Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Force vs Retaliatory Force

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Jon Southhall,

 

You wrote in post #25, “You would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others.

 

How did you arrive at this conclusion? I stated that I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you get from “I do not have to value your life” to “it is OK to sacrifice others”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me.

 

Further, even if I hold as my standard that it is OK to sacrifice others, how come “…every other member of society would have to hold that it is OK for them to be sacrificed …” by me? Just because someone or some group of people holds a standard does not mean anyone, much less every other member of society, has to hold the same standard or be OK with the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to use force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?

Part of the issue is you said "immoral to use force against someone". No, the Objectivist view is that initiating force is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southhall,

 

Even in the context of sacrifice, my questions from post #26 still stand. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is OK to sacrifice others from “I do not have to value your life”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #23 you wrote, “That is a ton of literature on this and generally when people ask a question here they have a base knowledge of that. You don't, which is fine, and there is plenty of good people here to help with that.”

 

Why do you assume that I do not have a base knowledge of Objectivism? Is it because I asked questions based on your statements instead of simply accepting those statements as truth?

 

 

No, it's because you  asked the questions you did. You would have known the answer to them.  That is fine.  You couldn't so I knew I stated the conversation from the wrong point.  I was trying to be helpful - No need to read anything else into... .   

 

 

But let us put that aside for the moment and consider another statement you make in post #23. You wrote, “Self Defense stands on it's own.”

 

This is another statement given without further explanation, without definitions, and without any qualifying terms. Once again, Objectivist or not, I cannot read your mind and cannot be sure what you meant by this statement so I will ask a question.

 

It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Do I really need to explain what self defense is and why it is acceptable?  I can but honestly I thought that was at least an acceptable baseline. 

 

 

"Consider this scenario: someone breaks into my home while I am away and steals some of my processions. I hunt that person down and kill them. This is moral because: self defense. Is this correct? "

 

 

No.  Do you honestly think that is self defense?  

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even in the context of sacrifice, my questions from post #26 still stand. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is OK to sacrifice others from “I do not have to value your life”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me."

No they don't because your comments were out of context. I assumed we were discussing sacrifice because you were responding to my point about that. I mistook your "I do not have to value your life" to mean, "it does not matter to me if you are sacrificed".

Is this little aside of any value to you or should we return to the main point? What is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #30 you wrote, “It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Do I really need to explain what self defense is and why it is acceptable?  I can but honestly I thought that was at least an acceptable baseline.”

 

This is representative of one of the issues that I am having in my search for knowledge. I asked why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone and I get answers like self defense (or some similar type of answer) and no other explanation.

 

By providing a one or two word answer without further explanation, you make an assumption that my concept of self defense is exactly the same as your concept of self defense. This may or may not be true but given that we are each individuals with our own individual ways of interpreting and understanding the world in which we live, it is unlikely that my concept and your concept will be exactly the same. Even if our respective concepts are similar, it does not guarantee we will be able to fully understand what the other is trying to communicate without a more complete or robust explanation.

 

And, based on your posts, you seem perplexed and perhaps dismayed that I ask questions. It appears that you think that I should have the same concept of self defense as you do or would have if I had more knowledge of Objectivism. This seems odd to me, in part, because as it is demonstrated by a reading of the various posts in this forum that even those with a base knowledge of Objectivism, or who claim to have a base knowledge of Objectivism, still come to different conclusions and have differing concepts on a wide variety of issues.

 

Your last statement in post #30 is an example of differing concepts. You wrote, “No.  Do you honestly think that is self defense?” in response to my proposed scenario. It appears, based on my interpretation of what you wrote (but I cannot be completely sure), that your concept of self defense, tells you that hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not self defense. And since it is not self defense, and self defense is the reason the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral, hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not moral.

 

Now perhaps I should conclude from this that the question is answered and no further discussion is needed, but I do have a question.

 

Let us assume that my interpretation of what you wrote is what you meant and that hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not self defense and since it is not self defense, hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not moral.

 

But, hunting someone down and killing them because they stole from you is the use of force in a retaliatory manner.

 

So, this leads to the conclusion that the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral if it is self defense and the use of force in a retaliatory manner is not moral if it is not self defense. How can the use of force in a retaliatory manner be both moral and not moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southhall,

 

You wrote in post #31, “I mistook your "I do not have to value your life" to mean, "it does not matter to me if you are sacrificed".” 

 

That is a very big difference between what I wrote and what you thought I wrote. While I believe that “this little aside” could be tied back to the question in the original post, it does not seem worth continuing if there is going to continued wide differences between what one, or both, of us write and what one, or both, of us read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southhall,

 

I apologize for the incorrect spelling of your name and I will attempt to avoid misspelling it in the future. As for using your full screen name rather than just Jon, I do that for the benefit of any other reader of this thread so that it is clear that I am addressing your posts and not anyone else that may have a similar a screen name. While this may not be necessary, I do it to be polite.

 

As to your question in post #36, my answer is that I do not know. I do not know if a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southall,

 

In post #38 you wrote, “Could you clarify what you mean when you say it may both be possible and not be possible for double standards to be consistent with reason. What you said taken literally is a contradiction.”

 

It is not a contradiction because I never wrote that it may both be possible and not be possible of double standards to be consistent with reason. I wrote that “I do not know if a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.”

 

 

Since I do not have, nor could I have, any idea or knowledge about how this society based on reason operates, what its history is, about the background and make-up of the individuals who comprise the citizenry, or anything else other than a vague notion that individuals deal with one another productively, I do not think that it is possible for me to answer any question about this society that you imagine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to use force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?

 

The exact phrasing is: No man may initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.  The question you should be asking is: What should be done with or to a person who initiates the use of physical force against others?  How do you deal with such people?  It would be impossible to ban the initiation of force short of using some form of retaliatory force but if you have an alternative method for dealing with this problem that no one here knows about, I'd like to see it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I do not think that it is possible for me to answer any question about this society that you imagine"

 

Yet you did answer it. 

 

You wrote "I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors" where "it" = "a sustainable reason-based society which practices double standards."

 

In this context, what you wrote was equivalent to:

 

"I think that [a sustainable reason-based society which practices double standards] may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors."

 

What are these "many factors" you refer to? Clearly you had something in mind.

 

How can it be possible and how can it not be possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southall,

 

 

In post #41 you wrote, “What are these "many factors" you refer to? Clearly you had something in mind.

 

 

You are asking me questions about a society that you are imagining. The many factors that I refer to could be anything you imagine for your society from an extreme of: your society is ruled by an all-powerful deity that both allows double standards and allows your society to exist; to the simple statement of: in your society there are no double standards. How am I to know?

 

 

But let us put all this aside since it could be considered just to be semantics and I am interested in learning more of your thoughts on this subject.

 

 

I will I answer your question from post #36 with: Yes, I think a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards.

 

 

I will provide an example. A society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, could impose an age requirement for entering into contracts. This society could state that for a contract to be legally binding, all parties to the contract have to be 18 years old or older. This age requirement would be a double standard because there would be a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people than to another. Yet even with the presence of this double standard, the society could be sustained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig24,

 

 

In post #40 you wrote, “The exact phrasing is: No man may initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.”

 

 

I do not understand this statement. It is possible for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others. It happens all around the world every day.

 

 

Did you mean something like, “It is immoral for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others”? If that is the case, then I would ask you to explain why it is immoral for a man to initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

You wrote in post #44, “In #42 if contract law requires a minimum age of 18 yrs to enter a legally binding argreement [sic], how is that an example of a double standard? Wouldn't a double standard mean that some 18 yr olds could not enter into contracts or that some 16 yr olds could?

 

It would depend on your definition of a double standard. In post #35, I defined a double standard as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another. In post #36, Jon Southall stated, “That definition is correct.”

 

In the example that I gave in post #42, there is a set of rules (contract law in your post) that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah that definition is fine Nicky. It is the correct definition.

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.

An example of a double standard is holding that no-one may initiate physical force against you but you can initiate physical force against them. Would you agree?

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...