Many people over the years have attacked Ayn Rand, Objectivism and their defenders in the most grotesque manners, but one of the most remarkable such attacks came from a former student of Objectivism in the late 80s – from David Kelley (professor of philosophy).
To understand the arguments from the opponents and to be able to evaluate them, one probably need a somewhat good understanding of Objectivism. (However, I have come across people without much acquaintance of Objectivism who still understood who was right and who was wrong and also did so for the right reasons.) Some background material could include: a, ’The Anatomy of Compromise’ by Ayn Rand (from Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal); b, Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (esp. chapter 8 ’Virtue’); c, ’Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty’ by Peter Schwartz (from The Voice of Reason – a collection of essays mostly by Ayn Rand) and the Analyzing Libertarianism cassette released in 1992 by Second Renaissance Books.
The relevant articles and comments on the issue at hand are in chronological order:
1. ‘On Sanctioning the Sanctioners’ by Peter Schwartz (The Intellectual Activist (TIA, Vol. IV no. 20, 27th Feb., 1989).
2. David Kelley’s article which was written as a response to the Schwartz’ article – ‘A Question of Sanction’ (it was not published back then, but sent out to a lot of people and then it was spread further).
3. Leonard Peikoff wrote the answer to Kelley’s article – ‘Fact and Value’ (TIA, Vol. V no. 1, 18th May, 1989). This is the most important one by far on this issue.
4. In the same issue as ‘Fact and Value’ appeared, Peter Schwartz wrote another very interesting article – ‘On Moral Sanctions’.
5. Leonard Peikoff gave some further comments and elaboration at a conference in the summer of 1989 that I think are also very important to hear. This could be found on the short taped lecture series ’Moral Virtue’, which is available from Second Renaissance Books.
(6. Even before Leonard Peikoff published ‘Fact and Value’ a young Objectivist on Robert Stubblefield’s mailing-list Objectivism Study Group (OSG) had made the same essential argument against David Kelley (“The essential fallacy in this letter [Kelley’s] is non-integration.”). This early answer to Kelley’s article and more are available as a collection for subscribers to OSG.)
7. Bennett C. Karp wrote an article that made the point that Kelley in fact had accepted a fundamentally different epistemology from the Objectivist one. ‘Reintroducing the Measurements: An Old Fallacy with a New Name’ (Objectively Speaking, vol. 2 #3, 1989/90) is available on this web site.
8. Robert Tracinski wrote a very long and detailed analysis of Kelley’s article called ‘Notes on ‘A Question of Sanction’’ (also available on this web site [this version have been edited by Tracinski for clarity]).
Later Kelley wrote a long pamphlet, Truth and Toleration, which is an elaboration on his arguments originally made in ‘A Question of Sanction’. Here he is not quite as blunt in his criticism of Objectivism and Objectivists, but rather more academically refined.
Dr. Harry Binswanger wrote some about how Kelley even prior to the events listed above compromised the Objectivist principles – Binswanger’s first example was from ‘Stalking the Criminal Mind’ by David Kelley (Harper’s, Aug. 1986) and his second example was from a review Kelley made of a book by Wilson and Herrnstein (The Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, March/April 1986). About this review Binswanger wrote (leaving out a major part of Binswanger’s quote):
“ … Kelley sets forth ‘the view of man … I would defend’:
As for motivation, there is no necessary conflict between inborn desires and reason or virtue. The role of virtue is not so much to suppress our inherent drives as to enlarge them … .
This last, the denial of any necessary conflict between inborn desires and reason, is not just a compromise of Objectivist principles, not just weasly language attempting to sneak some half-Objectivist ideas in without anyone noticing, it is an explicit denial of the Objectivist position on emotions and of the entire Objectivist view of reason. It is even a denial of the essence of Kelley’s own book on perception. (‘Kelley quotes’, Objectivism Study Group, 3rd April, 1991)
If you highly value Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, it would be strange indeed if you at the same time also would want to sanction the enemies of Ayn Rand and her philosophy – those who try to distort and destroy this value. It was in order to help you avoid making such sanctions that I found it right to write down these comments.
Jerry Nilson