How might an Objectivist libertarian feel about Tiger Woods?

I was asked by someone if it was now improper to say “Tiger Woods is playing 18 holes”.  Ha!  Funniest thing I heard last week.  AND it opens up a very interesting field of questions.

Has the response to Tiger’s indiscretions been appropriate?  He is being punished, hence, he must have done something wrong, correct?  To an objectivist libertarian, what is “right” and what is “wrong”?  How does one define “good” and “evil”, both moral concepts, when you believe in reason, logic, and that the basic requirement that dealing with the world as it is precludes emotional, moral, non-superstitious judgement?

Let’s start off with a simple, self evident truth: We’re natural creatures. We are hardwired for a system of evolution and natural selection. The overriding imperative of natural selection is that we must pass on our genetic material, reproduce.  These are the rules of the game which gave birth to humanity, and we are products of a certain system, with all of the inherent motivators and drives of the other products of said system (other animals).

This has interesting ramifications for someone questing for a logical, non-emotional understanding of “right” and “wrong”.  You cannot expect people to behave in a manner which runs counter to their natural programming. It would be like programming a robot to, I dunno, sweep a floor, then getting upset when it doesn’t fix your car.  “Right” and “wrong” must be defined with an understanding that these moral actions must also support the overriding, genetic goals we’re saddled with, and which are out of our control to remove.

So what is the internal programing for a human?  What is our natural goal of existence?  The goal for all humans, like all other animals on Earth, is to reproduce. Thus, our allegiance is to ourselves, primarily, and to our family (other people with our DNA) secondly. This is a natural, scientifically based priority system. Me and mine are all that matter to me because that’s the way nature works and I’m a product of that nature’s system.

This is easy enough for anyone with a standard 7th grade education to understand.  Most of us are exposed to the basics of natural selection and evolution in our grade school experiences.  But the ideas of “right” and “wrong” are not governed only by our natural survival instincts, a fact clearly seen by the various forms of institutions humanity has developed through out the ages. 

Many of our oldest institutions, things such as marriage, religion, etc, have at their foundation an answer to a problem faced by humanity at some point in the past.  We may have forgotten the reasons we developed these institutions, mainly because they have been so successful at answering the problems they evolved to address, but that doesn’t give us reason to abandon them.  E.G. Like Marx’s calls to do away with marriage, that quack had no clue as to why humans developed the institution of marriage, but it was done for a reason.  Natural selection and evolution combine to force species to do only things which further their chance at survival in some way.  Wasted effort and resources impact the creature’s abilities to compete, thus, unnecessary evolutionary path ways are eliminated. 

Human society is much the same.  It has evolved in response to needs and requirements from long ago, and we, as members of the species, have evolved to fit these new institutions as well.  Those who were genetically incapable of surviving in civilization have vanished from the human gene pool, and the individuals more adapted to surviving in social environments have thrived.  To simply just eliminate portions of that social evolution (as Marx advocated with marriage) would be akin to saying that man no longer needs his liver or his kidneys, and just getting rid of them.

That’s not really an advisable course of action.

The reason we’ve got this thing called civilization, the reason human culture has evolved civilization, is because a certain level of social organization helps everyone survive and pass on their genes with a much higher success rate than independent survival would afford us. Thus, rationally, any action which is intended to remove the benefits of civilization (as a tool designed to help further an individual’s genetic survival) from another individual, as limited by the primary priority of seeing after your own DNA, is wrong.

In fact, it is illogical to discuss “right” and “wrong” in any terms except in those terms which indicate a relationship with a civilized world. Think about it this way: If you’re alone, all by yourself, can you do evil? Isn’t evil determined by your intent towards another when you do it? Same with good. Is it possible to be good without an object which is the beneficiary of your good deed?

We have civilization to help everyone survive more efficiently, thus, murder is wrong because it is the antithesis of civilization. Theft, the same, but even then, we make concessions for theft, such as a person stealing food for his children (because he’s obeying his primary drive of evolution, an instinctive need to feed his young). Rape, in my mind, is equally wrong because it hinders the victim’s chance to enjoy the security benefits of civilization and to make their own choices, but because it is supported by the primary goal of natural creatures (to pass on their genes), some societies have developed a looser standard of what is and isn’t rape.  Homosexuality is not wrong, because even though it removes the imperative of reproduction, it doesn’t harm people by denying them the benefits of civilization and it’s nature’s job, not civilization’s, to take them to task for screwing up reproduction.

So on and so forth.  To sum it up, “right” and “wrong” are only useful in terms of your interaction with others, and are subordinate to the primary goal of any living organism to pass on their genes.  This is clearly demonstrated by the laws which are common to every society. No society is completely free of penalties for murder or theft. Like I said, these activities are the opposite of civilization’s purpose.

How does this all tie in with Tiger?  Do I support the actions of the people who dropped him from their ad campaigns, and the media smear machine?  In my view of “right” and “wrong”, promiscuity by an unattached individual who remains healthy and is responsible about it is not wrong.  It’s a very strong tactic for species survival, and it doesn’t remove the benefit of civilization from another. Adultery, however, is wrong because, again, you’re violating the basic purpose of a civilized agreement, and if you cannot trust an individual to honor one contract, how can you be certain of their intention to honor any contract?  I, were I an advertiser, would now be leery of any contractual obligations between that individual and myself.  Thus, I can see my way to being ok with the public annihilation of Tiger Wood’s profitability, in a purely business sense.

However, there are some actions, like homosexuality, which I do not think it is ok for society to punish.  Now that the business aspect of his punishment has been delivered and dealt with, the media smear machine needs to stop.  What Tiger did was not worthy of the invasivness of the current media blitz.  Once all the parties affected by contract disputes attached to or associated with his actions have been satisfied, then it ceases to be a matter of society’s concern.  Now society is hindering his ability to enjoy the benefits of participation, it’s become, at this moment, a negative in terms of his peaceful survival.