Objectivism and War

[Black Wolf]

I haven't insulted anyone, all I'm doing is posting my exact opinion. I'm not looking to be nice, and I'm not looking to coddle your feelings. My only goal on this website is to express my views and thoughts on issues raised. Keep in mind that unlike in real life, where we go out of our way to have a positive raport with people we like, this is an Internet forum, and its main goal is the exchange of knowledge. Pointing out errors is more important than walking on eggshells around the people who make them.

I can voice my opinion with no regard to your sensibilities precisely because I don't aim to make you like me, in any way shape or form. Unlike in real life, where I can't just tell my friend he's clueless about the fine points of Objectivism, when he goes on a tare about Ethics for imaginary aliens and robots, I can do that to you. And that's because you're not my friend. Now get a hold of yourself, and make a decision: do you find any use for impersonal conversations about philosophy, or do you wish to use that magical button some place on the left of my profile which says "ignore user"? But, for the love of God, quit your nagging already.

Just to point out that you quoted me as saying something that I believe threesixty said in the second quote.

[Jake_Ellison]

Just to point out that you quoted me as saying something that I believe threesixty said in the second quote.

Yes, sorry. I mixed up the quotes. It was actually written by mrocktor.

[kainscalia]

360, if you're even still around, I think you need to sit down and first think about this in the following manner:

* What has been Iran's position, as far as the initiation of force, since the 70s? Has it been a pacifist country? Has it refrained from supporting terrorist groups, funded operations against other countries (the US in particular) etcetera?

* If you find, as you will undoubtedly find unless your historical research is incomplete, that Iran has constantly been an aggressor or supporter of aggression (which is the *initiation* of force)- what is the proper way of dealing with it? You advocate pacifism, and I think you are not fully grasping the position of Objectivism towards force:

No-one may initiate force against anyone. To initiate force when none has been used is to reject that we are thinking, rational beings and we are capable of solving our disputes through rational methods. However, when someone initiates force against you it is immoral for you not to defend your life from an action that seeks to destroy it and the values upon which it has been founded. By being the initiator of force, Iran has renounced any protection from force - what is worse, Iran is a forceful thug with its own populace, ranging from its oppressive and stifling, primitive laws to the suppression of protests and free speech, to the cold-blooded murder of people like Neda Aghan Soltani. As a purveyor of terror without and within, it is one of the most corrupt and debauched governments on earth, and an abomination to anyone who claims logic and individual rights as their standards of life for the individual.

I understand that you may be attracted to the prospect of peace as an inclusion of the desire to solve problems rationally and through intelligent discourse--- however, there are men with whom you cannot dialogue, men who want nothing more than to watch the world burn under their feet. You can't sit down to eat with the cannibal simply because he is holding a fork. Part of knowing the good is to uphold the good, even though sometimes the actions may be to your dislike. But the responsibility for those actions does not fall with you, but rather it is the initiator of violence who bears all the responsibility, as by his actions he has forced you into a situation in which you either engage in force to defend your life or lose it in the long or short term.

War may be 'hell on earth', but if it is then it is the hell the initiator of force has begged for with open arms. When force is brought into the argument it boils down to whether you approach the situation with justice and give each party what they deserve in accordance to their actions in the context of objective reality, or wait for them to visit whatever irrational destruction they value unto you.

Edited January 13, 2010 by kainscalia

[mrocktor]

Now that is the proper sort of response to someone who does not understand something.

[FeatherFall]

Ditto, Mroctor. It's a shame Kainscalia didn't reach this thread before it flamed out.

[JASKN]

I haven't insulted anyone, all I'm doing is posting my exact opinion. I'm not looking to be nice, and I'm not looking to coddle your feelings.

[...]

I can voice my opinion with no regard to your sensibilities precisely because I don't aim to make you like me, in any way shape or form. Unlike in real life, where I can't just tell my friend he's clueless about the fine points of Objectivism, when he goes on a tare about Ethics for imaginary aliens and robots, I can do that to you. And that's because you're not my friend.

Not to completely hijack the thread, but you're presenting a false alternative. Why not be polite, even nice, while expressing your views? Isn't that the entire point of etiquette, to act as the oil in social interactions of all kinds, even internet forums? I simply do not understand your view that one should stop being cordial to strangers simply because they are not friends.

Furthermore, why would you walk on eggshells with your friends instead of being upfront with them? Wouldn't they be more likely to understand your true meaning despite some direct, unpleasant observations you may make about them or their ideas? Even accepting the view in your post, shouldn't it be the opposite?

[Capitalism Forever]

Now that is the proper sort of response to someone who does not understand something.

Yes, and that is the sort of response that was given to threesixty in the first few comments of the thread. His reaction?

Thank You. After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.

[Capitalism Forever]

BTW, you guys ought to watch the video in the link and then read how threesixty describes it. It is basically a 100% pure misrepresentation of what Dr. Brook says.

[CWEarl]

Now that is the proper sort of response to someone who does not understand something.

It is better than my response to be sure.

However, at the time I put my response, I was puzzled by threesixty's post. Why take the bother to post something like that on an Objectivist discussion group. People who want to learn something ask reasonable questions. People who basically insult and announce their departure don't appear to want to learn anything.

[kainscalia]

To be fair I imagined that 360 would probably be gone by this point, but I thought it would be helpful to have a full and very explicit reply for reference's sake in case we ever have someone with the same angle to his questions. I am not entirely sure 360 was interested in learning something about Objectivism as he was in actively finding out on what he could disagree with the philosophy- but this is speculation, and if 360 is around still I wouldn't mind being corrected.

Edited January 13, 2010 by kainscalia

[threesixty]

To be fair I imagined that 360 would probably be gone by this point, but I thought it would be helpful to have a full and very explicit reply for reference's sake in case we ever have someone with the same angle to his questions. I am not entirely sure 360 was interested in learning something about Objectivism as he was in actively finding out on what he could disagree with the philosophy- but this is speculation, and if 360 is around still I wouldn't mind being corrected.

Actually i like objectivism's ideas and have been watching ARI videos for a while(year or so). Also i like Dr. Yaron Brook's commentaries on Pajamas TV. But when it comes to war - i am against it by all means. Call it irrational, but i will never agree with it(unless someone will drop nuclear bomb on the "west" country).

[softwareNerd]

But when it comes to war - i am against it by all means. Call it irrational, but i will never agree with it(unless someone will drop nuclear bomb on the "west" country).

Don't you agree that one should defend oneself from an aggressor? In particular, imagne a situation where the bully is the weaker one by far; how does it make sense to appease such a bully? Edited January 13, 2010 by softwareNerd

[threesixty]

Don't you agree that one should defend oneself from an aggressor? In particular, imagne a situation where the bully is the weaker one by far; how does it make sense to appease such a bully?

Yes, but in the war their would be innocent civilians who will be hurt. What about them? Is this fair to sacrifice others just because we THINK the war is justified?

[EC]

Yes, but in the war their would be innocent civilians who will be hurt. What about them? Is this fair to sacrifice others just because we THINK the war is justified?

First, innocent civilians in the United States have already been hurt and worse killed. Second, Iran is building nuclear weapons to hurt and kill many, many more. This is their object as they have said publicly countless times. They want to kill Americans, this is their ultimate goal. The threat of violence is the initiation of violence when the threat is credible and a full attempt is being made to create the means to accomplish the threat.

Any foreign "innocents" (which is hard to call most of them since most would support the governments actions at least if not in practice) who where killed as a result of a retaliation would actually be killed as a result of Iran's actions. In other words, even though American bombs might be the metaphysical cause of their deaths the moral blame would be solely on the Iranian government. The bloods on their hands; as they like it.

If by "THINK" you mean we would only believe that the war is justified you would be incorrect since there is a thing objective and absolute knowledge and morality. Belief takes no part.

The failure to understand -- or worse, to understand but not to acknowledge -- the fundamental difference between deliberately targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians in the course of self-defense reflects moral obtuseness at best and outright bigotry at worst.-- Alan Dershowitz

All the reasons which made the initiation of physical force evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.--Ayn Rand

Edited January 13, 2010 by EC

[Jake_Ellison]

Not to completely hijack the thread, but you're presenting a false alternative.

Politeness and being cordial isn't black and white, the way morality is. There are levels of politeness, which interfere with speaking your mind to various degrees. For instance, attacking one's religion or anything they feel strongly about, just because they happened to mention it, isn't friendly (by definition, if something tends to destroy a relationship, that's not friendly), but it is fully honest. It can be done in the context of a debate of the subject, not in the context of a Sunday morning soccer game in which your friend mentions he has to get home from Church before he can make it to the game.

I prefer to not debate religion with religious friends for this very reason. On the other hand, if you tell me you're religious, I assume you're looking for a debate, and will not be as considerate to you as I am to a friend who mentions it.

Furthermore, why would you walk on eggshells with your friends instead of being upfront with them? Wouldn't they be more likely to understand your true meaning despite some direct, unpleasant observations you may make about them or their ideas?

No, political discussions that are fully honest can shatter even the best friendships. Honest responses to questions asked is not the same as an honest rebuttal of everything a person is saying. As far as politics and logic is concerned, I can rationally pick apart pretty much everything a person is saying, if they are not well versed in the subject. And, when one does that, one may come across as an "ass". Which is what Mrocktor is objecting to.

And all I've been is honest and direct, at the expense of Mrocktor, in another thread, never insulting. I invited him to correct me if I have been wrong, in that thread, and he ignored the invitation. Instead, he continues to post cowardly, off topic little quips at me in this thread, and quite frankly that tells me everything i need to know about his character.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

Yes, but in the war their would be innocent civilians who will be hurt. What about them? Is this fair to sacrifice others just because we THINK the war is justified?

You don't seem to understand the argument for use of force. First, the reason is not 'just because we think a war is justified', it is because a war actually and objectively is justified. You yourself at least seem to accept that war might be justified if someone drops nuclear bombs on us, so you do accept war if you think it is justified. If you're actually a pacifist, then you have to be absolutely opposed to war, which means that you are willing to commit suicide to avoid war -- if you advocate that, then yes, you are irrational.

Now the fact of the matter is that innocents are being hurt all the time, and more importantly, there is a grave threat that very many innocents will be severely hurt (obliterated) in the future, if Iran continues on its present course. Look at the cold, hard facts of Iran, and forget the "beliefs".

[Zip]

When someone drops a nuclear bomb on the (West) country It'll be too fricken late for you and a goodly number of those innocent civilians you seem to care so much about.

Sorry, the idea that you will fight them when they come to your doorstep is a plan for loosing everything you care about in slow and ever more painful and debasing increments.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I was always unsure as to why Ayn Rand wanted War with Iraq over oil, and why many objectivists say so.

Accoridng to Ayn, Iraq stole the oil from us. When did they do that?

The wells and drilling rigs were ours. The oil was nobody's until it was brought to the surface.

Bob Kolker

[kainscalia]

The question here is this, threesixty:

Is it proper for you to fail to defend yourself and that which you know to be the good, because an immoral dictator or thug is holding innocents hostage?

Again, we must remember that there can be no morality applied at the point of a gun, and the steps the dictator in question has taken towards pushing you and others into such a state can only fall on his shoulders.

The situation is intolerable, I agree, when you have to contemplate the possibility of harming innocents, but it is important to understand that it is not you who has taken that decision--- it is the tyrants who have.

In fact, terrorists and tyrants count on the scruples of the pacifists to grant them permanence: they know that your first reaction will probably be to let them be so that no innocents are harmed- just like the Palestinian terrorists who hide their caches and their members amongst innocent civilians- they are counting on the good to be impotent when held hostage.

Unfortunately there is something you are not taking into consideration in this scenario: By letting the tyrant be, you are essentially sanctioning the continuation of his tactics and the many victims of them to come in the future. While innocents may indeed be harmed by storming the throne room -so to speak- you have to realize that in this case it is a lose-lose scenario: innocents will die, whether by the hand of the totalitarian government or as victims of accidental friendly fire. No thinking and rational human being likes that, but the point is that you need to understand that what you like and what has to be done at times are two different things altogether. You are reacting to a series of violent events and attack initiated by a thug, all you can morally do is defend yourself and destroy the thug by whatever means necessary (since we're talking about an actual dictatorship here, this means they are beyond the court of civil law and in the realm of military action) to ensure your safety and his neutralization.

After all is said and done, the innocents who were killed in the attack are not to be blamed on those who resisted and fought against the tyrant, but on the tyrant himself- and, should he still be alive after it, he should be made to pay their deaths (on top of all other accumulated crimes) with the harshest possible sentence.

You can try and take all precautions and do everything within your power to keep innocents safe. It may work, or it may not work at all because the tyrant *will* use them to his benefit. It is regrettable and sad that innocents are killed, but it essentially boils down to this:

Pacifism is the stance that you will not allow yourself to go to war against an immoral thug who has initiated force against you and others because you do not want to have the blood of possible innocents, in your hands, so essentially you would prefer that the thug slaughter them by himself and thus free you from emotional anxiety. Philosophically, aren't you sacrificing the innocents there for the sake of feeling better about yourself by not participating in the killing?

Sometimes when you do the right thing things don't always turn out well, because someone got there first and started breaking everything. All that refraining from stopping this person will do is allow them to do it over and over and over again.

What could possibly be the Good in that?

Yes, but in the war their would be innocent civilians who will be hurt. What about them? Is this fair to sacrifice others just because we THINK the war is justified?

Edited January 14, 2010 by kainscalia

[threesixty]

The question here is this, threesixty:

Is it proper for you to fail to defend yourself and that which you know to be the good, because an immoral dictator or thug is holding innocents hostage?

Again, we must remember that there can be no morality applied at the point of a gun, and the steps the dictator in question has taken towards pushing you and others into such a state can only fall on his shoulders.

The situation is intolerable, I agree, when you have to contemplate the possibility of harming innocents, but it is important to understand that it is not you who has taken that decision--- it is the tyrants who have.

In fact, terrorists and tyrants count on the scruples of the pacifists to grant them permanence: they know that your first reaction will probably be to let them be so that no innocents are harmed- just like the Palestinian terrorists who hide their caches and their members amongst innocent civilians- they are counting on the good to be impotent when held hostage.

Unfortunately there is something you are not taking into consideration in this scenario: By letting the tyrant be, you are essentially sanctioning the continuation of his tactics and the many victims of them to come in the future. While innocents may indeed be harmed by storming the throne room -so to speak- you have to realize that in this case it is a lose-lose scenario: innocents will die, whether by the hand of the totalitarian government or as victims of accidental friendly fire. No thinking and rational human being likes that, but the point is that you need to understand that what you like and what has to be done at times are two different things altogether. You are reacting to a series of violent events and attack initiated by a thug, all you can morally do is defend yourself and destroy the thug by whatever means necessary (since we're talking about an actual dictatorship here, this means they are beyond the court of civil law and in the realm of military action) to ensure your safety and his neutralization.

After all is said and done, the innocents who were killed in the attack are not to be blamed on those who resisted and fought against the tyrant, but on the tyrant himself- and, should he still be alive after it, he should be made to pay their deaths (on top of all other accumulated crimes) with the harshest possible sentence.

You can try and take all precautions and do everything within your power to keep innocents safe. It may work, or it may not work at all because the tyrant *will* use them to his benefit. It is regrettable and sad that innocents are killed, but it essentially boils down to this:

Pacifism is the stance that you will not allow yourself to go to war against an immoral thug who has initiated force against you and others because you do not want to have the blood of possible innocents, in your hands, so essentially you would prefer that the thug slaughter them by himself and thus free you from emotional anxiety. Philosophically, aren't you sacrificing the innocents there for the sake of feeling better about yourself by not participating in the killing?

Sometimes when you do the right thing things don't always turn out well, because someone got there first and started breaking everything. All that refraining from stopping this person will do is allow them to do it over and over and over again.

What could possibly be the Good in that?

That's a great post. I think you are right.

Thanks to objectivism i have overcome religion fog, maybe soon i will be able to handle this pacifism ideas too.

[mrocktor]

and quite frankly that tells me everything i need to know about his character.

The fact that I care nothing about your opinion about me should tell you something. The fact that I don't thing you are worth any effort in engaging should tell you something. The fact that you present no arguments explains why you get no arguments back. The fact that you act the way you do explains why you get flamed in various threads.

Why this post and the previous ones in this thread? Two reasons. One. You are free to be annoying, dogmatic, uncivil to the extent the moderators permit (which by far surpasses what it used to be back when I joined). You are not free to escape the consequences of your attitude. But you knew that.

Incidentally, the original poster has since given quite clear indications that he is actually interested in Objectivism and is in the process of learning something. So, once more, you are wrong. As is Capitalism Forever in supporting your behavior based on the assumption that threesixty is a troll. He would, in fact, be wrong even if it were a troll, since this forum is read by many more people than those who post here.

Two. Had better people not participated in this thread, a casual passer by might draw the conclusion "Objectivists are jerks" from your posts. That is why I bothered to participate here - and several others I'll wager.

That's a great post. I think you are right.

Thanks to objectivism i have overcome religion fog, maybe soon i will be able to handle this pacifism ideas too.

This is a long but very good article you should read: link.

[Capitalism Forever]

As is Capitalism Forever in supporting your behavior based on the assumption that threesixty is a troll.

I didn't assume he was a troll, and I don't think Jake did, either. We just identified the irrational elements in his postings.

Also, deciding not to take moderator action is not the same thing as supporting someone's behavior. If I deleted every post I didn't like, there'd be very few of your posts left, buddy!

Oh, and BTW:

annoying, dogmatic, uncivil to the extent the moderators permit (which by far surpasses what it used to be back when I joined).

You joined in September 2005. I've been a moderator here since April 2004. If there's been a change, don't ascribe it to me.

[DavidOdden]

The topic of this thread is the question whether Yaron Brook, in his interview, was correctly identifying the Objectivist position w.r.t. the fake "war on terrorism" and the proper action that should be taken against Islamic totalitarianism. It is not about whether anyone is being a troll, a jerk, clueless, rude, or whatever. Please stay on topic and save personal condemnations for a separate threat or for PMs.

[mrocktor]

EDIT: Per David's request (simu-post).

Edited January 14, 2010 by mrocktor