Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Initiation of force.

Rate this topic


Sturmgeschutz

Recommended Posts

I don't know which term is correct, "immoral" "wrong" or some other term.... However:

I get the impression from reading Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and Part 1 of the Fountainhead) as well as other Objectivist writings, that the only real "rule" that applies to morality with Objectivism is this:

Do not initiate force on another human being.

Anything that is considered wrong/immoral by Objectivists boils down to this. Is this a correct observation on my part?

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not exactly. While it is always immoral to initiate force (and that "initiate" part is key), it is also immoral to do irrational things which do not hurt others and only hurt yourself. It would be immoral to stab yourself in the eye or to abandon your dream job to go work at burger king. (assuming no extenuating circumstances, of course. I mean doing those things for no reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly. While it is always immoral to initiate force (and that "initiate" part is key), it is also immoral to do irrational things which do not hurt others and only hurt yourself. It would be immoral to stab yourself in the eye or to abandon your dream job to go work at burger king. (assuming no extenuating circumstances, of course. I mean doing those things for no reason)

It's not "immoral", it's just stupid. Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.

The reason that the initiation of the use of force against another human being is evil is that it attempts to contradict the fact of volition and the requirements for man's survival. Thinking (i.e. rationality) is a man's only means of survival, specifically his OWN thinking. If he acts against his rational judgement of his best interests he risks the destruction of his life. The only way for another person to cause a man to act against his own judgement is through the use of physical force.

It is common in other philosophies (religion especially, although any form of collectivism is pretty much the same) to announce that men are not capable of knowing their own best interests and they must be forced to do the right thing "for their own good." This is an absurdity of the worst kind and cannot be tolerated.

The same moral principle that forbids the initiation of force makes it a moral necessity to resist the use of force with force. You cannot argue with the muzzle of a gun, you cannot persuade a club. You can only remove the gun and club wielders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "immoral", it's just stupid.  Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.

Actually the scenarios which Mr Inspector has mentioned are immoral.

Once you have chosen to live, morality by definition consists of promoting your life. Any action which demotes your life is immoral whether it is an initiation of force against others or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that the initiation of the use of force against another human being is evil is that it attempts to contradict the fact of volition and the requirements for man's survival.  Thinking (i.e. rationality) is a man's only means of survival, specifically his OWN thinking.  If he acts against his rational judgement of his best interests he risks the destruction of his life.

I have heard this exact claim before. I don't understand completely however:

How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival? Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man's survival, but why is that of any concern? I suppose I don't make the connection between the actions against another man's life, and contradiction of his own.

I do see the connection between his actions and the other man. Perhaps someone could explain this to me?

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to correct something, the rule against initiation of force is not the only moral rule, it is the only moral rule in regard to other human beings. Morality, otherwise, is solely concerned with the person himself, and no one else. Initiation of force then, and the concepts of rights, are the intermediary stages between morality (concern with one's own proper living) and politics (concern with how to live with others).

Rights, and initiation of force, are not exclusively moral or political concepts, but that which links the two branches of philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "immoral", it's just stupid.  Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.

Jennifer, I recommend you read Miss Rand's article "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, The Virtue of Selfishness.

In the field of ethics, Objectivism holds that the primary virtue is rationality, and from it, six other virtues are derived: independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride. The essay mentioned above defines each of these virtues and shows its derivation.

You are correct that the initiation of force is immoral, but that does not exhaust the Objectivist ethics. Being free of the initiation of force is a precondition of man's life; however, that alone does not guarantee that he will survive. To remain alive, he must think, and from that and other facts Miss Rand has derived the virtues above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this exact claim before.  I don't understand completely however:

How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival?  Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man's survival, but why is that of any concern?  I suppose I don't make the connection between the actions against another man's life, and contradiction of his own.

I do see the connection between his actions and the other man.  Perhaps someone could explain this to me?

Thanks again.

Perhaps this link could be helpful. Read particularly Mr Speicher's replies. They are very informative.

Link

Also note that it is in a criminal's self-interest that a lawful society exist. If he violates the rights of others, others have the right to violate his rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this exact claim before.  I don't understand completely however:

How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival?  Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man's survival, but why is that of any concern?  I suppose I don't make the connection between the actions against another man's life, and contradiction of his own.

I do see the connection between his actions and the other man.  Perhaps someone could explain this to me?

Thanks again.

Just to reiterate what some others have been saying. It is still possible to be immoral when alone on a desert island. Being immoral means taking actions that are harmful to your own life, which one can certainly do by themselves.

The initation of force is a sitation where one contaminates another with their irrationality. You effectively irradicate that other person's judgement when you initatiate force against them.

Also, a man is harming himself when he initiates force against others. He is harming himself directly by inviting retaliation against his initation. His is harming himself indirectly by implicitly accepting a policy of human interaction that states it is proper for one man to initiate force againt another. Thus, by initiating force against others, he is implictly rejecting the concept of rights. In a society without rights, what is the result? This time, he was the one initating force. Next time, it may be someone else, where he is their target. Who will protect him then? Certainly not anyone who knows that he has done it himself in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "immoral", it's just stupid.  Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.

Actually, Inspector is right.

Ayn Rand defined Rationality as the primary virtue, and said specifically that any act of mental evasion is immoral.

That something is immoral doesn't mean that it should be made illegal. Doing drugs is immoral whether you ask others to pay for it or not. Prostitution is immoral even if you earn your money honestly.

The role of government, however, is to strictly to prevent the initiation of physical force. It's not the government's responsibility to make everyone moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this exact claim before.  I don't understand completely however:

How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival?  Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man's survival, but why is that of any concern?  I suppose I don't make the connection between the actions against another man's life, and contradiction of his own.

I do see the connection between his actions and the other man.  Perhaps someone could explain this to me?

Thanks again.

As a rational being of volitional consciousness, man survives by initiating and sustaining a process of thought, to guide the process of producing the values his survival requires. To accomplish this, one basic condition must be met vis-a-vis other men: he must be free of the initiation of force.

The man who initiates force is attempting to gain values (or destroy them) by seizing them from others, instead of producing them himself. Observe that force is always initiated to negate man's tool of survival: his mind. A thief uses force to take your property because your mind will not give it to him voluntarily. A murderer uses force to take your life because your mind will not surrender it voluntarily.

In effect, the man who initiates force is attempting to exist as something other than a rational being. To the extent that he does this, he forfeits the rights of a rational being and is, properly, subject to retaliatory force from others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of this thread, let us stick with the rules governing the actions in regard to other human beings.

Sorry, but your original question contradicts the intent of the above statement. Here:

Do not initiate force on another human being.

Anything that is considered wrong/immoral by Objectivists boils down to this.  Is this a correct observation on my part?

Your question was not asking strictly about the rules governing action in regard to human beings, so I'm confused as to what you want to know.

Perhaps if you rephrased the original question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a rational being of volitional consciousness, man survives by initiating and sustaining a process of thought, to guide the process of producing the values his survival requires.

By "a process of thought" do you mean, "his process of thought" I.e. to initiate and sustain his own thought process, versus the collective idea of thought processes that all men have?

It also seems to me that if, hypothetically, all men stopped the initiation of force against one another, that the problem would still exist. Animals initiate force (although arguably not for the purpose of negating reason), steal, kill, etc. With the absence of human force, men will still have to respond to force being used against them.

On another note, one hypothetical situation bothers me with the application of "not initiating force." I'm not particularly familiar with the story, but I believe I have enough of the facts to reveal my dilema.... An airplane goes down, say in the mountains of South America somewhere. Say, 2 people survive, and begin the trek to try to find some form of civilization because that is determined to be their most rational option. Along the way, they run out of food, and are starving to death. Rather than mutually starve and die, one resorts to "initiating force", murders the other, eats him, and drives on. The murderer reaches civilization due to the energy he got from eating the other man, and continues to live.

This is (I realize) very loosely based on an actual incident. The problem I see here is that initiating force was in the man's own rational self-interest (actually, both of them). By not initiating force, they mutually starve to death, and their lack of force is the cause of their death.

You can change this into any context you want, ship lost at sea, lost in the desert, on a deseted island, etc. I believe that had it been a man and his dog, not a person would object to it being moral, and rational, to eat the dog rather than starve. However, because there seems (at least to me) to be a separation of human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom, it would be considered immoral to eat the other human. Through this, I see no difference between the initiation of force on men and on any other animal.

I put this forward so that my mistakes may be pointed out, as I trust that I have made one somewhere, and I just don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know which term is correct, "immoral" "wrong" or some other term....  However:

I get the impression from reading Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and Part 1 of the Fountainhead) as well as other Objectivist writings, that the only real "rule" that applies to morality with Objectivism is this:

Do not initiate force on another human being.

Anything that is considered wrong/immoral by Objectivists boils down to this.  Is this a correct observation on my part?

Thanks in advance.

Having read some of your subsequent posts, I am sure you will get a better understanding of "selfishness" (compared to hedonism, et al) when you've finished reading The Fountainhead.

To answer your question, no. The basic vice in Objectivism is evasion--an act that Ayn Rand called "the root of all evil".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be 100% clear:

Are you asking, "Does the Objectivist view of Politics say that everything that can be considered a crime is in some way an initiation of force?"

And you are no longer asking about morality, but rather legality?

If crime is more accurate than wrong, immoral, or irrational.

I am asking:

According to Objectivism, is it always wrong/immoral/irrational/a crime to initiate force when dealing with other human beings?

I made the observation that in dealing with other people, everything wrong/immoral/irrational/criminal seems to boil down to this premise, in my somewhat limited knowledge of Objectivism.

I am not sure how "politics" fits into all of this, honestly.

If my observation is incorrect, please correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, one hypothetical situation bothers me with the application of "not initiating force."  I'm not particularly familiar with the story, but I believe I have enough of the facts to reveal my dilema....  An airplane goes down, say in the mountains of South America somewhere.  Say, 2 people survive, and begin the trek to try to find some form of civilization because that is determined to be their most rational option.  Along the way, they run out of food, and are starving to death.  Rather than mutually starve and die, one resorts to "initiating force", murders the other, eats him, and drives on.  The murderer reaches civilization due to the energy he got from eating the other man, and continues to live.

I asked exactly the same question quite a while ago. Perhaps this could help.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to reiterate what some others have been saying.  It is still possible to be immoral when alone on a desert island.  Being immoral means taking actions that are harmful to your own life, which one can certainly do by themselves.

So, smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, driving (you could get in an accident), getting a sunburn, etc. etc. ad nauseam are immoral?

What about suicide?

This is an insufficiently fine distinction in my mind. The Objectivist ethics are virtues you should practice, not a list of things you shouldn't do. Pride (i.e. moral ambitiousness) demands that, if you hold these as virtues you should actively seek to practice them perfectly.

That's wonderful. This is the main reason I'm an Objectivist. However, immoral is an extremely strenuous term when applied to a person. I may be engaging in hair-splitting when I insist on using various different negative evaluations such as "stupid" "obnoxious" "disgusting" "dishonest".

It's probably the technically correct usage anyway, but then what use for terms such as "amoral"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If crime is more accurate than wrong, immoral, or irrational.

I am asking:

According to Objectivism, is it always wrong/immoral/irrational/a crime to initiate force when dealing with other human beings?

First, with your wording it is impossible to answer directly. All crime is immoral, but not all immorality is crime. Crime is that which should be against the law, but immorality is a wider concept that also includes self-destructive actions that do not harm others.

But, yes, it is wrong, immoral, irrational, and a crime to initiate force against another human being.

I made the observation that in dealing with other people, everything wrong/immoral/irrational/criminal seems to boil down to this premise, in my somewhat limited knowledge of Objectivism.

If my observation is incorrect, please correct me.

Strictly speaking, when dealing with others, all that can be considered a crime is also an initiation of force. But as I said, it is possible to act immorally on a desert island, with nobody else around, even if it is not possible to commit a crime there.

I am not sure how "politics" fits into all of this, honestly.

Ethics is the science that answers questions of morality: what is right and what is wrong, in other words.

Politics is the science that answers questions of legality: what should be legal and what should be illegal in other words.

The answer to the question: "should I do this?" and the question "should it be legal for me to do this?" are NOT always the same.

Thus, when you ask "is it legal/moral to do this," you're asking a weird question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, let me clarify again:

I used the string of words separated by slashes because I am not sure which word fits what I am trying to ask.

I would usually say "wrong"

I think "immoral" is possibly the most accurate.

The terms "criminal" and "irrational" were also brought up.

I can't provide a definition for the terms, and I don't know which fits what I am asking the best, so I was trying to provide a "choose your poison" approach to answering my question.

I apologize for the confusion.

(edited to add:)

I am primarily concerned with the Ethics behind this, not the Political implications.

Edited by Sturmgeschutz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "a process of thought" do you mean, "his process of thought"  I.e. to initiate and sustain his own thought process, versus the collective idea of thought processes that all men have?

It also seems to me that if, hypothetically, all men stopped the initiation of force against one another, that the problem would still exist.  Animals initiate force (although arguably not for the purpose of negating reason), steal, kill, etc.  With the absence of human force, men will still have to respond to force being used against them.

Of course. Animals cannot reason. They can only be deal with by force. There is no "initiation of force" between animals and human beings because, in this context, "force" means "to act upon the body or property of an individual, with intent and through physical agency, without his consent". An animal is not an individual human being. An animal cannot know whether the inidividual has given consent or not. That's why you wouldn't put a dog on trial or take him to court if he attacked you. :lol:

Rights, force, law and other such concepts within the context of Objectivist political theory concerns only men, their relationship to each other, and their property.

On another note, one hypothetical situation bothers me with the application of "not initiating force."  I'm not particularly familiar with the story, but I believe I have enough of the facts to reveal my dilema....  An airplane goes down, say in the mountains of South America somewhere.  Say, 2 people survive, and begin the trek to try to find some form of civilization because that is determined to be their most rational option.  Along the way, they run out of food, and are starving to death.  Rather than mutually starve and die, one resorts to "initiating force", murders the other, eats him, and drives on.  The murderer reaches civilization due to the energy he got from eating the other man, and continues to live.

This is (I realize) very loosely based on an actual incident.  The problem I see here is that initiating force was in the man's own rational self-interest (actually, both of them).  By not initiating force, they mutually starve to death, and their lack of force is the cause of their death.

You can change this into any context you want, ship lost at sea, lost in the desert, on a deseted island, etc.  I believe that had it been a man and his dog, not a person would object to it being moral, and rational, to eat the dog rather than starve.  However, because there seems (at least to me) to be a separation of human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom, it would be considered immoral to eat the other human.  Through this, I see no difference between the initiation of force on men and on any other animal.

I put this forward so that my mistakes may be pointed out, as I trust that I have made one somewhere, and I just don't see it.

This is a very common objection we've heard many times before--so often it's given a name: lifeboat scenario.

I highly recommend you read this topic, which was previously recommended by tommyedison.

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...