Book burning: The goal

To decide if book burning can be a rational act we need to look at the goal and the end result of the action. I see two possible goals in burning a book. The first is to inflict harm or give insult to those who find meaning in the book. In this case it becomes the moral equivalent of name calling. It isn’t an act of self defense. It doesn’t protect anyone. It’s an act of mental violence for the sake of violence. For no other reason than you feel like it. It isn’t the behavior of a rational thinking person but of a thug intent on mindless hurt.

The second possible goal is to make a clear statement that you disagree strongly with the ideas in a book. People argue it’s a matter of speech and communicating their opinion to the world. In this case things become more complex because communication is a rational goal. However, is the behavior a rational way of accomplishing the goal? Does burning a book  create positive communication and advance your cause?

Book burning: The audience

Let’s think about the different groups of people who “hear” your statement. First there are the radicals on both sides of the argument, those who completely agree and those who completely disagree. Your action creates lots of noise on both sides. Some people cheer with joy while others scream in anger. But in both cases you haven’t changed anything. Each group still feels exactly how they felt before. You created the moral equivalent of a pep rally but it was a pep rally for both sides. For every ounce of cheering there was an ounce jeering. As your side screams “Yeah, get them!” their side screams “This is why! Get them!” Everyone spends lots of energy for a stalemate.

In-between the radicals there is the middle. This is the group both sides hope to influence. They may lean one way or another but are open to discussion and the possibility of changing their mind. Does book burning get their attention? Definitely! Just look at the current media storm. But does it get the right kind of attention? Does it advance your cause or your enemy’s cause?

Book burning: The message

To see the real message, imagine a story on a much smaller scale. You enter a room with two five year old children. On one side a little boy sits quietly playing with a toy car. On the other a little girl smashes her toys on the ground while screaming “He’s evil! He is mean! He does bad things!!!” Does she get your attention? But why kind of attention does she get? Is your first instinct to talk about her problem or deal with her behavior? Do you feel sorry for the girl or the boy?

Now imagine the story differently. Instead of breaking things the second child runs to to you upset but in control. She says, “Help! He keeps taking my toys! I want my car back!” Does she still have your attention? Can you focus on her issue? Now which child do you feel sorry for? Which one of these behaviors will lead to the quickest resolution of the problem?

Just as loud or violent behavior causes people to judge children it also causes people to judge adults. When someone commits violence, whether it’s name calling, screaming or destruction, it sends a clear message. However, it’s usually not the intended message. Just as rational person seeing a man hit a woman doesn’t assume the woman is evil, a rational person seeing a man burn a book doesn’t assume the book is evil. A violent act is a moral judgment on the person committing it and not on the person or object that is the victim.

Book burning: The result

Violence scares people. Arson is violence. It doesn’t make people trust you. It doesn’t make people listen to you. It makes people fear you. Instead of having a rational discussion with those in the middle you advance a climate of fear. But it’s not fear of your enemy. It’s fear of you.

Can a rational person expect to win an argument by scaring the very people they are trying to influence?

No.

Can a rational person advance their cause with fear?

No.

Can book burning ever be rational?

No.

Respect the legal right but never give moral sanction to book burning. An act of destruction is an act of destruction.

we can’t help but wonder what Rand herself would have thought of the stunt. After all, part of Objectivism, a philosophical system she developed, states: “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

To that end, perhaps Newcomen should have scrawled his own name across the States

From the authors point of view a brief moment of Internet fame would have been in someones rational self interest but encouraging other people to read certain books would not. In this I think she got the concept completely wrong. Rational self interest does not referring to the whims or desires of the moment (like a brief blip of internet fame). It refers to acting in a manner that promotes your long term personal life and happiness (without violating anyone’s right to do the same).

For example it’s not in my rational self interest to donate out of guilt to any charity that sends me address labels. However it’s very much in my rational self interest to donate to a children’s research hospital trying to cure childhood cancer. Keeping the goal of long term happiness in mind I look at my children, think of my future grandchildren and give money so an organization like that will be there if I should ever need it. The side affect of my long term rational selfishness is that a good cause has more funds and others benefit just by me being “selfish”.

However it would not be in my self interest to then petition for a new tax to fund the hospital. By forcing others to pay for what I value I open the field to whoever has the most pull. Instead of getting lots of funding for my organization I may find my money taken to fund a completely different project. As soon as I say force is ok it’s just as likely to be used against me as for me. Rationally I do not pick a course that could hurt what I value instead of help.

In the case of writing “Read Ayn Rand” instead of his name I would say it’s very much rational self interest. My guess is he feels the world would be a better happier place to live in if a lot more people read and followed Ayn Rand. In his view a brief bit of Internet fame caused by writing his name would not have been worth the time and effort. However getting attention to a cause that he thinks will make the world a better place for him to live, that is definitely rational self interest.

Right now I’m facing a moral crisis. I’m finding that what my head believes to be right does not always mesh with what I’ve been taught is right. I’m upending my personal moral code, dusting it out and reconstructing it in a new form. I’m not quite sure what that form is. Right now I suspect it looks a lot like Objectivism but it’s a gut feeling. First I need to read, analyze and think in detail before I can be sure what moral picture matches logical thought instead of training. (In fact I’m pretty sure if you say you are an Objectivist because “it feels right” they throw you right out.)

So why do I need freedom to do this? Well I’m one of those split personalities that is both incredibly shy and incredibly out going all in one package. The last thing I need while attempting to lay out a thought I’m still working on is to worry about what mom so and so is going to think. When it’s all clear in my head and I feel I have a solid floor of thought to stand on I’ll be happy to say things loud and clear to whoever will listen (just ask my family) but for now I need a place for a quiet whisper. In fact my benchmark for when I finally work everything out will be when I feel confident enough to write any of this on my regular blog.

In the mean time this blog will work as my drawing board. A place to sketch out what I’m thinking, look at it and see if it still makes sense. (Not to mention occasionally get input from others who don’t think it’s crazy to do something like rethink your moral code.)