Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

Rate this topic


hernan

Recommended Posts

The decision to murder or not depends on context, not contextless "axioms" that "dictate" behavior. In a civilized society, murder is wrong because it is not in the long-term, rational self-interest ("selfishness") of traders living in society (which is where the idea of "rights" comes from), but in uncivilized times or in emergency situations, murder may be necessary to save one's own life.

When exactly would it be moral to "murder" someone? When I say murder I mean it to mean that you kill an innocent person who poses no immediate threat to you. If they posed an immediate threat it would cease to be murder and instead be self defense.

I do not see how non-aggression would be something that is contextual. If you attack others and violate that normative law you subject yourself to the other person being able to defend himself and potentially kill you (rightfully) in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe, but another possibility is that he is mistaken; or even, looking for a rational person who actually understands Objectivism. You advanced the patently false idea that non-aggression is an axiom, but being a generous guy, I don't automatically assume that you are a moron who should be banned from civilized society. If you take away the spurious axiom, can you solve the Prudent Predator problem? Maybe "that guy" was posing a challenge, to see if you or someone could actually refute the argument. In which case, you've effectively declared that the argument is not refutable, and that your belief to the contrary (I am assuming that you don't believe that murder is moral) is based purely on faith, and not reason.

When I say axiom I do not mean it in the philosophical sense. I mean it in a purely ehtical-political sense. I do not mean it to be an axiom like Aristotle described, 'to deny it is to affirm it.'

And to actually reply to the point you made. He is not looking for a rational discussion. Any man who would say that, is looking to make an attack. He is a troll, looking to corrupt someones view because they do not know how to defend his attacks. I know this, if you have ever sat through a philosophy class or a college campus in general, those are the types of people you will find in every corner and coffee shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When exactly would it be moral to "murder" someone?

When it is the only thing you can do to survive, and when surviving under such conditions is worthwhile. An example is an at-sea survival situation in which cannibalism is the only means of prolonging your life for long enough to reach safety.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say axiom I do not mean it in the philosophical sense.

ObjectivismOnline is primarily a philosophical forum, specifically one whose context is the philosophy of Objectivism. Context determines content.

I mean it in a purely ehtical-political sense. I do not mean it to be an axiom like Aristotle described, 'to deny it is to affirm it.' 

What is the "purely ehtical-political sense" (sic) of "axiom"?

Even more puzzling is your distinction between philosophy, on the one hand, and ethics and politics (which are parts of philosophy), on the other hand.

Nimble, what is your philosophy? Knowing the answer would help me -- and I am sure others -- figure out where you are "coming from."

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say axiom I do not mean it in the philosophical sense. I mean it in a purely ehtical-political sense. I do not mean it to be an axiom like Aristotle described, 'to deny it is to affirm it.'

Ethics and politics are branches of philosophy, and the word axiom has a specific meaning, which you are denying explicitly. Do take more care in your assertions. The correct thing to do when someone says that you are wrong is not to attempt to redefine words so that you can be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say axiom I do not mean it in the philosophical sense. I mean it in a purely ehtical-political sense. I do not mean it to be an axiom like Aristotle described, 'to deny it is to affirm it.'
Okay, but then I have no idea what you mean by axiom. Are you simply saying that this is a principle that you'd wish were true -- that you wish that there were noinitiation of force?
He is not looking for a rational discussion.
I assume you're personally acquainted with him. Anyhow, the question I have for you is whether you can refute the Prudent Predator argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ObjectivismOnline is primarily a philosophical forum, specifically one whose context is the philosophy of Objectivism. Context determines content.

Okay

What is the "purely ehtical-political sense" (sic) of "axiom"? 
I did not realize that saying this would cause this type of response. I retract the use of the word axiom. It was a malapropism.

Even more puzzling is your distinction between philosophy, on the one hand, and ethics and politics (which are parts of philosophy), on the other hand.

I don't consider politics to be part of philosophy, but I do consider ethics to be part of philosophy. I consider politics to just be a result of all the other branches of philosophy.

Nimble, what is your philosophy? Knowing the answer would help me -- and I am sure others -- figure out where you are "coming from."

I used to consider myself to be an Objectivist, until I started studying economics. From that point on, I have been an anarchist, which has kind of put me on the outs with most Objectivists. I have heard all the Objectivists arguments about why anarchy is bad, etc. But there hasn't been an argument which I have found compelling or self contradictory. There was a series of debates between Robert Badnitto (might have butchered his last name; he's an Objectivist) and Roderick Long. Every issue Badnitto brought up, Roderick Long (Mises Institute) seemed to have an answer for. And eventually Badnitto quit debating, which left Roderick with what seemed to be the upper hand. If I ever find a irrefutable argument for a minimal state, I would quickly change my politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a series of debates between Robert Badnitto (might have butchered his last name; he's an Objectivist) and Roderick Long. Every issue Badnitto brought up, Roderick Long (Mises Institute) seemed to have an answer for.

Bindinatto (I might have butchered his name as well, only less so) is not an Objectivist (he is a Kelleyite), which is why it isn't surprising he did not make the principled case against anarchism. Try this: every social system is based, implicitly or explicitly, on a theory of ethics. Which theory is implicit in anarchism?

Here's a clue to your answer...quoting Rand:

When a "desire," regardless of its nature or cause, is taken as an ethical primary, and the gratification of any and all desires is taken as an ethical goal (such as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number") – men have no choice but to hate, fear, and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash.  If "desire" is the ethical standard, then one man's desire to produce and another man's desire to rob him have equal ethical validity; one man's desire to be free and another man's desire to enslave him have equal ethical validity; one man's desire to be loved and admired for his virtues and another man's desire for undeserved love and unearned admiration have equal ethical validity.  And if the frustration of any desire constitutes a sacrifice, then a man who owns an automobile and is robbed of it, is being sacrificed, but so is the man who wants are "aspires to" an automobile which the owner refuses to give him – and these two "sacrifices" have equal ethical status.  If so, then man's only choice is to rob or be robbed, to destroy or be destroyed, to sacrifice others to any desire of his own or to sacrifice himself to any desire of others; then man's only ethical alternative is to be a sadist or a masochist.  (The Virtue of Selfishness, 34).

Do those consequences sound familiar? They should...they are the same consequences Rand claims anarchism would have.

Anarchy (in all its forms) is based, implicitly or explicitly, on moral and epistemological subjectivism, of which hedonism (described above) is merely a variant.

Just as the complexity of man's survival needs necessitates moral principles, so a social system cannot be evaluated apart from moral principles. A social system based on subjectivism cannot lead to peace and justice any more than a social system based on altruism can.

That is the principled case against anarchism. Any economic arguments to the contrary are merely exercises in context-dropping.

Don Watkins

Edited by DPW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to consider myself to be an Objectivist, until I started studying economics. From that point on, I have been an anarchist, which has kind of put me on the outs with most Objectivists. I have heard all the Objectivists arguments about why anarchy is bad, etc.

In the absence of a government that has a monopoly on the use of force and acts as society's final arbiter, how will disputes be resolved?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is Rand saying that desires are bad? or simply that desires are good as long as they don't include things like stealing and murdering?

No, she is saying:

-One's desires are the product of one's values. One should therefore take great care to choose one's values rationally

And...

-One does not act on the basis of one's desires, but of one's reason (which must, of course, account for one's desires).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bindinatto (I might have butchered his name as well, only less so) is not an Objectivist (he is a Kelleyite), which is why it isn't surprising he did not make the principled case against anarchism.  Try this: every social system is based, implicitly or explicitly, on a theory of ethics.  Which theory is implicit in anarchism?

Here's a clue to your answer...quoting Rand:

Do those consequences sound familiar?  They should...they are the same consequences Rand claims anarchism would have. 

Anarchy (in all its forms) is based, implicitly or explicitly, on moral and epistemological subjectivism, of which hedonism (described above) is merely a variant. 

Just as the complexity of man's survival needs necessitates moral principles, so a social system cannot be evaluated apart from moral principles.  A social system based on subjectivism cannot lead to peace and justice any more than a social system based on altruism can.

That is the principled case against anarchism.  Any economic arguments to the contrary are merely exercises in context-dropping.

Don Watkins

He used the final arbitrater argument, but Roderick Long refuted that argument. I'll quote that in my next post. But my question for you is that, if you think anarchy is bad because it is not based on moral principles in the Objectivist sense, because it allows people to act freely so long as they don't aggress others, how would your system differ? Would an Objectivist society make it illegal to have porn, since porn is a desire that comes from no rational purpose, it is only a hedonistic type of activity, or how about being mostly selfless, by just working for free all the time and giving all your possessions away? Or how about doing drugs, would those be illegal since there is no rational purpose for non-medicinal drugs? Should those activities be illegal because they are not correspondent with Objectivist principles?

Edited by nimble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the absence of a government that has a monopoly on the use of force and acts as society's final arbiter, how will disputes be resolved?

(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes

One common objection – this is one you find, for example, in Robert Bidinotto, who’s a Randian who’s written a number of articles against anarchy (he and I have had sort of a running debate online about this) – his principal objection to anarchy is that under anarchy, there’s no final arbiter in disputes. Under government, some final arbiter at some point comes along and resolves the dispute one way or the other. Well, under anarchy, since there’s no one agency that has the right to settle things once and for all, there’s no final arbiter, and so disputes, in some sense, never end, they never get resolved, they always remain open-ended.

So what’s the answer to that? Well, I think that there’s an ambiguity to the concept here of a final arbiter. By "final arbiter," you could mean the final arbiter in what I call the Platonic sense. That is to say, someone or something or some institution that somehow absolutely guarantees that the dispute is resolved forever; that absolutely guarantees the resolution. Or, instead, by "final arbiter" you could simply mean some person or process or institution or something-or-other that more or less reliably guarantees most of the time that these problems get resolved.

Now, it is true, that in the Platonic sense of an absolute guarantee of a final arbiter – in that sense, anarchy does not provide one. But neither does any other system. Take a minarchist constitutional republic of the sort that Bidinotto favors. Is there a final arbiter under that system, in the sense of something that absolutely guarantees ending the process of dispute forever? Well, I sue you, or I’ve been sued, or I am accused of something, whatever – I’m in some kind of court case. I lose. I appeal it. I appeal it to the Supreme Court. They go against me. I lobby the Congress to change the laws to favor me. They don’t do it. So then I try to get a movement for a Constitutional Amendment going. That fails, so I try and get people together to vote in new people in Congress who will vote for it. In some sense it can go on forever. The dispute isn’t over.

But, as a matter of fact, most of the time most legal disputes eventually end. Someone finds it too costly to continue fighting. Likewise, under anarchy – of course there’s no guarantee that the conflict won’t go on forever. There are very few guarantees of that iron-clad sort. But that’s no reason not to expect it to work.

This is the argument provided by Long. I have to say that I agree with his stance. Disputes can go on forever no matter what system you are in. So long as the disputers are willing to make the effort to keep the dispute going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would an Objectivist society make it illegal to have porn, since porn is a desire that comes from no rational purpose, it is only a hedonistic type of activity, or how about being mostly selfless, by just working for free all the time and giving all your possessions away? Or how about doing drugs, would those be illegal since there is no rational purpose for non-medicinal drugs? Should those activities be illegal because they are not correspondent with Objectivist principles?

In an Objectivist society, things would not be illegal simply because they are irrational. The only things that would be illegal are those things which initiate force against other persons.

Where in the world did you EVER get the idea that laws would be created by Objectivists because of an irrational act? That's nothing Ayn Rand every alluded to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my question for you is that, if you think anarchy is bad because it is not based on moral principles in the Objectivist sense, because it allows people to act freely so long as they don't aggress others, how would your system differ?

But it doesn't allow people to act freely. That's precisely the point. People can only act freely when their rights are protected, and their rights are only protected when they live under a social system based on the protection of their rights. The only social system that can lead to the protection of rights is one that has as its moral and epistemological foundations the very principles that underlie individual rights: rational egoism and objectivity. As I indicated in my post, that system is capitalism, not anarchy.

Would an Objectivist society make it illegal to have porn, since porn is a desire that comes from no rational purpose, it is only a hedonistic type of activity, or how about being mostly selfless, by just working for free all the time and giving all your possessions away? Or how about doing drugs, would those be illegal since there is no rational purpose for non-medicinal drugs? Should those activities be illegal because they are not correspondent with Objectivist principles?

This is not a question anyone familiar with Rand should ask. That a social system is based on moral principles does not mean that the only actions individuals can engage in are moral actions. It means, instead, that the only actions proscribed by the government are those that make it impossible for others to act morally, i.e., coercive actions.

Edited by DPW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the argument provided by Long. I have to say that I agree with his stance. Disputes can go on forever no matter what system you are in. So long as the disputers are willing to make the effort to keep the dispute going.

Long's answer, then, is that we need not worry about how disputes will be resolved under anarchy because even with government, not all disputes are resolved.

This is exactly like saying that we do not need police, because even with police some criminals get away with their crimes.

And we do not need doctors, because even with doctors some people still die from disease.

The actions he cites -- going to the Supreme Court, going to the Legislature, starting a movement for a Constitutional Amendment, trying to get different people in the Legislature -- are all acts aimed at trying to influence the final arbiter -- the government. These are the mechanisms by which one may attempt to persuade the final arbiter. This leaves the original question unanswered: what will happen when there is no final arbiter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the argument provided by Long. I have to say that I agree with his stance. Disputes can go on forever no matter what system you are in. So long as the disputers are willing to make the effort to keep the dispute going.

So, Long's argument is that, since no one can reach into another man's brain and make him stop being irrational, government is a failure?

The purpose of arbitration of disputes is to determine where the FORCE OF THE LAW falls concerning the dispute and what action the GOVERNMENT will take regarding the dispute. It does not "abolish" the dispute, if by dispute you mean people being pissed off at each other.

In arbitration the government serves one purpose: to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force, just as in all of its other functions. It does not prevent people from being idiots, or exert mind control, as Mr. Long seems to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Long's argument is that, since no one can reach into another man's brain and make him stop being irrational, government is a failure?

The purpose of arbitration of disputes is to determine where the FORCE OF THE LAW falls concerning the dispute and what action the GOVERNMENT will take regarding the dispute.  It does not "abolish" the dispute, if by dispute you mean people being pissed off at each other.

In arbitration the government serves one purpose: to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force, just as in all of its other functions.  It does not prevent people from being idiots, or exert mind control, as Mr. Long seems to think.

You must have not even read his reply. Rule of law would exist under anarchy. And, I like this forum, so I will not continue this discussion about anarchy here, because I genuinely think I could get booted. If you want to talk about it, my AIM is onelungedwonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a question anyone familiar with Rand should ask.  That a social system is based on moral principles does not mean that the only actions individuals can engage in are moral actions.  It means, instead, that the only actions proscribed by the government are those that make it impossible for others to act morally, i.e., coercive actions.

This is exactly the law system anarchy would have, that no one may initiate the use of force, but do whatever else they pleased. And I did not intend to mean that Rand supports laws that dictate her morality, I asked that question only to let you realize that Rand's system and anarchy would have the exact same legal structure except government would not have a monopoly on the use of force. Governments could exist in anarchy, but only as collectives that all individually agree to the terms of the government. Then as long as all parties agree they could set up school systems roads etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an Objectivist society, things would not be illegal simply because they are irrational.  The only things that would be illegal are those things which initiate force against other persons.

Where in the world did you EVER get the idea that laws would be created by Objectivists because of an irrational act?  That's nothing Ayn Rand every alluded to.

I asked the question to show the person I replied to that what they were suggesting wasn't what Rand advocated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governments could exist in anarchy, but only as collectives that all individually agree to the terms of the government.

Anarchy is the complete absence of a political authority. If a government (or group of governments) existed by the will of the people, then it wouldn't be an anarchy.

At any rate, even now any government that exists only does so by the will of the people, whether they actively support it, or whether they refuse to oppose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchy is the complete absence of a political authority.  If a government (or group of governments) existed by the will of the people, then it wouldn't be an anarchy.

At any rate, even now any government that exists only does so by the will of the people, whether they actively support it, or whether they refuse to oppose it.

First, I when I say government I do not mean a coercive type that enforces its laws on those who have not already consented. I guess I should have just said collectives, which offer similar services that governments provide.

Second, refusing to oppose is not the same as consent. If I rob a man in front of your face at gun point and you don't stop me, it doesn't mean you morally consent to robbery, would it? That has to be the lamest Hobbesian justification of government I have ever heard.

Edited by nimble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has to be the lamest Hobbesian justification of government I have ever heard.

I'm not really concerned with you what you consider to be "the lamest", nor was that statement a justification of why there should be a government. I would suggest you not offer another such ad hominem. I could have easily engaged in such behavior myself when you mentioned having a government in an anarchy (which is a contradiction), but rather I addressed that without demeaning you or your statement.

If I rob a man in front of your face at gun point and you don't stop me, it doesn't mean you morally consent to robbery, would it?

That's not analogous to what I said. It would be more analogous to say that if a man robbed ME at gunpoint to MY face and I did nothing to stop or redress it, etc.. Living in a dictatorship isn't something that happens to the other guy, it happens to you to if you live there. And if you refuse to do anything about it, you are in every practical sense consenting to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have not even read his reply. Rule of law would exist under anarchy. And, I like this forum, so I will not continue this discussion about anarchy here, because I genuinely think I could get booted. If you want to talk about it, my AIM is onelungedwonder.

From Dictionary.com

an·ar·chy

Absence of any form of political authority.

Political disorder and confusion.

Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

From Merriam Webster online

an·ar·chy

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER

(emphasis mine)

These definitions, by the way, are precise, accurate definitions.

Laws are political principles. You cannot have BOTH an absence of ANY FORM of political authority (i.e. RULE) and a PRESENCE of political authority. It's one or the other.

There are several threads already about anarchy, you are welcome to contribute to one or start another assuming you have something different to say. However, if you keep making random aspersions that people haven't read things, you may indeed get booted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...