, not the partaker of any specific vice. Morality is wonderful, but useless without someone to produce it. Man is the ultimate value on earth, morality is the tool that leads us to that conclusion.