Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Slapping N. Branden

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

Rand initiated the force. She was wrong, but was she immoral?

Your language can be construed as to conflate "acting immorally" in a given situation with "being immoral," which is a different judgement altogether.

She acted immorally, yes, in slapping Branden. That's what we mean when we say "she was wrong." We're not talking about the mistake one might make on a math test, accidentally forgetting to carry the one, and thus being "wrong." She surrendered herself to her passion (I presume; although perhaps the slap was more calculated), and acted out, and that's often how we wind up acting immorally.

Was Ayn Rand an immoral human being? I don't think so.

 

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.

Yes, same ballpark if by ballpark we mean that Rand meant it when she said that it is wrong to initiate the use of force. It is in the same ballpark because that general principle has a specific application in the present scenario, even if we also recognize that a slap is not the same thing as a shotgun blast ("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.

Of course not. But by one's independent judgment, one can decide that a principle -- even one that holds the initiation of the use of force to be wrong -- is correct, "absolute within the context" of human interaction, and ought to be applied to every situation where humans interact, accordingly. It is in this manner that one may be "an Objectivist"; by holding Objectivism to be correct on this and other matters.

One may also decide that Objectivism is wrong, about this or anything else.

 

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?

Are you interested in animal rights? Does that make you feel upset, and want to act? I understand.

Suppose others (and I know of at least one on this site) feel equally upset by how children are treated, when raised by religious parents, and their minds are filled with all sorts of horrific irrationalities?

Are we supposed to just walk away from that?

There are many, many more cases where we may feel righteously angry (and even properly so) about how others are acting. But yes, I think that rational and moral men will circumscribe themselves from initiating force, even for the sake of "a good cause." I think that this is in part what it means to be "a rational and moral man."

Failing that, we have the criminal justice system, to stop these "rational and moral men" from their "moral and necessary" initiations of the use of force, which I would ultimately contend, per Objectivism, are neither moral nor necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 recognize that you are merely accepting my premise, that Branden was the initiator, for the sake of argument.

I assert the justification being a broken system or, more specifically, a system never built properly.

AR wouldn't have advocated for a specific statute against "fraud to obtain sex" because she was a philosopher who proved the principles to base such laws upon. She left the lawmaking, implementation, and enforcement up to experts in criminal law, who have accepted a rational ethics and understand governments role.

The principle is: no man shall obtain a value by force. The concept of fraud is obtaining a value by lying, which is indirect force.

The justification for retaliation is that no value is gained by the retaliation of the victim. The moral imperative is that if one does not retaliate, the virtue of justice is not applied, and it's result is that evil, unchecked, gains a stronger foothold in the world.

Monetary fraud is much easier for the men in the field of criminal law to address. slapping a man who conned me out of ten grand would be a move towards anarchy. The right thing to do would be to use the court system's delegated use of force.

And while you only accepted my premise, for the sake of argument, that Branden commited a non-monetary type of fraud for which there is no legal recourse: if my premise is correct, the slap was not only justified, but required by AR's moral imperative.

I recognize the necessity for the rule of law. I recognize the necessity to "fix the system," ie make laws against non-monetary types of fraud, so a woman has a better avenue of recourse other than a slap.

I wouldn't go so far as to make my Branden fraud premise a sex-offense, because I've seen what happens to sex-offenders in prison: it's brutal.

P.S. I'm not a sex-offender. (Guns and drugs and assaults and carjackings were my thing. 10 felonies.) I'm not that guy anymore. AR's philosophy saved my soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AR wouldn't have advocated for a specific statute against "fraud to obtain sex" because she was a philosopher who proved the principles to base such laws upon. She left the lawmaking, implementation, and enforcement up to experts in criminal law, who have accepted a rational ethics and understand governments role.

I still don't know why she wouldn't have advocated for a specific statute; yes she was a philosopher, and a novelist, but she was also a philosopher and a novelist who weighed in on specifics all the time, both as an advocate, and also as a means of demonstrating the application of her philosophy.

But beyond that specific statute, what we're talking about here is a *huge* change in the approach of the criminal justice system, as it deals with fraud. If Branden is held to have taken value from Rand by force, repeatedly over years, given everything I know about how she feels about force, then JASKN was quite right when he said that a slap should be the least of his punishment. We should rather be talking about a prison sentence, shouldn't we?

If Rand felt that Branden had committed criminal offenses against her, such that it would be appropriate to bring him before a court, but that the system not only does not have a specific statute that she could cite (although, why not have him charged on "fraud," which I do believe is against the law?)... but doesn't even have the proper philosophical orientation to even regard it as a criminal matter, as such, then... you really don't think she wouldn't write some essay in all those years to clarify her stance on what fraud is, and what it entails, and why it should apply to situations specifically like these?

It doesn't add up to me at all.

 

The principle is: no man shall obtain a value by force. The concept of fraud is obtaining a value by lying, which is indirect force.

If I were to lie to you and tell you that Rand had spoken to me in a dream and told me that I was right on this subject, and you were wrong, and if you were to consequently believe me, and reward me with the value of altering your participation in this thread to reflect our subsequent "agreement," I cannot see that I have "initiated the use of force against you."

If this were to happen, and you were to confront me afterwards and strike me, I think that a court would send you to jail for it. Not me. And properly so.

But would you say that my initial scenario should be illegal? That I should be criminally responsible, and subject to imprisonment or fine or other retributive force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Fraud is force. (An indirect use-of-force.)

I recognize the broken legal system only applies it to monetary loss, so you're right that, for lack of a better term, I'm misapplying the word.

But the principle is: Obtaining or keeping a value by deception.

Sex with a woman is a value that can be obtained or kept by deception.

Are powers delegated to the state to address this type of "fraud"? No.

When the justice system doesn't provide protections, can one reserve the right to retaliate against an indirect use-of-force? Yes.

The problem is with the justice systems inadequacies in the various types of non-monetary fraud, because it invites vigilante justice as the only avenue of recourse. (and that invites anarchy.)

I say fix the system but until then, a woman has the right to take the matter into her own hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say fix the system but until then, a woman has the right to take the matter into her own hand.

We can carry this to its logical end, can't we? (Or at least one such end.)

Suppose that a man learns that his lover of twenty years has been cheating on him, all that time. There is no legal recourse to redress this gross instance of fraud (or however we would view twenty years of it, as being one violation, or potentially thousands). So he beats her to within an inch of her life, accounting that the justice that the broken system denies him.

Morally justified?

If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos -

There are two things being discussed. First, when you are lied to, is force ever appropriate as a response? Second, is the government the only appropriate "issuer" of retribution in the form of force?

Also, I'm no expert in law, so I'll just have to say "sorry" if you're not happy with my generalities applying principles in the form of law. Finally, earlier I suggested removing Rand from this discussion altogether since we don't know what happened for sure. You seem to be sensitive to godlike defense of her, understandably so. I really don't care at all if she ever did something wrong. I only keep bringing her up because this discussion isn't leaving her be in favor of some other example, and we've already kind of established her as the hypothetical.

You are really emphasizing Rand's explicit, written word on force in your replies, which could be helpful. However, nowhere in these quotes is an explanation of her statements. Like this, without explanation or context, they simply read as mandates, as I said before.

Courts can't be the arbiter for all wrongdoing, everywhere. It works for most things, and so we use it. It wouldn't work at all if everyone didn't agree that it has the last word, when it is used. It also can't work where a law can't be applied objectively. It's not always in a person's interest to use the law, either. Time constraints, seriousness of loss from the wrongdoing, chance of winning in court, etc. are reasons you might decide to deal with things yourself instead of court proceedings.

If deciding for yourself what constitutes justice is "the heart if anarchy," where do laws come from at all? Some wrongdoing isn't even possible to fix with laws. What are we to do in those cases? If someone steals from you and you are sure there is no way to prove it, and your idea of justice is a punch in the face, I see nothing necessarily wrong with that. The entire point of a justice system is to keep men free and to figure out what to do when they interfere with each others' freedom. Someone somewhere has to have made the decisions about penalties and such -- individual "vigilantes." The difference between laws and your own personal judgement of justice isn't necessarily in the justice being served, it's in the public nature of the laws. The point is still to serve justice. We use laws because you can't judge all men personally in all disputes. Objective laws are a way to bypass the need to evaluate all disputes between all men for yourself, instead trusting that a system is trying to honestly adhere to an objective code.

You said that mutually-agreed-upon force is ok, as in a sporting event. So, I asked, if Brandon had decided, without appealing to the court system, that Rand was correct to give him a slap, would you then consider the slap moral and consistent with the Objectivist views on force and justice? Why do you think force is a blanket moral imperative between all dealings of men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But would you say that my initial scenario should be illegal? That I should be criminally responsible, and subject to imprisonment or fine or other retributive force?

No. In your scenario, I would not qualify the value-obtained-by-deceipt worthy of prosecution or litigation, and my retaliation should only consist of some type of verbal admonition.

There has to be a minimum threshold, and specific criteria for each particular level of "fraud" on up, based on objective, concrete standards. That's why the details: wording of statutes, classifications (civil, petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor, felony class A, B, or C/1st, 2nd or 3rd degree), filing suit or criminal charges, indictment procedures, rules of evidence, sentencing guidelines, restitution?, etc., is a job for criminal law experts.

The philosopher's job is to supply the principles.

I recognize that AR pointed out the evils of the draft, and anti-trust laws, and taxation, and more, and she could've also wrote an essay on the need for non-monetary "fraud" laws. But her having a personal stake in it might be the reason she didn't. Especially with the news of the distasteful events that could've surfaced, regarding her motivation.

Your scenario is a valid analogy, but it shows that non-monetary "fraud" still requires context (a minimum threshold), and that doesn't imply victims under the threshold of legal recourse have the right to slap their victimizer, because anything below the threshold shouldn't be an instance where a slap is appropriate.

Accepting my sex-fraud premise for argument's sake, and my premise that if the state doesn't properly protect it's citizens, the citizens have the right to protect themselves, and my premise that checking evil--slap!--can be a protection against future evil and a direct avenue of recourse (for unprotected citizen's), then the moral breach was not with AR, it was with Branden, and then compounded by a justice system that doesn't offer women protection against men who obtain sex, that would've been denied otherwise, by deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can carry this to its logical end, can't we? (Or at least one such end.)

Suppose that a man learns that his lover of twenty years has been cheating on him, all that time. There is no legal recourse to redress this gross instance of fraud (or however we would view twenty years of it, as being one violation, or potentially thousands). So he beats her to within an inch of her life, accounting that the justice that the broken system denies him.

Morally justified?

If not, why not?

No the punishment must fit the crime. In the same way that a judge doesn't give a man the electric chair for stealing a loaf of bread, a moral woman doesn't shoot her lover in the cheek for obtaining sex via deceipt.

Most people are immoral in the rational sense, and that's why the justice system needs to be fixed: to avoid leaving citizens no alternatives other than, no recourse, or vigilante justice.

If there are protections in place, vigilante justice is wrong.

There were no protections in place for the victim, Miss Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fraud is force. (An indirect use-of-force.)

I recognize the broken legal system only applies it to monetary loss, so you're right that, for lack of a better term, I'm misapplying the word.

But the principle is: Obtaining or keeping a value by deception.

Sex with a woman is a value that can be obtained or kept by deception.

Are powers delegated to the state to address this type of "fraud"? No.

When the justice system doesn't provide protections, can one reserve the right to retaliate against an indirect use-of-force? Yes.

The problem is with the justice systems inadequacies in the various types of non-monetary fraud, because it invites vigilante justice as the only avenue of recourse. (and that invites anarchy.)

I say fix the system but until then, a woman has the right to take the matter into her own hand.

Rand is most specific on "fraud". I double-checked the single passage to make sure (in the Lex). 

 

She refers to "obtaining material values without their owners' consent, under false pretences or false promises." (Note, not "obtaining or keeping a value by deception".)

You missed out "material".

 

Fraud involves deceit, but deceit is not fraud, in O'ism. And "material values" are not (here) related to emotional or sexual matters.

 

The State has no business protecting one from lies NOT involving material goods. 

The liar commits an immorality, but the physical act of violence taken against him (purportedly as 'personal justice') is an infringement of his individual rights, and must be illegal. 

 

Please fix your definition, or it becomes a red herring confusing the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please fix your definition, or it becomes a red herring confusing the debate.

Material values include goods and services. Not just goods. Sex can qualify as a service, but in this context it might not, so I will not use "fraud" anymore when referring to obtaining the value (sex) by deceipt.

The courts place a monetary value on emotional distress, but I'm not saying that someone who caused another mental "harm" initiated force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are laws against libel, filing a false police report, & purgery. All of which are not fraud (have no gain of a material value).

So non-fraud types of deception, lies, false pretenses, misleading info, or whatever you wanna call it, is protected against by the US justice system. So it's not outside government's current (proper) role.

Lying to a person to gain a value is wrong. Sex is a value (whether it's material or not is up for debate).

Should there be no legal avenue of justice for a woman who was deceived into having sex?

If so, would a woman be justified in at least slapping her victimizer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we abstract away from Ayn Rand and Branden? That wasn't what this topic was about, which is my fault for the way I worded it. I was simply trying to use a concrete example to start a discussion. Namely: initiating force against someone who has wronged you, which has many implications that WhyNot has brought up such as the use of principles. We can still use this example, but try not to get too focused on Rand, please.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Material values include goods and services. Not just goods. Sex can qualify as a service, but in this context it might not, so I will not use "fraud" anymore when referring to obtaining the value (sex) by deceipt.

The courts place a monetary value on emotional distress, but I'm not saying that someone who caused another mental "harm" initiated force.

Quite. Goods AND services. I was remiss. Sex is a service, if paid for by agreement - not to pay, would be fraud.

Under objective Laws and minimal government, two consenting adults (or more) should be free from possible constraint imposed after the fact, if no material goods and services - or contract- are involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things being discussed. First, when you are lied to, is force ever appropriate as a response?

Force is an appropriate response to force. If you believe you can demonstrate that a given lie is, itself, a use of force, as theestevearnold seeks to do in his expansive use of fraud, then yes. If that lie does not amount to an initiation of the use of force? Then no.

 

Second, is the government the only appropriate "issuer" of retribution in the form of force?

Outside of immediate self-defense, or where the justice system is broken, yes.

 

Also, I'm no expert in law, so I'll just have to say "sorry" if you're not happy with my generalities applying principles in the form of law.

I don't know what this is referring to, or when I required you to be an expert in law. I don't know what my being "happy" with something you've said (whatever it is) has to do with anything. If I've critiqued something you've put forward, there was probably a reason beyond whether or not it made me smile.

 

Finally, earlier I suggested removing Rand from this discussion altogether since we don't know what happened for sure. You seem to be sensitive to godlike defense of her, understandably so. I really don't care at all if she ever did something wrong. I only keep bringing her up because this discussion isn't leaving her be in favor of some other example, and we've already kind of established her as the hypothetical.

There has been plenty of opportunity to discuss other examples, and throughout the course of the thread, several have been introduced. It has been suggested that we may forcibly intervene when others mistreat their pets, and I wondered whether that same mentality could apply to raising children incorrectly. I asked whether I would be justified in hitting someone who has insulted me, as I often feel driven to do (but forbear in the name of my beliefs), or whether a man who beats his lover for a lifetime's worth of cheating is morally justified to do it. I raised the question of striking a stranger on the street, while not in the pursuit of any particular "value." I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

So no, we don't have to discuss Rand at all. We'll talk about whatever you'd like.

 

You are really emphasizing Rand's explicit, written word on force in your replies, which could be helpful.

I'd like it to be helpful, sure. I also believe it important and appropriate. I am making claims with respect to Objectivism; I think I should source those claims in appropriate material, and then present my arguments and rationale on that basis. I think that when I try to interpret Rand's meaning (i.e. her philosophy, as she presented it), that I ought to focus on and emphasize her "explicit, written word."

I wish others would do likewise. I would like to see the quotes in which Rand said that it may at times be appropriate to initiate the use of force. Let's put it all out there, so we can evaluate and attempt to integrate it.

 

However, nowhere in these quotes is an explanation of her statements. Like this, without explanation or context, they simply read as mandates, as I said before.

I trust the people I'm talking to, to have the necessary context. That said, I think that these quotes are clear enough to not require much in the way of extensive critical commentary. I believe that they "speak for themselves" quite well.

 

Courts can't be the arbiter for all wrongdoing, everywhere.

All wrongdoing, everywhere? No. The administration of retributive force? Yes.

If we're now discussing a "frontier" society without a proper court system, or some situation like castaways on a desert island, please let me know.

 

It works for most things, and so we use it. It wouldn't work at all if everyone didn't agree that it has the last word, when it is used. It also can't work where a law can't be applied objectively. It's not always in a person's interest to use the law, either. Time constraints, seriousness of loss from the wrongdoing, chance of winning in court, etc. are reasons you might decide to deal with things yourself instead of court proceedings.

When we understand that your phrase "decide to deal with things yourself" means use retributive physical force, this becomes quite a statement.

Based on "time constraints" and your "chance of winning in court," you believe it moral to bypass the criminal justice system altogether and take matters in your own hands? This is quite a departure from my view, and certainly from Objectivism, as I understand it. This breach will not be resolved over the course of a single thread.

 

If deciding for yourself what constitutes justice is "the heart if anarchy," where do laws come from at all?

Well eventually we refer to principles -- hopefully principles sourced in reason and reality -- and then seek to codify those in an objective manner. At least, that's the nature of "objective law," which is what I think Rand was in favor of.

But sure, in some primitive sense I guess we start out with "deciding for yourself what constitutes justice," and if you're powerful enough to enforce your own brand of justice, then you do.

What's amazing to me though is that you appear to be proposing this as preferable to an objective code of law, or perhaps a helpful supplement. Or a correction. The criminal justice system/government be damned, if I consider myself wronged, I should take whatever actions I deem necessary to achieve retribution. That this is the "soul of anarchy" (not "heart," but why quibble over details) seems obvious to me.

I know you're ambivalent on my quoting Rand to source my positions, but I can hardly help myself. I want to communicate my meaning in as robust a manner as I can, and I believe that these quotes speak to that purpose, especially considering the nature of this community. Anyways, here's another unhelpful quote, although I believe that if you're willing to try, you'll see the relevant application without too much strain:

 

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

Okay, here's a little bit, since I don't want to leave you hanging entirely. When Rand says that "[m]en who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob"? She's referring (albeit metaphorically) to the very thing you're advocating, when you suggest this, for instance:

 

If someone steals from you and you are sure there is no way to prove it, and your idea of justice is a punch in the face, I see nothing necessarily wrong with that.

That's "the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens" in a nutshell. Perhaps you believe she's leaving open exemptions for "when we really feel like it"? But I don't read that in the material *I've* quoted, at least, and I don't know where to find it elsewhere.

 

The entire point of a justice system is to keep men free and to figure out what to do when they interfere with each others' freedom. Someone somewhere has to have made the decisions about penalties and such -- individual "vigilantes." The difference between laws and your own personal judgement of justice isn't necessarily in the justice being served, it's in the public nature of the laws.

The "public nature" of the laws? Or the objective nature of the laws?

Your attempt to turn "vigilante" into anyone who has ever contributed to the development or application of the justice system is... misguided. The Supreme Court, whether they make a decision about penalties or not, is not a collection of "individual vigilantes."

 

The point is still to serve justice.

Yes. And in a rational society, outside of emergency self-defense or living under a dictatorship or what not, the way for an individual to serve justice is to delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government:

 

The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement.

She's not talking about that "orderly, legally defined enforcement" for nothing, but because she believes in "objective law," without which we have law-by-lynch mob. Or, anarchy.

 

You said that mutually-agreed-upon force is ok, as in a sporting event. So, I asked, if Brandon had decided, without appealing to the court system, that Rand was correct to give him a slap, would you then consider the slap moral and consistent with the Objectivist views on force and justice?

No, I said that the physical contact in a sporting event is not "force" as Rand uses it when she speaks of outlawing its initiation, or therefore in the sense that we're discussing.

And no, Branden's opinion is not material as to whether or not Rand acted morally in hitting him.

 

Why do you think force is a blanket moral imperative between all dealings of men?

I should prefer a phrasing closer to "one may not morally initiate force," or something like that. Doesn't that sound closer to what I've been saying? Closer, in fact, to Rand's own words on the subject? (Though I do find your use of "imperative" to be touchingly desperate, could you please save the Kantian bs for the kiddies who might be impressed with a poisoned well?)

In a nutshell, if I wanted to try to pare down the Objectivist Politics (which Rand elaborated upon at some length, mind) into one statement of "why?", I guess it would be because men must be free to pursue their own ends, according to their individual use of reason, without the threat of being hurt or detained or killed or otherwise forcibly punished. The means to do this, and thereby create a society based on persuasion and reason rather than force or the threat of force, is to remove physical force from men's dealings. Thus to initiate the use of force is also to strike a blow against the foundation of that which allows for civilized society and individual ethical reasoning/action, to say nothing of opening the door for specific retribution... (If a jilted or otherwise hurt lover strikes her ex, and gets struck in return, I don't know whether she has much of a leg to stand on in crying foul.) Thus we proscribe this initiation, reserving force for objective retaliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside this incident completely, I would submit that human emotions make the goal of acting 100% morally at all times a near impossibility.  

 

Is the premise of the thread that Ayn Rand was not perfect?  If so, I would hope that no one here would disagree.

 

When considering Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism I have always taken the approach to judge her by her words, and not by dissecting her every action.  

 

EDIT: (If the thread is truly about whether this particular slap was immoral or not, then I do not think it is possible to evaluate it fully since Ms. Rand is dead.  But if we're guessing, I'd guess she had a brief lapse in rational judgment due to emotions.  Also, that's what women who were gravely offended did back then... it was in all the movies. :-) 

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside this incident completely, I would submit that human emotions make the goal of acting 100% morally at all times a near impossibility.  

 

Is the premise of the thread that Ayn Rand was not perfect?  If so, I would hope that no one here would disagree.

 

When considering Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism I have always taken the approach to judge her by her words, and not by dissecting her every action.  

 

EDIT: (If the thread is truly about whether this particular slap was immoral or not, then I do not think it is possible to evaluate it fully since Ms. Rand is dead.  But if we're guessing, I'd guess she had a brief lapse in rational judgment due to emotions.  Also, that's what women who were gravely offended did back then... it was in all the movies. :-) 

 

I wish I didn't post this thread the way I did. Posts like these are making it nearly impossible to get to the essence of the issue.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said that the physical contact in a sporting event is not "force" as Rand uses it when she speaks of outlawing its initiation, or therefore in the sense that we're discussing.

And no, Branden's opinion is not material as to whether or not Rand acted morally in hitting him.

 

 

 

Actually, it is "force" as Rand uses it. Rand only uses force in one way: physical force. 

 

Sports are not the initiation of force, because, as JASKN stated, it is mutually agreed upon and part of the nature of sports.

 

Force is not apart of the nature of human interactions (properly). If Branden stated and you can tell through context that he meant it, "You may slap me, I deserve it," then yes, I would tentatively agree the slap is fine. But, I need to think this one through a bit more.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I didn't post this thread the way I did. Posts like these are making it nearly impossible to get to the essence of the issue.

Too late. Talk about the slap that launched a thousand words...

For what is perhaps one of the most peaceable, peaceful (no, never pacifist!) and rational bunch of individuals there is probably around, I find it sorta ironic Objectivists spend so much energy arguing over the initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is "force" as Rand uses it. Rand only uses force in one way: physical force.

Disagree.

Saying that I will kill you if you do x is the initiation of the use of force, though no "physical force" has yet been applied, and it might never be applied. Rand's use of "force" is not synonymous with a scientist's definition of physical force.

 

Sports are not the initiation of force, because, as JASKN stated, it is mutually agreed upon and part of the nature of sports.

Disagree.

Rand seeks to eliminate the initiation of force from society entirely. To reserve retaliation to governmental action. And yet she is not talking about putting an end to boxing, or rough sex, or pushing one's child on the swings. Though these are examples of "force" (and are initiated) in the scientist's meaning, they are not what Rand is talking about.

 

Force is not apart of the nature of human interactions (properly). If Branden stated and you can tell through context that he meant it, "You may slap me, I deserve it," then yes, I would tentatively agree the slap is fine. But I admit, I haven't thought this one through much yet.

If Rand and Branden had agreed beforehand that she may slap him, that might be worth talking about, and I'd be tempted to agree that it's fine. But let's be careful here of potential implication.

If I beat my wife sufficiently that she comes to believe she deserves it, and speaks in my defense, I don't think this mitigates the immorality of my actions.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree.

Saying that I will kill you if you do x is the initiation of the use of force, though no "physical force" has yet been applied, and it might never be applied. Rand's use of "force" is not synonymous with a scientist's definition of physical force.

 

If this was true, why make a distinction between direct and indirect force?

 

Rand seeks to eliminate the initiation of force from society entirely. To reserve retaliation to governmental action. And yet she is not talking about putting an end to boxing, or rough sex, or pushing one's child on the swings. Though these are examples of "force" (and are initiated) in the scientist's meaning, they are not what Rand is talking about.

 

Right, she seeks the elimination of the "initiation of force" from society - not "force". Sports do not include the initiation of force, but they do include force.

 

 

If Rand and Branden had agreed beforehand that she may slap him, that might be worth talking about, and I'd be tempted to agree that it's fine. But let's be careful here of potential implication.

If I beat my wife sufficiently that she comes to believe she deserves it, and speaks in my defense, I don't think this mitigates the immorality of my actions.

 

I agree. I understand the implications which is why I made it a point to say tentatively. I haven't thought this one through yet. I need to think about it a bit more. 

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was true, why make a distinction between direct and indirect force?

It's possible we're actually on the same page on this, and are just getting caught up in the language to describe it. But let's see. :)

Both "direct" and "indirect" force are "force" in Rand's usage, but that doesn't completely map onto what a physicist thinks of, when he thinks of "physical force." That's partly why some people don't either understand or agree that fraud is actually an instance of force (albeit "indirect").

Taxation is also a use of force. You may well pay your taxes without anyone putting a gun to your head -- and a legislative assembly where they vote to institute taxes may look nothing like a football game -- but that doesn't change the nature of taxation.

 

Right, she seeks the elimination of the "initiation of force" from society - not "force". Sports do not include the initiation of force, but they do include force.

Force, in the sense that Rand intends, cannot exist without being initiated. She's not describing any and all physical interaction between people. I "initiate the use of force" in the way a physical scientist might mean when I take my wife's hand, or pick up my child. But that's still not to Rand's point or meaning.

So in a football game, there is both the "initiation of force" and "force" in the sense of someone choosing to engage someone else in a physical activity -- in the way we would describe "force" in a physics class, perhaps. But as long as the game is played as we would normally expect, there is neither the "initiation of force" nor "force" in the way that Rand means, when she speaks of force, and the necessity to eliminate it from society.

Tackling a person in a football game (according to the rules) is not an example of an initiation of force, or a retaliation, or a use of force of any kind according to Rand's meaning. Tackling someone in a supermarket parking lot because they had accidentally sent their cart into your bumper, is.

Helping someone to commit suicide, with mutual consent, by pouring a lethal dose of poison in their tea, is not a use of force. Murdering someone by pouring that same dose into their tea, without their knowledge, is a use of force. Collecting voluntary taxes is not a use of force. Collecting obligatory taxes, though the mechanism may otherwise function identically in terms of physical actions and et cetera, is.

The difference between these sets of examples is not that force exists and is used in all cases but is somehow "uninitiated" in some. It is that there are two separate (though related) ways of using the term "force": as a scientist does, and as Rand does.

Here's a quote from Rand that may (or may not) help:

 

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

When Rand speaks of "the barring of physical force from social relationships," she does not mean eliminating physical contact.

If two boxers engage each other in sport, via "voluntary, uncoerced agreement," then they are fulfilling Rand's statement here. Although in their match, "physical force" has quite obviously not been barred in the sense of the physicist, it *is* barred in the sense that Rand intends.

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...