[Lecture Two] Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes
Course summary: This two-lecture mini-course features a discussion of how to apply the process of evaluative judgment in difficult practical cases. Dr. Peikoff examines both how one can judge without being too quick to condemn and how one can avoid being too reluctant to pronounce judgment. He also reviews the role of emotions in judgment as well as an exhaustive discussion of the nature of evil. Read more »
In this lecture: This lecture contrasts a crucial error in moral judgment represented by improper understandings of emotions. Dr. Peikoff contrasts the opposite mistakes of, on the one hand, emotionalism and relying on one’s emotions in living and judging, and, on the other hand, of detachment from emotions and refusing to consult them in acting. Dr. Peikoff reviews the role of emotions, their nature and origin, and the proper role in one’s life.
Study Guide
This material is designed to help you digest the lecture content. You can also download below a PDF study guide for the entire course.
| What are the different errors in the role of emotion in the making of decisions? |
| Why is emotion essential to human life? |
| How do emotions function in a normal human life? |
| What role do emotions have in applying the principles of morality? |
| Why do we need a method for making the right choice in an optional value? |
| What are the two tests you should consult before referring to your emotions? |
| How does one balance the short range and long range in making choices? |
| In what way do emotions play a role in long-term projects? |
| What two tests can you apply when two friends have a disagreement that you do not have direct evidence to judge? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:31:39 | What would you recommend doing in cases where you’ve seen very suspicious and questionable behavior on the part of someone who is respected by quite a few of your friends? Would you mention it, how would you mention it, what would you make of it? The behavior isn’t conclusive of anything, but it gives you strong reason to question them. For example: You’ve seen somebody who doesn’t seem very alert in situations where he should be, he seems sort of drunk or stoned or something, while in other situations he’s quite well-focused. So you’re concerned about his commitment to just being aware and alert when he should be, which leads you to question other things about his character. [Rephrased by Peikoff: If you see something that is not self-evidently evil, but raises doubts or suspicions, what should you do about it?] |
| 1:37:43 | You speak of a consciousness test as opposed to a reality test and I wanted to see if you would agree with a way in which I put this, because you weren’t entirely clear. Was it that you identify the aspects of the potential vacation, say, that appeal to your emotional associations and thereby your associations in words as much as possible and then act on the basis of some feeling you get after you put all of that into words? For example, you visit a farm and say “I’ve always liked chickens, I want to get woken up in the morning by their sounds” and then as a result of your considering this you feel more and more enthusiastic about going to the farm, or does it go through some different process in your model? |
| 1:42:08 | While I recognize your sadness at not getting tenure, my own rational selfishness is glad that you were able to spend more time on Objectivism for the general public. |
| 1:42:30 | In choosing between the two people, is it conceivable that you psycho-epistemologically had already made the decision before the conflict between the two people even came up, and that you then brought it into consciousness? |
| 1:43:34 | My question is about sense of life. My understanding is that it is at the base of all of your emotions and may be synonymous with “core evaluation” (I’m not sure), but I’d like a complete list of what you’d consider core evaluations, or the questions which… |
| 1:44:48 | I have a problem with the friends case. I don’t see why you couldn’t just tell them both the following: “Look, I’ve listened to both of you, I respect both of you, I don’t see any dishonesty, I don’t see any contradictions, but this whole situation means that I have to look more carefully from now on. Basically I’m putting you both on notice. I’m sorry if you’re pissed off at me, but the facts are such that I don’t have conclusive proof.” |
| 1:47:03 | Rather than the two friends, what if it was a husband and wife and you’re the child? |
| 1:50:48 | How would you apply the principle of long- and short-range objective valuing to the following specific example of the “dissertation issue.” Instead of a dissertation, let’s say a long-range project is fixing your own psychology. And instead of the question of a movie, let’s say the question is of a romantic relationship. And the issue is, since the joy you get from a romantic relationship depends on your psychological health, do I wait until I’m fully psychologically healthy to start, or if I have an opportunity in the middle of the process and let’s say that you started out really messed up… |
| 1:56:04 | I’d like to ask a question that goes back to the first lecture about the degrees of evil, where you spoke about and compared the evil of Kant with the evil of Hitler for example. It brought to mind to me evaluating the evil of someone like the Pope, meaning, not the particular guy who is the Pope now, but the Pope in general down through the ages, Would the evil that resulted from his existence and influence over mankind be equated with that of Hitler and Kant even though it’s a little more abstract and passed through more stages before the final results of it were apparent? |
| 2:00:29 | Regarding today’s lecture, you mentioned the phrase “carpe diem.” Do you have a recommendation or comment on the Dead Poets Society movie? |
| 2:02:00 | My question goes back to the degrees of evil from the last lecture. You said that Kant is the evilest man in history, worse than Hitler or Stalin. Since Hitler and Stalin together murdered close to 100 million people, are you saying that a rationality evasion advocacy are worse than murder, particularly mass murder? If you are not saying that… |
| 2:04:03 | My question goes back to the first lecture, when you had asked Ayn Rand about someone’s choice of a particular woman as a mate, that you should tread very lightly in judging that other person based on who they choose as a mate. I’d like you to elaborate on that, and also I’m curious about this “incalculable sexual pleasure that you can’t judge without knowing more” as her answer… |