Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Slapping N. Branden

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

With all of the details remaining as they are, you don't suppose that professional and personal separation, and the tarnishing of reputations, and etc., qualifies as justice?

I've been wronged by people in the past, and suffered my share of emotional hurt. I've never sought to attack them physically as a part of any "justice." I reserve force for self-defense. Do you think I'm wrong to do so? Should I hit people instead, when upset?  :)

Well, there are still loads of people (one showed up in this thread) who demonize Rand for how she treated Brandon -- and this is decades later! She obviously thought it was right for her to treat Brandon how she did, based on what happened between them.

 

I don't think all force is the same. A slap isn't a severed leg isn't an ended life. Likewise, all wrongdoing people do to each other isn't the same. To me, if one lover lies to another for years, a slap isn't all he deserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no moral breach when a woman slaps a lover for lying to her, assuming she might not have given him the superdupervalue were it not for the lie.

The only potential wrong here is: did Miss Rand deceive her husband about the affair.

REASONABLE DOUBT: Maybe she had an "open marriage" of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thenelli:  Which sort of morality are you talking about? "Immoral" to whom?

 

 I presumed the morality of rational selfishness, in which one could be, only or primarily, immoral to oneself (by evasion, self-sacrifice, etc) . 

 

O'ism doesn't deduce morality FROM the non-initiation of force principle. (I may be badly off here, but my impression is that that concept is related more to libertarianism).

 

Objectivist ethics, rather, is applied TO the NIOF principle. (By way of individual rights, which are the "logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his actions with others" - I quoted.

Given Rand's rationally selfish morality then, would you now ask if slapping NB was immoral - by her, and Objectivist standards?

 

I wasn't "suggesting" very much in my post #9, but only indicated my lack of full certainty; that's why you will see question marks after both my mentions of "immorality."

 

It is the Objectivist position that it is immoral to initiate physical force because of the negative impact it has on man qua man.

 

Peikoff lecture:

 

Reason is man's basic means of survival; further, rational thought is a volitional process; it cannot be forced. But to initiate force is to demand that the victim act apart from or contrary to his own thought and evaluation, which renders his thinking irrelevant. Force directed at the body interferes with the mind's proper functioning. 

 

To initiate force is to reject every virtue that you should be practicing while simultaneously attacking in your victims every aspect of the moral life.

 

Can only achieve the negative (in the victim): Frustration, despair, non-motivation, non-thought, resentment, passivity, non-evaluation.

 

Men need to be free to choose their own values. Initiation of force negates man's ability to think and choose. 

 

Are you arguing that:

 

A) This isn't the Objectivist position. (after all, Peikoff isn't Ayn Rand)

B] It isn't absolute.

C) It is not immoral to violate principles

 

 

Peikoff in Art of Thinking:

 

Q: Do men always function by principles even if they are haphazard ill-formed principles? Whether they want to or not?

A: Yes and No. Can evade principles, but cannot turn off subconscious which will integrate anyway.

If unprincipled consciously then will be principled subconsciously in a bad sense. You can't escape some integration but you can easily escape the good. Good requires work, effort, attention.

see OPAR Integrity, the principle of being principled.

 

D. None of the above.

 

(please pick one)

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NIF principle is not a blanket statement on the use of force in any and all human interaction , that would make participation in most sports immoral. It is immoral to initiate force to deprive someone of their use of reason to gain or keep values.

A slap from a scorned lover is at most an amoral action. A single knife thrust would be a different animal, but this particular example is that of an apparent single slap in response to emotional turmoil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She obviously thought it was right for her to treat Brandon how she did, based on what happened between them.

How do you figure that? People only ever act in ways that they believe to be right? People do not act emotionally at times, and then later consider themselves to have acted inappropriately?

And is this the same as claiming that any action that Ayn Rand ever committed must be consonant with the philosophy of Objectivism? Or do you believe that it is possible that Rand could ever have acted in some fashion that would not be moral, per Objectivism?

 

I don't think all force is the same. A slap isn't a severed leg isn't an ended life.

You're right. A slap isn't a severed leg isn't an ended life. Was that at issue? Did I claim otherwise?

 

Likewise, all wrongdoing people do to each other isn't the same.

Okay. But does this help us to answer whether we're discussing an instance of wrongdoing? Because I had thought that was the issue.

 

To me, if one lover lies to another for years, a slap isn't all he deserved.

To you?

Do you suppose that we should all draw our individual lines on when, and and to what extent, it is appropriate to respond physically to emotional distress, in initiating the use of force? Or is it right to forbear from physical violence, except in retaliation, and then alone?

Do you have a principled stand on the issue of the use of force? If so, what? Is it similar to the principled stand that Rand set forward, time and again, in her writings, where she held that to initiate the use of force is wrong? Because I believe that by her writings, we must hold that she was wrong to hit Branden. Do you disagree?

 

The NIF principle is not a blanket statement on the use of force in any and all human interaction , that would make participation in most sports immoral.

You're right in that not all human physical contact is the use of force in the sense we're discussing. There is a difference between a slap versus a caress or a kiss, as generally understood, although in some cases a caress or a kiss can itself be a use of force, and in other cases a slap is not. The physical contact in football or hockey -- to some extent, at least -- is not a matter of force in the sense in which Rand spoke, nor would be a slap delivered as a part of a stage play, with all parties agreed to it. We recognize that in some situations there is a consent given to physical contact, even violent and rough physical contact, and that this is not what we're discussing when we're discussing "the use of force."

And if Rand and Branden had some agreement by which hitting one another was allowed, as in certain cases of sports, or theater, or sex, then fine. But that's not the question before us at all. We're not discussing anything akin to whether or not physical violence is moral within the context of sport, just as assisted euthanasia, performed with consent, does not help us to understand the immoral nature of murder.

 

It is immoral to initiate force to deprive someone of their use of reason to gain or keep values.

It is immoral to initiate force. We don't need to further try to establish whatever values might be at stake (though I replied to you earlier with just such a value, for the present matter -- the value of avoiding physical pain) or how "reason" comes into play in every individual case.

If someone walks along the street and simply lashes out against another in a random act of violence, and for symmetry's sake, we'll say with a slap, they might not be "depriving someone of their use of reason to gain or keep values" in any manner that you'd apparently be willing to recognize... Thus you would contend that this is not the sort of stuff that Rand was speaking out against, in decrying the initiation of the use of force? You think that Objectivism doesn't weigh in on the (im)morality of such an act? It's what, in your view? "Amoral?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check your premises. Lying is a type of indirect use of force when done to gain or keep a value. Branden might've lied to get nookie.

Use of force in retaliation is a moral act. Miss Rand might've slapped him as retaliation.

When money is obtained by fraud the courts are delegated to retaliate with force. When nookie is obtained by fraud, IT WOULD BE IMMORAL TO NOT SLAP THE DUDE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check your premises. Lying is a type of indirect use of force when done to gain or keep a value. Branden might've lied to get nookie.

Use of force in retaliation is a moral act. Miss Rand might've slapped him as retaliation.

When money is obtained by fraud the courts are delegated to retaliate with force. When nookie is obtained by fraud, IT WOULD BE IMMORAL TO NOT SLAP THE DUDE.

 

 

I allege Branden initiated force.

Fraud is force.

 

 

Sex is a value that can be obtained by fraud, which is an initiation of an indirect use of force.

A slap is a completely moral act of retaliation. Not an initiation.

Let's suppose you're right -- Nathaniel Branden initiated the use of force against Ayn Rand! What now? Rand is therefore acting morally in retaliating with physical force? As far as I can tell, not according to her:

 

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure that?

[...]

You're right. A slap isn't a severed leg isn't an ended life. Was that at issue? Did I claim otherwise?

[...]

To you?

[...]

Do you suppose that we should all draw our individual lines on when, and and to what extent, it is appropriate to respond physically to emotional distress, in initiating the use of force? Or is it right to forbear from physical violence, except in retaliation, and then alone?

Do you have a principled stand on the issue of the use of force?

[...]

And if Rand and Branden had some agreement by which hitting one another was allowed, as in certain cases of sports, or theater, or sex, then fine.

[...]

If someone walks along the street and simply lashes out against another in a random act of violence[...]

Here I was referring to her denouncing Brandon and the disputed damage to his reputation -- not her supposed slap.

My point about levels of force vs. levels of wrongdoing was that a lying lover does real life damage to people -- not just emotional scarring. Property, time allocated, etc. are affected, in this case for years. If the lover hadn't lied, countless life-altering decisions would have been made differently. A slap is a small price to pay for the real damage that was done.

I said, "To me, ..." in order to indicate my judgement of a complicated matter. I didn't intend to imply that my judgement trumps reality.

It is right to do right to yourself -- not just to take a blanket "no force, period, no questions" stance. We don't use force against people because we recognize their right to freely choose their own life. However, if they are freely choosing to mess up your life, I think they've lost the expectation to be left alone in return.

Did you mean that if Brandon had afterward decided that a slap was justified, that Rand would be "in the clear," and moral?

(Rand:) The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

I agree with this, in principle. However, if you have good reason to expect no justice from the court system, and if you're willing to risk the chance of court retribution afterward against yourself, I don't think it is necessarily immoral to dole out the justice yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's suppose you're right -- Nathaniel Branden initiated the use of force against Ayn Rand! What now? Rand is therefore acting morally in retaliating with physical force? As far as I can tell, not according to her:

Again, I'm sorry for calling you a pussy; I was half-joking and I shouldn't have said it. I will try to improve my manners.

AR was speaking in the context of government's proper role when she made the statement you quoted.

In certain contexts, it's okay for an individual to retaliate.

AR said, "A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man."

I delegate the use of force to government but, with no cops around & time is of the essence, or instances where laws don't exist (like nookie fraud), it's not only my right to use force against the initiator, it's a moral imperative.

I say, "Nathaniel sought to gain a value, nookie, by lying to his victim; the victim did not gain a value by slapping him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here I was referring to her denouncing Brandon and the disputed damage to his reputation -- not her supposed slap.

Oh, well, I have no idea whether or not all of that was justified, nor even how to assess such a thing coming from where and when I do. I don't mean to try to judge it one way or the other. I brought it up only because it seemed like you were suggesting that, apart from a slap or other expression of physical violence, Rand had no recourse for "retribution" or "justice" against the wrongs done to her... but I think she found plenty of recourse!

 

My point about levels of force vs. levels of wrongdoing was that a lying lover does real life damage to people -- not just emotional scarring. Property, time allocated, etc. are affected, in this case for years. If the lover hadn't lied, countless life-altering decisions would have been made differently.

What you're suggesting would not be limited to "lying lover's" alone, I'd hope, let alone Ayn Rand in this one specific historical context. We all make "life-altering decisions" on the basis of what we know of the people around us, and often mistakenly. Whether they lie to us directly, or if we consider their not sharing certain pertinent details to be "lies of omission," we may have a false picture of reality due to their words and actions, and act accordingly, and mistakenly.

So then, we're justified in meting out "justice" for this, in the form of physical attacks? I had a close friend once who did a terrible wrong to me, abetted by several lies over the course of years, and thereby ended the friendship. Our relationship had truly affected the course of my life in the senses you mention of "property, time allocated," etc., and "countless life-altering decisions," and so forth. As he did nothing wrong to me in the eyes of the law, I had no means of recourse that way. Are you saying to me that I would have been justified in assaulting him physically to redress the wrongs I judged him to have done to me?

As a separate question, do you believe that your position is consonant with Objectivism?

 

It is right to do right to yourself -- not just to take a blanket "no force, period, no questions" stance.

Did I say "no force, period"? I believe I've been talking about the initiation of force, which yes, Rand did seemingly did suggest a blanket stance against, and forcefully so. Many times:

 

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

And so on.

You would rather substitute these specific expressions of Rand's philosophy with "do right to yourself"? We could as well, and more fundamentally, reduce things to "be reasonable." Yet beyond the general advocacy of reason, Objectivism is a specific philosophical system that holds that "being reasonable" has certain particular necessary implications for Metaphysics, Epistemology, etc.

Similarly, Rand's Ethics and Politics don't stop with "do right to yourself." She had more to say about those subjects than that, and I believe that the centrality of a prohibition against the initiation of force has been well established. Rand did not allow for some loophole where you could decide for yourself that initiating force "in this case" is now somehow morally justified, just as there are not exemptions for altruism or socialism, or etc.

Given Objectivism, are there "blanket prohibitions" against altruism and socialism? I'd say so, wouldn't you? As a "reasonable man," I reject the idea of an a priori rejection of anything, altruism and socialism included. But what I mean when I describe myself as "an Objectivist," in part, is that I have indeed rejected socialism, and altruism, just as I have rejected the initiation of the use of force. There is no such thing as Objectivism with a little socialism, altruism, and initiation of force, on an ad hoc basis, as deemed necessary.

You may well believe that "doing right to yourself" sometimes means initiating the use of force, just as others believe that "being reasonable" means being a socialist, or acting altruistically, but these positions are not Objectivist, despite the fact that Objectivism holds that a man should be reasonable and do right to himself.

And I'm open to that. If you can make the case that, yes, we're morally justified in going around and seeking "justice" for ourselves in the form of physical assaults, when we feel hurt or lied to or etc., then I'd be happy to consider it. I think you'll have to do more than you've done till now, to make that case, but it's fine to disagree with Rand if one believes reason and reality to stand against her... I have and do disagree with her, when appropriate, and I do so clearly.

So let us at least be clear here about what we're talking about, if for the sake of courage alone if nothing else. It's not Rand's stated position, whatever may have led her to strike Branden in the case we've been discussing. It's not Objectivism. And using the Objectivist Ethics as our standard, Rand's action was wrong.

 

We don't use force against people because we recognize their right to freely choose their own life. However, if they are freely choosing to mess up your life, I think they've lost the expectation to be left alone in return.

"Freely choosing to mess up your life"? "[T]he expectation to be left alone in return"?

This language is so general, and vague, I have to imagine that it'd wind up allowing for just about anything. We're talking about the initiation of the use of force, remember, which Rand had Galt refer to as "the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive."

But you would attempt to justify just such a thing because, when someone "freely chooses to mess up your life," they lose "the expectation to be left alone in return"?

So I'm in a bar, and someone calls me a name, I'm justified in turning around and sucker punching them because they have freely chosen to mess up my life (per my standard of it, and I don't see that you've suggested any objective standard to use instead), and thus they've lost the expectation to be left alone in return!

Of course you'll disagree. You'll say that this is a different situation altogether, and of course it is. Every situation is different. But so far, I find that the only thing that makes Rand's situation "different" enough, not merely in degree but apparently also in kind, to warrant the defenses offered for it, and for her, is the fact that we're discussing Ayn Rand. She is prejudged to have acted correctly, seemingly at all times, and now our job is to find the proper phrasing to reach that conclusion in our arguments.

If you want to say that there's no moral prohibition against the initiation of the use of force -- that in the name of justice, we should all redress wrongs through physical violence -- then please lay out your beliefs to that effect. But I believe it is certainly a rejection of the Objectivist Ethics and Politics, and were people to take it seriously and try to apply it in their own lives, I expect disaster would result.

 

Did you mean that if Brandon had afterward decided that a slap was justified, that Rand would be "in the clear," and moral?

What? I don't know what you're referring to here, but no, that's not what I meant in any event.

 

I agree with this, in principle. However, if you have good reason to expect no justice from the court system, and if you're willing to risk the chance of court retribution afterward against yourself, I don't think it is necessarily immoral to dole out the justice yourself.

Sure! I believe in vigilante justice in a society gone wrong, too, when the courts are on the side of the criminals, and so forth. But this applied to our present example...?

Are you telling me that you believe that *in theory* the justice system should deal with cases like this one? That Rand's Politics hold that Branden did her a wrong that necessitates physical force being employed against him, in retribution? And that a proper court system would recognize that? And that Rand argued for this? But because we live in an immoral society, we can't trust the courts to deliver justice to Branden for the wrongs that he did?

Because that's what it seems like you're saying. 

 

Again, I'm sorry for calling you a pussy; I was half-joking and I shouldn't have said it. I will try to improve my manners.

You may start improving your manners by eschewing half-hearted apologies. "Half-joking"? Then I'm only half-joking when I say you're a brainless asshole.

"Sorry."

 

AR was speaking in the context of government's proper role when she made the statement you quoted.

In certain contexts, it's okay for an individual to retaliate.

You believe that Rand was not speaking about individuals when she said "the use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens"?

Because I think she's saying that the retaliatory use of physical force cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens.

Because those seem to be the words she chose to communicate her ideas.

Is it ever proper, in "certain contexts," for an individual to employ retaliatory force? Sure. In emergency scenarios where he's in danger (i.e. in immediate self-defense). Or when the system is broken. But neither of those apply here, and you don't have a blank check to run around enforcing your own personal brand of justice, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, when and where you believe "there ought to be a law." That's the very kind of "discretion of individual citizens" against which Rand is writing.

That's the very soul of anarchy.

 

or instances where laws don't exist (like nookie fraud), it's not only my right to use force against the initiator, it's a moral imperative.

You know, I don't expect a 41 year old man to use the term "nookie" with such regularity. It is as surprising as your earlier casual insult, which was your payback to me for taking the time and pains to try to set my thoughts down here in what could otherwise be a genial conversation.

Are you certain you're not fifteen? That would make much more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euthanasia and murder are different, but a slap from a lover and unprovoked strike from a stranger on the street are not? Btw , this whole discussion would have been avoided if O'ism had explicitly stated how to evaluate a slap from a lover.

Euthanasia and murder are different in kind, but not in degree. A slap from a lover and an unprovoked strike from a stranger are different in degree, but not in kind.

Three of these cases represent the initiation of the use of force, while euthanasia, which is the result of mutual consent, does not. And on the matter of the initiation of the use of force, Objectivism *does* explicitly render an evaluation: morally wrong.

 

 

Exactly. What's the point of a rational philosophy if we're just going to treat it as a mandate anyway?

What mandate are you talking about? I'm not telling you to do or not do anything, but I am saying that Objectivism holds the initiation of the use of force to be immoral. If you find the Objectivist position to be irrational, you're welcome to say so and make your case. But don't pretend as though Objectivism can be all things to all people -- whatever you happen to find correct in any given situation.

The point of a rational philosophy, incidentally, is to live well. Objectivism is not meant as a substitute for your use of reason, and it is a necessity to evaluate Objectivism and its principles and arguments and etc., to see whether you find it reasonable, generally and in every particular.

But Objectivism is what it is. We don't remake it, or pretend that Rand meant other than what she said, when we judge it convenient for ourselves (or emotionally necessary, for some reason) to try to excuse a little initiation of force here, a little irrationality there, and etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until my nation's broken system is fixed, meaning laws are put in place that afford legal recourse to woman who's been sexually violated due to a man's fraudulent claims, It's a moral imperative that the woman slap a man who lied to get nookie.

The system is broken. The virtue is justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until my nation's broken system is fixed, meaning laws are put in place that afford legal recourse to woman who's been sexually violated due to a man's fraudulent claims, It's a moral imperative that the woman slap a man who lied to get nookie.

The system is broken. The virtue is justice.

I disagree, but fair enough.

Similarly, I believe that it's a moral imperative that I beat anybody who calls me a pussy to a bloody pulp, should I ever meet him.

Well, I don't actually believe that, but perhaps in the name of philosophical experimentation, and to test out the implications of your own thoughts on this subject, I'll look for an opportunity to put it to the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implying that I violate Objectivist principles is a much more hurtful blow than someone calling me a pussy.

We're even.

For the sake of developing your understanding for the need for manners in discussions such as these (and elsewhere), and also because it's on topic, let's delve into this a little bit more.

What I want you to understand is this: when you insult me like that? Emotionally speaking? I am absolutely ready to rip your head off of your shoulders. To show you "who is the pussy." That's not anything I'm proud of, but it's a fact for me, and it's something I have to deal with, and have had to deal with my entire life. My father was a Marine. He raised me to not suffer a man to call me a name like that.

But what keeps me from getting into fights over things like this, I believe in the main, is that I am a man of principle (or perhaps JASKN would term it "mandate"). Specifically, I am an Objectivist, and I believe that one ought not initiate the use of force, or use force at all except in response to force. I do not use the standard of my own emotional hurt to allow me to "make exceptions," when it would be satisfying to me. I hold anything else to be immoral.

Whether you're aware of the implications of your arguments or not, though I've tried to draw them out and make them clear, this is what I believe you are arguing against.

And to clarify, I'm not implying that you violate Objectivist principles, but I am explicitly saying that what you're advocating in this thread is absolutely contrary to Rand's philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't blame you for feeling like beating me up. I would expect it. I come from a similar backround of violence (over 15 years in prison).

In 2009 AR showed me that acting on my emotions, without validated them via logic, is wrong. I think you concur.

You aknowledged that there are times when an individual retaliating with force is appropriate. We just disagree as to whether the Branden incident is one of those times.

If there was a US statute that protects a woman against a man who lied to gain her special value, I would agree that AR commited a moral breach by engaging in vigilante justice, instead of relying on the powers delegated to the state.

I'm not trying to be a wiseass when I say that Athos was always my favorite musketeer. (I've read and reread everything by Dumas--and Camille, by his son--at least five times. Prison is a great way to get a lot of reading done.)

I'm not implying I'm a good fighter. I have a losing record. You'd probably kick my ass.

Peace, Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aknowledged that there are times when an individual retaliating with force is appropriate. We just disagree as to whether the Branden incident is one of those times.

Well, we can clarify those times. (Though I also feel the need to state that I do not agree that Branden initiated the use of force in the first place; I'm merely granting that supposition to follow the implications of your argument out.)

Here are the times when an individual retaliating with force is appropriate -- in immediate self-defense. And when the justice system is broken.

It will not do to advocate that an individual can personally try to redress any and all perceived injustice within a system that functions overall. That's vigilantism, and as I said, the soul of anarchy, and the very thing against which Rand was writing in the quote I'd provided.

 

If there was a US statute that protects a woman against a man who lied to gain her special value, I would agree that AR commited a moral breach by engaging in vigilante justice, instead of relying on the powers delegated to the state.

But does Rand's Politics even call for such a statute, or provide the philosophical framework to justify it? Why wouldn't Rand herself call for such a thing, given that she is the one who is supposedly victimized here -- criminally victimized -- and in need of restoration/retribution?

I mean, if she felt that she was on the wrong end of an immense injustice, not merely perpetrated against her by Branden, but by the justice system itself, in that it does not recognize this category of crimes, and cannot therefore do its job on her behalf, forcing her into the role of a vigilante (whether that's even appropriate at all), I would expect that she would have said something clear on the matter at some point. Did she? If she did, I have yet to find it, and I would love for you to point it out to me.

 

I'm not trying to be a wiseass when I say that Athos was always my favorite musketeer. (I've read and reread everything by Dumas--and Camille, by his son--at least five times. Prison is a great way to get a lot of reading done.)

D'Artagnan was my favorite in the first novel, in my youth, but when I later read the rest of the series... yes, I ultimately far preferred Athos.

 

I'm not implying I'm a good fighter. I have a losing record. You'd probably kick my ass.

Peace, Man.

Hopefully we'll never know. I greatly prefer conversation to violence, and what's more? Polite conversation to insults and flames. If in the future we can all resolve to do what we can to maintain polite conversation, then yes, I believe we'll have peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I allege Branden initiated force.

Fraud is force.

Not true, Steve. Fraud is a legal/individual rights term in Objectivism, pertaining to non-payment or non-delivery of goods and services.

There was a discussion recently.

You are equating lying with 'fraud'. Lying is not initiation of force, although the "only real moral crime" one can do others, as Rand said.

The line has to be clear, and it has to revolve around first use of physical force, not about hurt feelings over deceit.

Rand initiated the force. She was wrong, but was she immoral? Is an instantaneous reaction to hurt, with a slap, anywhere in the same ball-park as the full purpose and intent for NIOF, enunciated by Peikoff and Rand in quotes up above? We can't ignore context and degree.  

 

But I have much, much less interest in that private and sadly personal incident, than I have in the over all perspective.

I ask myself if an absolute, categorical imperative should ever replace one's independent judgment.

I think I showed earlier that NIOF is not an absolute, in that there can be moral and necessary exemptions. I have to ask if NIOF is intended to protect the moral from the immoral - as its primary motive.

Or is it intended to circumscribe, or immobilize a mostly rational and moral person from, say - stopping a man torturing an animal?

Despite his values, he has to walk away...because the animal is owned by the man. His property, his rights - yeah?

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...