Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Force vs Retaliatory Force

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Jon Southall,

 

In post #47 you wrote, “Tadmjones is right though, if the law is that you must be over 18 to enter into a contract and this is applied to every individual, then this is the same standard being applied to everyone. It is not an example of a double standard.

 

You are now attempting to change the definition of a double standard from what I wrote in post #35 and you agreed to in post #36. Nowhere in the definition does it state anything about some standard being applied to everyone or a set of rules or principles applied to every individual. A double standard is defined as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another.

 

So my example is an example of a double standard as per the agreed upon definition. There is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18. Your example is also an example of a double standard as per the agreed upon definition. There is a rule or principal, no-one may initiate physical force against you, that applies differently to one group of people, everyone but you, than to another group of people, you (a group of one). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

In post #46 you wrote, “That's a terrible definition. You might as well have said that the definition of double standard is everything.

 

I agree with you that if you have a different definition of a double standard, then my definition of a double standard must seem terrible. I assume that you do have a different definition even though you did not provide one.

 

However, until you and I agree on the definition, of a double standard or anything, it is not possible to have further constructive dialogue. Do you have a definition of a double standard that you are willing to share? Perhaps we can agree on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practical terms , can there really 'be' a double standard?

 

What do you mean 'in practical terms'? Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition. The same problem came up in the last thread that FredAnyman started because his problem is epistemological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

In post #54 you wrote, “Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition.

 

I do not understand the “we” in your statement. I may have a concept of a double standard, and tadmjones may have a concept of a double standard, and you or anyone else may have a concept of a double standard, but that does not mean that “we” have the same concept of a double standard.

 

Yet your statement seems to suggest, and I could be wrong, that everyone does, or at least should have, the same concept of a double standard. Is this what you are suggesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet your statement seems to suggest, and I could be wrong, that everyone does, or at least should have, the same concept of a double standard. Is this what you are suggesting?

 

Yes, I am saying that any functioning adult that speaks English should understand what a double standard is.

 

Maybe we have different concepts of "functioning" and "speak" and "understand". Do I need to define each of those too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean 'in practical terms'? Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition. The same problem came up in the last thread that FredAnyman started because his problem is epistemological.

I meant in practical legalistic/governmental terms. Minimum legal age requirements for contract enforcement is not an example of a double standard. If a government identified a certain group and proscribed some action or other directed toward or invovling anyone in that group, but then ignored those same strictures and did not apply them to some members of the identified group , I would describe such action as caprisious or arbitrary , and not necessarily an example of a double standard.

There are phenomenon that are examples of double standards, but they invovle forming opinions about people or situations . Older men dating younger women vs cougars , and then claiming the standard should be age alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

In post #56 you wrote, “Maybe we have different concepts of "functioning" and "speak" and "understand". Do I need to define each of those too?”

 

Keeping in the spirit of the playfulness with which I assume you made the above statement, I will respond with a quote from you from post #54, “A concept is not equivalent to its definition.

 

Putting the assume playfulness aside, you also wrote, “Yes, I am saying that any functioning adult that speaks English should understand what a double standard is.”

 

I am not suggesting that you, or I, or anyone else does not understand what a double standard is. I am very sure, based on your statements, that you fully understand your concept of a double standard. My point, which I will state again, is that your concept of a double standard, or my concept of a double standard, or anyone else’s concept of a double standard may be different.

 

It is similar to the concept of beauty. You may have an understating of what beauty is and I may have an understanding of what beauty is, and anyone else may have an understanding of what beauty is, but that does not mean that all of us are going to have the same understanding of what beauty is nor does it mean that we will all find same things to be beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred,

You are not right, the law applying differently to over and under 18s is not an example of a double standard. The law about 18yo is an application of one standard. The idea is that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not. It is applying that standard, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective.

What you are saying would mean society applies double standards when it permits people with a driving licence to drive on the roads but not those without a licence. However that is not a double standard. It is the application of a single standard. Those who can prove they are competent to drive meet the required standard and so are licensed. Those who can't prove it cannot show they meet the required standard and so are not permitted to use the roads. If a standard only applies to those who meet it it is not a standard at all. The standard you have achieved is not necessarily the same as the standard you are held to. Where that is true, it is not a case of double standards - rather it indicates where you measure up against a standard which applies to all individuals.

The same applies in the moral sphere - would you say society practices double standards when it locks up criminals? Again I would say no - in a society with objective laws if someone breaks those laws they fall short of a standard all individuals are held to. A consequence of failing to achieve a moral standard is usually a reduction of personal liberty, likewise in the driving licence example one has less liberty to drive if they haven't got a licence. If you fail to meet the required standards at work and your colleagues do, if your employer sacks you and keeps them they are not applying double standards.

Your definition is correct but you don't understand it's application. That is I think why you are finding it hard to distinguish between the appropriateness of retaliatory force and the inappropriateness of the initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southall,

 

In post #59 you wrote, “Your definition is correct but you don't understand it's application.

 

Based on your statements, it seems that, although you stated that my definition of a double standard is correct, you have a different definition of a double standard. It appears that your definition of a double standard is something like: a double standard is when there is one standard that everyone must meet or rule that everyone is required to comply with but some people, or groups of people, are not required to meet the standard or comply with the rule while other people, or other groups of people, are required to meet the standard or comply with the rule. Is this correct?

 

If the above is your definition of a double standard (or if your definition is similar), then your definition of a double standard is different than my definition of a double standard. My definition of a double standard, as stated in post #35, is: a double standard is a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another.

 

Under my definition, the law about 18 year olds is a double standard because there is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18. Your driving license example is also an example of a double standard per my definition because there is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those with driver’s license, than to another, those without a driver’s license.

 

Under your definition (or what I assume to be your definition or similar to your definition) of a double standard, neither example would be an example of a double standard.

 

When you wrote that my definition of a double standard is correct, it appears that, despite your claim in post #34 that you shall take everything that I write literally, you are reading more into my definition than what I wrote as my definition of a double standard.  And when you wrote that I do not understand the application of the definition of a double standard, it seems to me that what you meant was that I do not understand your definition of a double standard. Of course, I could be wrong on both of these points.

 

Now, to continue the discussion, you need to either accept my definition of a double standard as it is written and without reading anything more into it, or provide a new definition of a double standard that you and I can agree upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southall,

 

In post #63 you state, “What is a standard? I'm interested in your answer to that question.

 

I am confused. Are we moving away from the definition of a double standard now? You state that my definition of a double standard is correct but that I do not understand the definition of a double standard. You do not offer any explanation of why I am not applying the definition correctly nor do you provide anything that would help me understand the definition that you claim I do not understand.

 

What would be the point of providing my definition of a standard? Even if I provided what you consider to be the “correct” definition of a standard, you would, I believe based on your previous statements, simply state that I do not understand the definition if I do not agree with your application of it.

 

To avoid any possible stumbling on my part, you should provide a definition of a standard and explain the “correct” application of the definition and we can go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky, I didn't ignore your question. You weren't satisfied with the answer I gave you, but you got my answer.

Now clearly my example fell short in some way according to your criteria, given your responses. Your criteria is unknown to me hence my question to you. If I can understand where you are coming from perhaps this exchange will offer more value to us both.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism starts its politics with individual rights. With respect to items (homes, bicycles, apples) ,such rights are rights to action vis-a-vis those entities. [i'm taking rights for granted in this post.]

To say you have a right to the entity is an abbreviated way to say that you're "the decider": you can live in your house or burn it, you can ride your bicycle of let the air out of the tires, you can eat your apple or let it ferment. The range or your actions is only limited when they would infringe on someone else's right: for instance, if you rode your bicycle through someone else's house, laughing at his loud protest as you eat your apple.

If someone comes along and (against your will) grabs the apple to which you have a right, he is doing wrong. You have a right to have the apple restored to you. If the person refuses, you can try explaining the situation, you might even get the village constable to explain, or even the magistrate. But, what if the other person still refuses. What if force is the only way to restore your possession: i.e. to respect your right to the apple?

In such a situation, if we were to say: "well, then that's too bad you can do nothing about it", then your "right" is a theoretical fiction. We'd be saying that you have a right only when the other person is fine with that right. We really wouldn't need the concept of rights if they only apply when everyone agrees you have the right and leave you alone to enjoy it. (Analogously, the right to free-speech is useless is it applies only where everyone else is happy with your speech.) 

To claim you have a right is to claim you can do what you will with the apple. Without the ability to force the person to restore the apple to you how are you going to do what you will with the apple? The only way to do what you will to the apple is to be able to force your will vis-a-vis the apple. This does not mean that force is the first reaction; nor does it mean that you can apply it willy-nilly. But, the ability (of someone, sometime, somehow) to use force to restore your ability to act on an object is inherent in the concept of having a "right" to that object.

Everyone agrees in principle with individual rights.

 

(Well, everyone except the Bolshevik crazies of 1920, who are no longer a player. Even here in Salamanca, where the normative personal designation among the 40,000 students is 'communist', you find a respect for 'the pp' principle.

 

What differs is how one measures outcome of possession against that persistent chestnut of 'harming others'. Here, we all balance an agreed-upon principle against cost-benefit of public harm, and disagree.

 

For example:

 

*Burning your own house causes smoke, soot, and chemical pollution in the neighborhood. It's an obvious danger.

 

** Fermenting apples is said to be okay for personal consumption (as is done here!!). But fermenting all the apples on a tree implies intent to sell to others. Here, licensing ensures that dangerous aldehydes were not produced, that the cider was labeled correctly, and not sold to minors.

 

In short, property rights always involve implicit usufruct that are part of societal custom or law. For its part, objectivism might have interesting ideas as to how we all mutually benefit with a more liberalized approach. Suggesting, however, that objectivism  is the only political-philosophical entity that cares for 'pp' is simply self-serving, and false.

 

Andie

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred,

"Jon Southall,

 

In post #63 you state, “What is a standard? I'm interested in your answer to that question.”

 

I am confused. Are we moving away from the definition of a double standard now?"

No. If someone is struggling to understand something, it usually helps to break the problem down. If I can get you to understand what a standard is, there's a chance you will discover how your interpretation of a double standard doesn't hold.

"You state that my definition of a double standard is correct but that I do not understand the definition of a double standard. You do not offer any explanation of why I am not applying the definition correctly nor do you provide anything that would help me understand the definition that you claim I do not understand."

I have done but you still maintain those examples were double standards. This led me to hypothesise that you don't understand what it means to apply a standard. I'm helping you by getting you to consider what your thinking rests on. It might help you in turn to come to understand the Objectivist position on force, an outcome that would please me.

"What would be the point of providing my definition of a standard? Even if I provided what you consider to be the “correct” definition of a standard, you would, I believe based on your previous statements, simply state that I do not understand the definition if I do not agree with your application of it."

I'm not going to force you to state it.

"To avoid any possible stumbling on my part, you should provide a definition of a standard and explain the “correct” application of the definition and we can go from there."

I believe I have already demonstrated what I mean by standard.

Please don't take this personally Fred this is a genuine question. Are you autistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

"Ok, give an example of a rule that's not a double standard, as per that definition."

I pointed you to this response:

"If the law is that you must be over 18 to enter into a contract and this is applied to every individual, then this is the same standard being applied to everyone. It is not an example of a double standard."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southall,

 

In post #68 you wrote, “I have done but you still maintain those examples were double standards. This led me to hypothesise that you don't understand what it means to apply a standard. I'm helping you by getting you to consider what your thinking rests on. It might help you in turn to come to understand the Objectivist position on force, an outcome that would please me.”

 

This is your response to my statement in post #64 that you have not offered any explanation of why I am not applying the definition of a double standard correctly.

 

Looking back over your previous posts, I cannot find where you have provided any explanation. As far as I can tell, your attempt at an explanation comes from post #59 (if there is some other post where you provided your explanation, please reference it).

 

This is your explanation, as far as I can tell:

 

The first paragraph from post #59, “You are not right, the law applying differently to over and under 18s is not an example of a double standard. The law about 18yo is an application of one standard. The idea is that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not. It is applying that standard, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective.

 

Your first sentence simply states that I am wrong and then makes a statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact.

 

Your second sentence is again a statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact while no explanation is given as to why this statement is correct.

 

Your third sentence, “The idea is that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not” appears to be an expression of an idea but no explanation is given as why this idea is correct or how it applies to the definition, and application of the definition, of a double standard. Nor do you state that the statement is the definition of a standard.

 

Your fourth sentence, “It is applying that standard, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective” is confusing. When you say “It is applying that standard…”, to what standard are you referring? The only thing that could be the standard, based on what you wrote, is the idea that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not.  Is this the standard? Should your statement read, “It is applying the standard that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective”? The sentence is still confusing. Additionally, even if you did mean some other standard when you wrote, “It is applying that standard…”, you still did not provide any explanation of why your definition is correct.

 

The second paragraph from post #59, What you are saying would mean society applies double standards when it permits people with a driving licence to drive on the roads but not those without a licence. However that is not a double standard. It is the application of a single standard. Those who can prove they are competent to drive meet the required standard and so are licensed. Those who can't prove it cannot show they meet the required standard and so are not permitted to use the roads. If a standard only applies to those who meet it it is not a standard at all. The standard you have achieved is not necessarily the same as the standard you are held to. Where that is true, it is not a case of double standards - rather it indicates where you measure up against a standard which applies to all individuals.

 

Your first sentence makes a presumption about what I did, or would, say and is not an explanation.

 

Your second sentence simply states that the first sentence is not a double standard and you, presumably, expect the reader to accept this statement as a statement of fact.

 

Your third sentence explains why your first statement is not a double standard by stating that it is a single standard. No further explanation is given as to why this is correct or what a single standard is and again, you, presumably, expect the reader to accept this statement as a statement of fact.

 

Your fourth and fifth sentences attempt, I assume, to illustrate that you are referring to a single standard.

 

Your sixth sentence, “If a standard only applies to those who meet it it is not a standard at all” is another statement that again, you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact without any explanation.

 

Your seventh sentence, “The standard you have achieved is not necessarily the same as the standard you are held to” is the same type of statement as your sixth sentence; a presumed statement of fact that provides no explanation as to why it is correct.

 

Your final sentence, “Where that is true, it is not a case of double standards - rather it indicates where you measure up against a standard which applies to all individuals” provides yet another statement that you presume the reader will accept as the truth without any explanation as to why it is the truth.

 

The third paragraph from post #59, “The same applies in the moral sphere - would you say society practices double standards when it locks up criminals? Again I would say no - in a society with objective laws if someone breaks those laws they fall short of a standard all individuals are held to. A consequence of failing to achieve a moral standard is usually a reduction of personal liberty, likewise in the driving licence example one has less liberty to drive if they haven't got a licence. If you fail to meet the required standards at work and your colleagues do, if your employer sacks you and keeps them they are not applying double standards.

 

Your first sentence makes a statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact and then asks a question.

 

Your second sentence provides your own answer to your own question from the first sentence with another statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact.

 

Your third and fourth sentences are once again statements that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact without any further explanation.

 

From what I can tell, your explanation of why I am using the definition of a double standard “wrong” is nothing but a collection of statements that you expect me to accept as fact. You have offered no proof or even arguments about why your numerous statements are correct and why I should accept then as correct. You seem to be operating under the assumption that I, or any reader, will just automatically agree with you and then you appear to be upset or confounded (‘only someone with autism or some other disorder would fail to accept my word as gospel’) when I do not automatically agree with you.

 

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, as I do, please understand that I am not just going to accept any statement you make as correct without at least some explanation as to why it is correct. Additionally, if I do not understand or agree with your explanation, I will question your explanation as well.

 

Now back to the discussion. You asked me for my definition of a double standard and I provided it in post #35. You then asked me, from post #36, “Do you think a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards?” I answered in post #42 and provided an example. If you believe, as I think that you do, that my application of the definition of a double standard is not correct based on the example that I provided, then please explain why knowing that I will not accept "You are not right" as an explanation. If you do not wish to explain why, then we will most likely have to accept that you and I have differing views and leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

"Ok, give an example of a rule that's not a double standard, as per that definition."

I pointed you to this response:

"If the law is that you must be over 18 to enter into a contract and this is applied to every individual, then this is the same standard being applied to everyone. It is not an example of a double standard."

Ok, so just to clarify, you're saying that that law doesn't "apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another"?

 

Why not? Do you not consider minors people? Or do you not consider being allowed to enter contracts different from not being allowed to enter contracts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

In post #46 you wrote, “That's a terrible definition. You might as well have said that the definition of double standard is everything.

 

I agree with you that if you have a different definition of a double standard, then my definition of a double standard must seem terrible. I assume that you do have a different definition even though you did not provide one.

 

However, until you and I agree on the definition, of a double standard or anything, it is not possible to have further constructive dialogue. Do you have a definition of a double standard that you are willing to share? Perhaps we can agree on it.

The quality or lackthereof of your definition has nothing to do with my agreement, and everything to do with he basic principles of concept formation. Your definition is terrible because it doesn't follow them.

 

With that out of the way, a useful definition of a double standard would be "applying different rules or judgements to people or situations which are similar in every logically relevant way". A law that discriminates between minors and adults is not necessarily a double standard (though it can be, depending on the law), because minors and adults can be different in ways that are relevant to some laws (for instance, a child's inability to fully comprehend the consequences of entering a contract is relevant to contract enforcement laws).

 

However, a law that discriminates between adults based on race, hair color, sex, etc. IS necessarily a double standard, because there is no imaginable legal area where the differences between such adults are relevant.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

In post #73 you wrote, “The quality or lackthereof of your definition has nothing to do with my agreement, and everything to do with he [sic] basic principles of concept formation. Your definition is terrible because it doesn't follow them.

 

With this statement you are doing the same thing that Jon Southall and others do: making a statement without explanation and expecting (I assume) me to accept it as fact. If you think that my definition is terrible because it doesn’t follow the principles of concept formation, you will need to explain exactly why the principals of concept formation that you espouse are correct, and why you think that my definition doesn’t follow the principles of concept formation that you espouse. Without any further explanation, I have no basis to accept as true your statement that my definition is terrible and therefore conclude that my definition is not terrible and that you only disagree with my definition.

 

However, since you never agreed that my definition of a double standard is correct, and you have now provided a definition of your own, if I agree that your definition is the one to use, we can move forward. Of course, it was Jon Southall who originally asked about the definition of a double standard to (again I presume) try and tie it back to the question in the original post. I do not know if that is your intention as well, but for the sake of this very interesting conversation, I will agree with your definition of a double standard of “applying different rules or judgements [sic] to people or situations which are similar in every logically relevant way”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky,

 

In post #73 you wrote, “The quality or lackthereof of your definition has nothing to do with my agreement, and everything to do with he [sic] basic principles of concept formation. Your definition is terrible because it doesn't follow them.

 

With this statement you are doing the same thing that Jon Southall and others do: making a statement without explanation and expecting (I assume) me to accept it as fact. If you think that my definition is terrible because it doesn’t follow the principles of concept formation, you will need to explain exactly why the principals of concept formation that you espouse are correct

I'm gonna stop you right there. To have a conversation about philosophy, you have to be able to have at least a basic ability to form concepts correctly. Expecting people in a thread about politics to explain concept formation is like expecting your university math teacher to help you with multiplication (or worse, explain to you why the multiplication table is correct).

 

It's not gonna happen. At least not from me.

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...