Before examining the essence of Cognitivism in Exoneratism, it would be advisable at this point to further discuss how Exoneratism views faith and religion.
As stated, Exoneratism totally refutes the atheistic viewpoint of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, which is, in her words, “Faith . . . the exact antithesis and enemy of thought.” Exoneratism does not oppose faith, religion or God.
The philosophy of Nihilism is an atheistic philosophy. Nihilism appears to have been coined in Russia in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. It refers to the practice of annihilating the concept of God. Exoneratism does not accept annihilation of faith, religion or God.
In fact, Exoneratism realizes that Individualistic thoughts concerning our beliefs, i.e. (faith, religion and God) are as necessary to gaining our inner peace as are the thoughts concerning our feelings of guilt.
The Russian author, Dostoyevsky, feared the efficacy of atheism “would be selfishness, crime and suicide as a resolution to a life without hope.” Exoneratism agrees with Dostoyevsky’s pragmatic forecast of the future of a hopeless society and Exoneratism would shield faith, religion, God and hope under the armor of equanimity.
Religion plays an important part in the lives of members of our society, and Exoneratism finds it impossible to have a cognitive debate of these issues and therefore leaves the metaphysical concept of a God and an afterlife strictly in the realm of the faith of the individual.
Cognitivism is an argument that ethical judgments can be reduced to actual factual knowledge. Thus cognitivism supports the philosophical premise of Exoneratism, that man can wrestle guilt and overcome it through logic based on factual evidence. Cognitive interpretation demands open mindedness and an understanding of the changes that have occurred in the society so that an acceptance or a denial of those changes can be determined.
“The epistemologist, however, is concerned not with whether or how we can be said to know some particular truth but whether we are justified in claiming knowledge of some whole class of truths, or, indeed, whether knowledge is possible at all.”(1) Utilizing the factual knowledge supported by cognitivism, the Exoneratist presumes a veritable premise of eradication of guilt through ethical determinations, but can he or she claim ethical knowledge realizing that emotionalism, as well as logic, plays a role in such ethical determinations?
The Exoneratist has accepted the theory of logic in cognitivism, but emotions, and especially the emotion of guilt, must also be considered as one of the phenomenological factors which temper human judgment.
As an example of the dual roles of logic and emotion in determining ethical judgments, the following is a reduction of Ayn Rand’s ethical judgment: “self-interest above all else.” Denying altruism toward others and society, this edict is the mainstay of her philosophy of objectivism.
The great intellect of Ayn Rand devised the philosophy of objectivism, but her ethic of self-interest was also fostered from the personal persecution she experienced under Communism.
Born in St Petersburg, Russia, in 1905, she and her family suffered indignities, economic failure, hunger and poverty at the hands of the Bolsheviks. By the time she had escaped to America from her Communistic homeland, Rand had formed her own philosophy of objectivism. The personal persecution she experienced under Communism emotionalized her thinking; therefore her sensibility regarding persecution brought about her ethic of self-interest.
She sought America to find a society where she would not be victimized but paradoxically portrayed her objectivist hero, John Galt, as a victim of American society. Galt could not pursue his own desires without constant concern about his society and his effect on it. Throwing off these concerns, he instead considered only his own self interest.
Rand’s denial of altruism is indicative of her emotional reaction to any socialistic ideas she fears will culminate in communism, and her willingness to create a crisis in society by elevating personal success (of John Galt) above all else is a retaliation for her suffering.
Assuredly, Rand’s intellect, logic and emotions formulated her philosophical ethic of extreme self interest based on the factual data of her temporal existence, and she did not merely consent to an advisory admonition. Her ethical judgments, as we understand the theory of cognitivism, can thus be reduced to actual factual knowledge, and these facts include a traumatic experience which led her to make a very unbalanced decision regarding the ethic of self interest.
Exoneratism embodies the ethics of equanimity, not self interest, but the point here is that an intellectual adherence to cognitivism accepts the fact that changing attitudes and moral convictions will surface as a result of the available locutions and mental insights existing at the moment.
Emotionalism, then, may come into play. Phenomenological morals and principles will change – not due to weakly held convictions, but to open minded, logical discussion of new facts and proofs. Tangible facts can be seen, identified and confirmed, and both the Exoneratist and his/her society can come to terms with any societal problem requiring an ethical judgment by using logic.
But one must be aware that emotionalism may tamper judgment. Exoneratism relies upon reasoned ethical statements to influence conduct as it pertains to changing scientific and societal advances. Clashing attitudes will be resolved within one’ own mind if one simply applies logical reason. But in the end one must either resist or accept any emotional factor involved.
(1) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: MacMillan & Free Press. (1967). Vol. 3, p. 9.