TTI Forums

This past Saturday, I had the great pleasure of spending time with 4 other like-minded people.

In person.

Really.

Amongst the many conversation topics, there was one that I have long thought to be obvious, but I had never attempted to articulate it outside of my own mind; And certainly not with people on my level.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank Horvay, Petyr, Jennifer and Jim for talking this out with me.

The Public Contract

As an Objectivist, we believe that we are judged by our own standard. Ultimately we answer to no one for our achievements or our mistakes. In practice, we are our own best judges as only we can grasp the full extent of our thought processes. Presumably this should be evident and following the logical path of objective thought, but that doesn't mean that it is either plain nor logical to other people.

Hence we each have what I will term as a Private-Personal Contract. It is the agreement we make with ourselves to live up to the standard we set for ourselves. Although there are people in our lives who have value, we owe them no response, duty or aplogies for the things we do to ourselves.

Next there is the Private-Interpersonal Contract. This is our agreement with eachother as to what we can expect the other to provide. Most times outside of a business environment, this sort of thing goes unspoken. Sometimes the contract changes, sometimes it does not.

Finally, there is the Public contract. This is the publicly announced agreement that you will provide some value. In return, you get something of value to you, but in this case, the value can be as simple as spreading your thoughts to a "willing" audience. What makes this notably different from the Private-Interpersonal contract is that it does not require the consent of the the contractee. You put out your value to anyone who will have it and you implicity guarantee it's quality.

For example: I am writing this piece. I know that it will be incomplete, but it comes from my brain and I am willing to have anyone and everyone read it. What do I get in return? I get to say it publicly. Maybe I'll get responses so I can refine it, maybe I won't. What do you get? Maybe nothing of value to you, but then again, it may be of such tremendous worth that I get a phone asking whether you can buy the rights to publish it for a quarter.

By the way, bidding starts at $.50.

The next question should be: Uhmmmm, duh. Who didn't know this?

Well, the answer is this: At least 2 people in my conversation thought that thinking that this type of contract was valid and existent was a load of crap. That because each man has a Private-Personal contract that it makes no difference what anyone else thinks; regardless of how you express that view.

Well, what happens when you form this kind of contract with.... the public. You say that monogamy is right and virtuous. That you significant other is the representation of your highest values outside of yourself. Then you have an extra-relational affair.

If you think you know which person we were discussing, you are right.

Well, you've gone about extolling this ideology, and plenty agree with you. If you stayed to yourself, then you would only have to reconcile with yourself and probably your S.O.

But you didn't. You've gone public with telling people the right way to live. You've said that man should live up to this standard and those who falter either die or fix their premises.

Now granted, the nature of this type of contract is that you are the only one bound when it is formed. No one is able to make claim to the power to enforce the contract requiring you to make amends.

Except you.

When you screw up, do you not admit your mistake to yourself? Is it not contrary to your own self-esteem to do otherwise? I think so.

So if you have a public contract, why wouldn't you admit the mistake publicly?

---

Post Script
My writing sucks. I know it and I'm working on it.

"When you screw up, do you not admit your mistake to yourself? Is it not contrary to your own self-esteem to do otherwise? I think so.

So if you have a public contract, why wouldn't you admit the mistake publicly?"

The standard of value is one own life.

So you have to tell me how it is good for AR's own life to do this. I don't see it as making really any difference.

People are rational and can judge for themselves. She doesn't have some duty to make sure everyone comes to the right conclusion. If it was me in her position, I'd be saying, "Why can't I say what I think without giving up my personal life information, whether its mistaken or not"

Her philosophy is up to people's own rational capacity to understand and find the truth of it for themselves. Its not AR's job to make sure she is seen in a good light.

The virtue of Honesty is primarily to one's self. It is not faking reality to one's self. Not telling what she thinks her mistakes are to everyone is not being dishonest.

Sellmak wrote:As an Objectivist, we believe that we are judged by our own standard. Ultimately we answer to no one for our achievements or our mistakes. In practice, we are our own best judges as only we can grasp the full extent of our thought processes. Presumably this should be evident and following the logical path of objective thought, but that doesn't mean that it is either plain nor logical to other people.

Maybe this is just badly-worded, but it seems like you're saying that everyone sets their own standards for themself, (and that all such standards are equally correct). I believe that as Objectivsts we should be judged by the standards of an objective reality. Morality and immorality stem from reality, not from what our individual beliefs or whims may be. I know enough from talking to you that you didn't mean it this way, but it's an important principle to state.

Sellmak wrote:Hence we each have what I will term as a Private-Personal Contract. It is the agreement we make with ourselves to live up to the standard we set for ourselves. Although there are people in our lives who have value, we owe them no response, duty or aplogies for the things we do to ourselves.

Agree.

Sellmak wrote:Next there is the Private-Interpersonal Contract. This is our agreement with eachother as to what we can expect the other to provide. Most times outside of a business environment, this sort of thing goes unspoken. Sometimes the contract changes, sometimes it does not.

This also applies to use of force and other legal agreements.

Sellmak wrote:Finally, there is the Public contract. This is the publicly announced agreement that you will provide some value. In return, you get something of value to you, but in this case, the value can be as simple as spreading your thoughts to a "willing" audience. What makes this notably different from the Private-Interpersonal contract is that it does not require the consent of the the contractee. You put out your value to anyone who will have it and you implicity guarantee it's quality.

For example: I am writing this piece. I know that it will be incomplete, but it comes from my brain and I am willing to have anyone and everyone read it. What do I get in return? I get to say it publicly. Maybe I'll get responses so I can refine it, maybe I won't. What do you get? Maybe nothing of value to you, but then again, it may be of such tremendous worth that I get a phone asking whether you can buy the rights to publish it for a quarter.

By the way, bidding starts at $.50.

I'll go along with this for now, but I don't think it's a good basis for your thesis, (which I happen to agree with, btw).

Sellmak wrote:Well, what happens when you form this kind of contract with.... the public. You say that monogamy is right and virtuous. That you significant other is the representation of your highest values outside of yourself. Then you have an extra-relational affair.

If you think you know which person we were discussing, you are right.

Well, you've gone about extolling this ideology, and plenty agree with you. If you stayed to yourself, then you would only have to reconcile with yourself and probably your S.O.

But you didn't. You've gone public with telling people the right way to live. You've said that man should live up to this standard and those who falter either die or fix their premises.

Now granted, the nature of this type of contract is that you are the only one bound when it is formed. No one is able to make claim to the power to enforce the contract requiring you to make amends.

Except you.

When you screw up, do you not admit your mistake to yourself? Is it not contrary to your own self-esteem to do otherwise? I think so.

So if you have a public contract, why wouldn't you admit the mistake publicly?

Was it wrong for Rand to have an affair? Yes. Adultery is immoral and cowardly. If you find someone who represents a higher value than your spouse, and you wish to be with that person instead, then you divorce your spouse. You should not attempt to "have your cake and eat it too", even if you do so with the consent, (or at least knowledge) of all other parties involved. If the information I've read on the subject is correct, then Rand and Branden sat down with their respective spouses and had a "rational" discussion about why they wanted to have sex with each other. I don't see how their consent changes the inherently immoral nature of adultery in general or just the incredible wrongness of that situation.

Now is this any of my business? No, not really.

The fact that Rand apparently acted against her own philosophy and had an affair is somewhat disquieting and altogether puzzling for me, but it does not change reality whatsoever. Objectivism is true. What Rand wrote in her books on the subject is true. The debt that I owe her for being the first person to so concisely and accurately state the true nature of reality, (and by extension, morality) is staggering. By your definition we are all very much still in default in the ledger applied to that particular public contract. I don't think she owed any of us an explanation for her actions, infact, there can be no meaningful rationalization of adultery, other than to say "I was wrong." And we know that anyway.

The point is: I don't think it detracts from Objectivism for anyone except non-objectivists pointing at it and saying "Your philosophy is wrong because its originator once did something immoral and against its principles". And that's attacking a person and not an argument. I've done things which are wrong and against my own philosophy, (much less so after really becoming an Objectivist, and I'd like to think my earlier immorality was because of errors of knowledge and not volition). That doesn't change what is right and true. Have you ever done something or said something and then sat awake thinking about it that night, wishing you hadn't done or said that thing? I don't think it would have been any different for Rand.

I'm actually against the use of the term, "contract," here, actually.

What we are talking about is ethics, not politics. Politics only comes after ethics have been established. The topic of, "should AR come out and tell everyone that she was wrong," is not an issue of politics. So I don't see why we should use a word like, "contract," even metaphorically in this case. I think what you mean is "agreement".

And even then, ethics starts with life as the standard of value, and concludes with egoism and rational self interest being how one should live their life. I don't see how keeping her private life private negates any of those things.

BTW, AR's view on marriage:

I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.

Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand, March 1964.

I wouldn't be so sure she really thought it was that bad.

Was it wrong for Rand to have an affair? Yes.

This is actually a very unknown topic to me. And I wasn't willing to debate it in person because I want alot of time to think about each of my responses.

What is your rational for that? I mean, what is your rational for: "marriage is an agreement with your spouse that you will never sleep with another while in marriage."

Is the proper way to say, "Okay, I'm going to the court office tomorrow to divorce you so I can go see if I like Y more than you. If it doesn't work out, we can get married again in a week."

I'm not advocating, "go around and sleep with whoever you want!" here either. Like AR said in that quote, it has to be the right reasons for sex.

Oh, and one minor thing: there is a difference between bad and immoral. Doing something bad by means of evading some fact or knowledge is immoral. Making honest errors is just bad, not immoral.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:

Petyr Baelich wrote:Was it wrong for Rand to have an affair? Yes.

This is actually a very unknown topic to me. And I wasn't willing to debate it in person because I want alot of time to think about each of my responses.

What is your rational for that? I mean, what is your rational for: "marriage is an agreement with your spouse that you will never sleep with another while in marriage."

Is the proper way to say, "Okay, I'm going to the court office tomorrow to divorce you so I can go see if I like Y more than you. If it doesn't work out, we can get married again in a week."

Sophistry. You don't marry someone if you think there is anyone else you know who you could possibly be happier with, nor do you marry if you have any serious doubts about spending the rest of your life with that person. If you meet someone later on who is an even greater value to you than your spouse then you should seriously examine what each of those person's lives mean to you, and determine their relative values. This is much more involved that simply going down to a courthouse and changing some documentation, infact, the courthouse stuff is arbitrary and legalistic trappings. This is the most profound expression of your own personal values.

But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a sense of self-esteem . . . . Love is our response to our highest values—and can be nothing else.
~ Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual “The Meaning of Sex,” For the New Intellectual, 99.

You're not going to meet people like that every day, week, month, year, whatever. In my life I have met one woman who fulfills all the values I would require in a spouse. One. And she died when we were teenagers. If I'm lucky enough to find someone else who represents the same value for me I would marry her without hesitation. If I found someone who represented a still greater value I would take the time to do a serious introspective assessment of my own values and the values of both my wife and this third party before I acted on any desire. If I met someone who was a greater value I would first end my previous relationship, be it marriage or simple cohabitation. I owe it to myself to be intellectually honest and an advocate in action as well as words to my own ideals. That is the idea I am addressing here.

And if my wife/girlfriend comes to me and tells me she wishes to sleep with another man, but still loves me and wants to stay married/together? Then she is no longer my wife. And vice-versa.

Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love—and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool’s self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one’s code of values . . .
~ Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual "The Meaning of Sex," For the New Intellectual, 100.

Sex is the most profound moral choice one can make. Any decisions regarding sex must be made with careful and precise introspection for at no other time do you so tellingly show what stuff you have chosen to form your character of.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:Oh, and one minor thing: there is a difference between bad and immoral. Doing something bad by means of evading some fact or knowledge is immoral. Making honest errors is just bad, not immoral.

I don't think anyone has been arguing this.

I don't think anyone has been arguing this.

In a previous post, you called yourself immoral and then said it was an honest error.

Morality and immorality stem from reality, not from what our individual beliefs or whims may be.

and

much less so after really becoming an Objectivist, and I'd like to think my earlier immorality was because of errors of knowledge and not volition

is why I said it

I'm still not quite convinced AR was immoral here. I'm having a problem with a few things.

If marriage is not based on what the court says, and is just saying that I am yours and only yours, then AR was not married while she was sleeping with NB. Does the role of government play any role in this?

About your talking about how important marriage and sex is: I don't disagree, but I don't see what about what you said applies to AR's case.

From what I've heard from Peikoff: AR loved Frank for his sense of life among other things, but he was not the highly intellectual type that NB was. NB, at first, seemed to have very similar values to AR, including what seemed like an intellect like hers. Peikoff himself even admits to how quick NB was.

So when she had sex with either of them, it was highly based on values. So what is the state of their marriage in all of this? Does the fact that she still wants to be with Frank her entire life have anything to do with it? Should she of picked one or the other to sleep with, period?

I don't have time to reply to this fully, but I want to clarify some things.

1: This is not a debate on the morality of monogamy. That could fill it's own thread, which apparently I now have to do.

2: I used the Rand example because everyone knows at least the basics of it.

3: Corn flakes

to 3 I like corn flakes to 2 i didnt know about this till this thread. but it did clarify some other info I ran across when righting a paper for writing class a few terms ago. Edit: watch out for all's and never's they can bite you in the rear :p I know from experience

Petyr Baelich wrote:

Sellmak wrote:As an Objectivist, we believe that we are judged by our own standard. Ultimately we answer to no one for our achievements or our mistakes. In practice, we are our own best judges as only we can grasp the full extent of our thought processes. Presumably this should be evident and following the logical path of objective thought, but that doesn't mean that it is either plain nor logical to other people.

Maybe this is just badly-worded, but it seems like you're saying that everyone sets their own standards for themself, (and that all such standards are equally correct). I believe that as Objectivsts we should be judged by the standards of an objective reality. Morality and immorality stem from reality, not from what our individual beliefs or whims may be. I know enough from talking to you that you didn't mean it this way, but it's an important principle to state.

It was badly worded.

Sellmak wrote:Hence we each have what I will term as a Private-Personal Contract. It is the agreement we make with ourselves to live up to the standard we set for ourselves. Although there are people in our lives who have value, we owe them no response, duty or aplogies for the things we do to ourselves.

Agree.

Sellmak wrote:Next there is the Private-Interpersonal Contract. This is our agreement with eachother as to what we can expect the other to provide. Most times outside of a business environment, this sort of thing goes unspoken. Sometimes the contract changes, sometimes it does not.

This also applies to use of force and other legal agreements.

Sellmak wrote:Finally, there is the Public contract. This is the publicly announced agreement that you will provide some value. In return, you get something of value to you, but in this case, the value can be as simple as spreading your thoughts to a "willing" audience. What makes this notably different from the Private-Interpersonal contract is that it does not require the consent of the the contractee. You put out your value to anyone who will have it and you implicity guarantee it's quality.

For example: I am writing this piece. I know that it will be incomplete, but it comes from my brain and I am willing to have anyone and everyone read it. What do I get in return? I get to say it publicly. Maybe I'll get responses so I can refine it, maybe I won't. What do you get? Maybe nothing of value to you, but then again, it may be of such tremendous worth that I get a phone asking whether you can buy the rights to publish it for a quarter.

By the way, bidding starts at $.50.

I'll go along with this for now, but I don't think it's a good basis for your thesis, (which I happen to agree with, btw).

Sellmak wrote:Well, what happens when you form this kind of contract with.... the public. You say that monogamy is right and virtuous. That you significant other is the representation of your highest values outside of yourself. Then you have an extra-relational affair.

If you think you know which person we were discussing, you are right.

Well, you've gone about extolling this ideology, and plenty agree with you. If you stayed to yourself, then you would only have to reconcile with yourself and probably your S.O.

But you didn't. You've gone public with telling people the right way to live. You've said that man should live up to this standard and those who falter either die or fix their premises.

Now granted, the nature of this type of contract is that you are the only one bound when it is formed. No one is able to make claim to the power to enforce the contract requiring you to make amends.

Except you.

When you screw up, do you not admit your mistake to yourself? Is it not contrary to your own self-esteem to do otherwise? I think so.

So if you have a public contract, why wouldn't you admit the mistake publicly?

Was it wrong for Rand to have an affair? Yes. Adultery is immoral and cowardly. If you find someone who represents a higher value than your spouse, and you wish to be with that person instead, then you divorce your spouse. You should not attempt to "have your cake and eat it too", even if you do so with the consent, (or at least knowledge) of all other parties involved. If the information I've read on the subject is correct, then Rand and Branden sat down with their respective spouses and had a "rational" discussion about why they wanted to have sex with each other. I don't see how their consent changes the inherently immoral nature of adultery in general or just the incredible wrongness of that situation.

Now is this any of my business? No, not really.

The fact that Rand apparently acted against her own philosophy and had an affair is somewhat disquieting and altogether puzzling for me, but it does not change reality whatsoever. Objectivism is true. What Rand wrote in her books on the subject is true. The debt that I owe her for being the first person to so concisely and accurately state the true nature of reality, (and by extension, morality) is staggering. By your definition we are all very much still in default in the ledger applied to that particular public contract. I don't think she owed any of us an explanation for her actions, infact, there can be no meaningful rationalization of adultery, other than to say "I was wrong." And we know that anyway.

The point is: I don't think it detracts from Objectivism for anyone except non-objectivists pointing at it and saying "Your philosophy is wrong because its originator once did something immoral and against its principles". And that's attacking a person and not an argument. I've done things which are wrong and against my own philosophy, (much less so after really becoming an Objectivist, and I'd like to think my earlier immorality was because of errors of knowledge and not volition). That doesn't change what is right and true. Have you ever done something or said something and then sat awake thinking about it that night, wishing you hadn't done or said that thing? I don't think it would have been any different for Rand.

Objectivism, as written, says nothing about monogamy that I'm aware of, so yes this is a statement about Rands behavior. However, it's not specifically Rands behavior in question, although it is an excellent reference because of how well known that situation is.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I'm actually against the use of the term, "contract," here, actually.

What we are talking about is ethics, not politics. Politics only comes after ethics have been established. The topic of, "should AR come out and tell everyone that she was wrong," is not an issue of politics. So I don't see why we should use a word like, "contract," even metaphorically in this case. I think what you mean is "agreement".

What else is a contract but an agreement of terms? This is why you say vows at your wedding, so that you let the other person know what to expect. I intentionally used contract because it is far more concrete than 'agreement'.

And even then, ethics starts with life as the standard of value, and concludes with egoism and rational self interest being how one should live their life. I don't see how keeping her private life private negates any of those things.

I agree with the first part of this. And her personal life would not negate the truth of it. However, it is not rational self interest to divide your attention between your spouse and your lover. Someone must suffer the consequences. Continuing on staple Obj phrasing: To have a lover as an extramarital is asking your spouse to sacrifice themself. This would be evident if you had ever been cheated on.

BTW, AR's view on marriage:

I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.

Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand, March 1964.

I wouldn't be so sure she really thought it was that bad.

Of course she didn't think it was so bad. Of course, that statement mixes 3 distinct types of relationships saying they all follow the same rules. Uncertain relationships, or what I would call dating, have very few rules and are USUALLY based on the idea that it will not last. Relationships with certainty are supposed to be longer-term, otherwise they wouldn't be certain, however they can still end with relatively little fuss. Finally marriage is ALWAYS (with the exception of marriages of convenience which ought not be considered to be relationships) a permanent thing. It not only involves a complete sharing of mind and body, but also of property. I hate to say it, but it seems like rationalization on her part.

Was it wrong for Rand to have an affair? Yes.

This is actually a very unknown topic to me. And I wasn't willing to debate it in person because I want alot of time to think about each of my responses.

What is your rational for that? I mean, what is your rational for: "marriage is an agreement with your spouse that you will never sleep with another while in marriage."

Is the proper way to say, "Okay, I'm going to the court office tomorrow to divorce you so I can go see if I like Y more than you. If it doesn't work out, we can get married again in a week." [/quote]

I'll have to think about this one. I don't agree with your argument because that would be an irrational motivation, but I need to consider the circumstances in which you would do that. However, I stand firm in my position that you would rationally have to get a divorce before you started a new relationship. In a marriage, you build value during the relationship. There is trust and a measure of psychological visibility that you would have to replace. To get a divorce for anything less than to replace that value with a higher set would be sacrificial.

I'm not advocating, "go around and sleep with whoever you want!" here either. Like AR said in that quote, it has to be the right reasons for sex.

Oh, and one minor thing: there is a difference between bad and immoral. Doing something bad by means of evading some fact or knowledge is immoral. Making honest errors is just bad, not immoral.

That's not really a minor difference.

That's not really a minor difference.

Let's see, how do I say this... It is minor in the sense of, its off topic from the topic that I derailed this topic to become?

What else is a contract but an agreement of terms?

A contract deals with legality. An argeement doesn't have to. A contract deals with the protection of individual rights, which is why its part of politics, not ethics. I was just worried you might of been relying on this, as some type of package deal, as this issue has nothing to do with individual rights. But I don't think you were, I actually mentally translated to your wording for "contract" to "explicit agreement" anyways.

In the end, I suppose its symantics, but its important to point out that this has nothing to do with individual rights.

I agree with the first part of this. And her personal life would not negate the truth of it.

Can you tell me how her choice with her affair led to her attaining less value? Let's say that Brandon didn't have a change of values, and end up being a horrible sly lyer.

Marriages aren't always permament. But they should be gotten with certainty. But of course, people are omniscient. (we probably agree there)