Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Force vs Retaliatory Force

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to give a more specific example of the use of retaliatory force. Essentially, an individual has a right to his/her own life, including their rightfully property. Self-defense is usually preferred, but, in the case of large-scale conflict, retaliatory measures may be justified. Do you have a scenario that would contradict this concept?

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retaliation is an attempt to protect your rights,  your life, which is the standard of rights in the first place. 

 

Or to put it in the most extreme example:

 

It is immoral to kill someone - You have violated their rights to the ultimate degree.  

 

If someone did kill me you wouldn't say "I cannot violate his rights so I guess the death of Spiral is a shame".   At that point  the authority in charge of dispensing justice is well within it's rights, and morally obligated, to retaliate.  Such a person cannot claim rights after violating another's rights.  He jettisoned that when he initiated force.

 

Otherwise we have no reason to have a Government and are basically walking targets for any criminal that claims a right to your life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #4 you stated, “At that point the authority in charge of dispensing justice is well within it's rights, and morally obligated, to retaliate.

 

This is just a statement and does not answer the question of why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone.

 

You wrote that the authority is “morally obligated”. Why is the authority morally obligated?

 

You stated, “Such a person cannot claim rights after violating another's rights.  He jettisoned that when he initiated force.

 

Why is it that a person cannot claim rights after violating another’s rights? Why does someone jettison his rights when he initiated force?

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?

 

Life requires freedom from the initiation of force. The purpose of retaliatory force is to put an end to the initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

In post #6, you stated, “Life requires freedom from the initiation of force.

 

This is just a statement and does not answer the question of why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone.

 

Why does life require freedom from the initiation of force? Even if life does require freedom from the initiation of force, why does this make the use of force moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

In post #6, you stated, “Life requires freedom from the initiation of force.

 

This is just a statement and does not answer the question of why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone.

 

Well of course any statement I make is going to be "just a statement"...

 

My response does answer your question because it shows the link between retaliatory force and the ultimate ethical value, life. You have a new question (why is force anti-life?) but that doesn't mean your original question wasn't answered.

 

 

Why does life require freedom from the initiation of force?

 

Man's means of survival is his mind. Force is anti-mind and therefore anti-life. Ayn Rand spent quite a lot of time explaining this fact through her philosophic writings and also by concretizing the principle in her novels. If you have read a lot on the topic and have a specific question, I'd be happy to help answer it, but asking people for explanations on a forum for a question as fundamental and broad as this one seems like a terrible way for you to arrive at a correct answer. It's akin to posting "Why is Capitalism good?" in the economics forum.

 

 

 

Even if life does require freedom from the initiation of force, why does this make the use of force moral?

 

Because life is the standard of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CriticalThinker2000,

 

You are correct when you say that any statement that you make is going to be just a statement. I should have been clearer in my response. Let me do that now.

 

In post #6, you stated, “Life requires freedom from the initiation of force. The purpose of retaliatory force is to put an end to the initiation of force.”

 

You answer contains two statements which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute.

 

If the reader does not simply accept your statements as true and absolute, then your two statements do not provide an answer to the question in the original post. Rather, your statements just raise many more questions.

 

I asked two of those questions in post #7. In post #8, in an attempt to answer the question of “Why does life require freedom from the initiation of force”, you provide another statement which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute.

 

You state, “Man's means of survival is his mind. Force is anti-mind and therefore anti-life.” Since I do not accept this statement without question, can you explain how force is anti-mind? Isn’t force the product of the mind? Doesn’t someone use his or her mind to conceive of and then execute the actions necessary to use force? Can a product of the mind be anti-mind? If I use a burning torch to force a lion to abandon the zebra that it just killed so that I may eat said zebra, is that force not a product of my mind? Is it anti-life? Further, if force is anti-mind and therefore anti-life, then wouldn’t the retaliatory use of force, which is just force, also be anti-mind and anti-life?  

 

In post #8, in an attempt to answer the question of “Even if life does require freedom from the initiation of force, why does this make the use of force moral”, you again provide another statement which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute.

 

You state, “Because life is the standard of morality.” I do not accept this statement without question. I could ask questions such as, if someone initiates force against me and it doesn’t end my life then is the use of retaliatory force moral, but I will stop with what I have written above in an attempt to keep from veering too far off the topic in the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #4 you stated, “At that point the authority in charge of dispensing justice is well within it's rights, and morally obligated, to retaliate.

 

This is just a statement and does not answer the question of why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone.

 

 

 

That is why you form a Government, to give a third party the right to use force so we don't have to.  If we had to defend ourselves every day it would hard to lead a productive life.  It can be done but we thrive much better without having to live in anarchy. 

 

There is no utopia where everyone lives peacefully.  Someone will try to swindle, rob, or hurt you.  You can either defend yourself constantly or you can appoint someone to defend you.  Government and political theory flows from there. 

 

 

You stated, “Such a person cannot claim rights after violating another's rights.  He jettisoned that when he initiated force.

 

Why is it that a person cannot claim rights after violating another’s rights? Why does someone jettison his rights when he initiated force?

 

Life is impossible when people use force.  Let me lay the principle out for you:

 

FORCE DESTROYS VALUE

 

If you want to live, then you need to act to do so.  If people force themselves on you they destroy some capacity for you to do that, all the way from something minor like petty theft  forcing you to work for free, all the way to murder which is the ultimate destruction.  

 

The purpose of political rights is to protect your right to act for your survival.  If someone prevents you from that they have violated your rights.  A person who claims he can violate your rights has violated the very reason we as a society appoint someone to protect our rights.  Claiming to want rights but the power to violate them is a contradiction and one has to go.  The criminal chose force, destruction, and made their choice.  From there they are subject to the laws designed to punish people who do not respect the rights of others.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

From post #10, “That is why you form a Government, to give a third party the right to use force so we don't have to.  If we had to defend ourselves every day it would hard to lead a productive life.  It can be done but we thrive much better without having to live in anarchy. 

 

There is no utopia where everyone lives peacefully.  Someone will try to swindle, rob, or hurt you.  You can either defend yourself constantly or you can appoint someone to defend you.  Government and political theory flows from there.”

 

Based on this, is your answer to the question of “Why is the authority morally obligated?” from post #5 something like, “It is moral to have a third party use force in a retaliatory manner because it would be really inconvenient for an individual to do so”? If not, I do not understand how the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral.

 

Also from post# 10, “Life is impossible when people use force” and “FORCE DESTROYS VALUE.”

 

Much like my response to CriticalThinker2000, you make two statements which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute.

 

I do not accept your statements without question. If force destroys value, then how can the use of force in a retaliatory manner, which is force, be moral? If life is impossible when people use force, then when the government, a group of people, use force in a retaliatory manner, which is force, then life is impossible so how can it be moral?

 

Further, you stated, “If you want to live, then you need to act to do so.” Isn’t acting to live a form of force? If I kill an animal to eat I am using force. But if “life is impossible when people use force” and “force destroys value” then although I kill an animal and get food, something I value, because I used force then the value is destroyed and my life is impossible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

softwareNerd,

 

Since you are ”…taking rights for granted in this post [#11]” there is not much I can ask about the things you wrote as they would most likely fall under the purview of rights.

 

But I will ask something based on: “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.”

 

In the country which I live, the government takes a portion of my money away from me and calls it taxes. There is not anything that I can do to stop this so I think it falls under the “that’s too bad you can do nothing about it” category. Does this mean my right to do what I will with my money is a theoretical fiction? Is it moral for me to use force to restore my ability to use my money as I will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

From post #10, “That is why you form a Government, to give a third party the right to use force so we don't have to.  If we had to defend ourselves every day it would hard to lead a productive life.  It can be done but we thrive much better without having to live in anarchy. 

 

There is no utopia where everyone lives peacefully.  Someone will try to swindle, rob, or hurt you.  You can either defend yourself constantly or you can appoint someone to defend you.  Government and political theory flows from there.”

 

Based on this, is your answer to the question of “Why is the authority morally obligated?” from post #5 something like, “It is moral to have a third party use force in a retaliatory manner because it would be really inconvenient for an individual to do so”? If not, I do not understand how the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral.

 

Also from post# 10, “Life is impossible when people use force” and “FORCE DESTROYS VALUE.”

 

Much like my response to CriticalThinker2000, you make two statements which, given the lack of further explanation, the lack of definitions, and the lack of any qualifying terms, you seem to expect the reader to accept without question as true and absolute.

 

 

I think the issue is that I'm assuming you have a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics.  What I really need to do is reevaluate that and start from the beginning.  Otherwise I'm going to being going in circles with you and that will just frustrate you.  

 

The only thing I will add for now until I can do that properly is:

 

 

"I do not accept your statements without question. If force destroys value, then how can the use of force in a retaliatory manner, which is force, be moral?"

 

Self Defense. We need to talk about context too as some point.  Principles are about context. 

 

 

"If life is impossible when people use force, then when the government, a group of people, use force in a retaliatory manner, which is force, then life is impossible so how can it be moral?"

 

Self Defense

 

"Further, you stated, “If you want to live, then you need to act to do so.” Isn’t acting to live a form of force? If I kill an animal to eat I am using force. But if “life is impossible when people use force” and “force destroys value” then although I kill an animal and get food, something I value, because I used force then the value is destroyed and my life is impossible?"

 

  A chicken is property.  A human is a moral agent and has rights. If you are  going to equate the life of a rational human being and that of a chicken as the same moral standard then we really need to start over.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you are ”…taking rights for granted in this post [#11]” there is not much I can ask about the things you wrote as they would most likely fall under the purview of rights.

In your OP, you said you wanted to distinguish between force and retaliatory force. You implied that force was wrong, but that you were not sure why retaliation is right. However, are you now implying that you are not sure that even the initiation of force is wrong? Or are you implying that the initiation of force is wrong even if we do not assume anyone has rights?

 

In the country which I live, the government takes a portion of my money away from me and calls it taxes... ...

This shifts the entire context of the question. Th way the OP is framed seems to ask how a proper political system ought to work. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fredanyman,

"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?"

Firstly, Objectivist philosophy does not consider it immoral to use force against someone. That is a false premise. It is the initiation of force which is considered immoral. It is perfectly moral under Objectivist philosophy to use retaliatory force.

Every individual faces the fundamental alternative of existence or non-existence. Life or death. Where an individual chooses life, they will then require a code of values consistent with that choice to live (life will become their standard of value).

For an individual to arrive at an understanding of how to live successfully and independently (where they are capable of providing the means for their own existence), they need to learn how to act in a way which is not self-defeating. This in turn requires that an individual does not accept contradictions. And this leads to the agent valuing reason and rationality before all else, which he can apply to practical life sustaining action.

In the political sphere, rights are the means by which rational men avoid self-defeating actions in their dealings with one another, which means basing their dealings with one another on reason, being rational and objective. The first right, of which all other rights are corollaries, is the right to life. This is the standard of value common to all rational men. Corollaries such as property rights ensure that men may live independently and clarify rights of action, making harmonious living more achievable.

Now turning to your post. Would it be rational for men to have the freedom to initiate force whenever they liked? If men could initiate force against one another whenever they liked, regardless of whether this was in a particular individual's self-interest, this would not be consistent with each individual holding their own life to be their standard of value. If life is your standard of value, you are against that which threatens it. Do you agree? It would also be double standards to say it would be OK for Objectivists to sacrifice others. Double standards are contradictory, irrational and so rejected.

Using force to prevent what you value from being destroyed is not immoral and it does not breach anyone's else's rights. If you do use retaliatory force, who would you rationally retaliate against? Whoever it is who is posing a threat. You should take the necessary means to stop them, given that you want to live. This may mean using lethal force in some circumstances. Any damage done to them is a consequence of their own irrational, self-defeating behaviour; they will have got what they asked for. However, you would not be seeking to damage them as such, your rational aim is to stop them from damaging you - so once you had succeeded in stopping them from being a threat, no further use of force would be desirable or necessary. You'd be free to carry on with your life.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

I am confused by your statement from post #16, “I think the issue is that I'm assuming you have a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics.  What I really need to do is reevaluate that and start from the beginning.  Otherwise I'm going to being going in circles with you and that will just frustrate you.”

 

What does this mean? Are you saying that if I had what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics that I would instantly understand and have no further questions when you make a statement like, “Life is impossible when people use force” or provide a two word answer of “Self Defense”?

 

You go on to state, from post #16, “A chicken is property.  A human is a moral agent and has rights. If you are going to equate the life of a rational human being and that of a chicken as the same moral standard then we really need to start over.”

 

I asked you for more clarification on your statement from post #10 that “Life is impossible when people use force”. That was your entire statement. You did not say life of a human being, life of a rational human being, life of a chicken, or anything else that may have added clarity and/or conveyed the message that you intended. I asked a legitimate question based on your response because, taken as you wrote it, your statement is not true since life, whether the life of a man, the life of a chicken, or the life of a single cell organism, is possible when people use force.  Of course you could have meant the life of a rational man, and you could have meant that life is a process and not just the physical act of staying alive, and you could have meant that when a person uses force against another that force prevents the person from carrying out the process of his or her life and that is immoral, and you could have meant that life is a gift from God and therefore it is immoral to use force against it, and you could have meant it exactly as you wrote it. How am I to know? Are you suggesting that if I had what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics I would have known exactly what you meant and what you were trying to convey? I may or may not have what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics, but regardless of my level of knowledge, I cannot read your mind and I can only take from what you write that which you write.

 

Since you seem to prefer to respond to questions with answers like, “Self Dense” and you appear to be dismayed that I ask you further questions based on your answers, please feel free to disregard the questions that I asked in this post and I will, if you wish, not ask you any more questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

softwareNerd,

 

From post #17, “In your OP, you said you wanted to distinguish between force and retaliatory force. You implied that force was wrong, but that you were not sure why retaliation is right.” And, “This shifts the entire context of the question. Th [sic] way the OP is framed seems to ask how a proper political system ought to work.”

 

The original post says, “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?

 

Where does it state that I want to distinguish between force and retaliatory force? How does this question have anything to do with a political system when neither a political system nor government is mentioned anywhere in the post? The question asks why it is moral to use force in a retaliatory manner. Additionally, how does the question in the original post imply that that “force was wrong”? Objectivism appears to consider the use of force to be immoral, I have not implied anything.

 

You then stated, “However, are you now implying that you are not sure that even the initiation of force is wrong? Or are you implying that the initiation of force is wrong even if we do not assume anyone has rights?

 

I am not implying anything. I am asking questions based on the responses to the original post. If I do not find a response clear and/or I do not understand a response, I am going to ask more questions based on the response.

 

In post #11 you stated that you are taking rights for granted in this post. This makes discussion difficult because we either shift the discussion to focus on rights or just about every response you could make would be something like, “It is all about rights.” It is similar to someone saying, “For this discussion, it is assumed that God exits, has clearly and successfully communicated his thoughts and wishes to man, and has stated that the use of force in a retaliatory manner against someone is moral.” After limiting the parameters of the discussion by assuming that a concept is true and correct and that all answers stem from that concept, it is nearly impossible to question further because every response would be something like, “God says so” or “It has to do with the concept of rights.” This is case here.

 

In post #14 I asked a question that concerned rights. I realize now that the question would probably be better suited for a different thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Southhall,

 

I have many questions concerning what you wrote in post #18. But for the sake of focus, I will ask only one here. You asked, “If life is your standard of value, you are against that which threatens it. Do you agree?”

 

I agree that if life is your standard of value then you are against that which threatens it. What I do not understand is your statement about double standards. I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you make the jump from I value my life so I must value your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The original post says, “I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force:...

 

Where does it state that I want to distinguish between force and retaliatory force?...

I guess I have no clue what you're asking. Ignore my previous posts.

 

How does this question have anything to do with a political system...

Normative politics is the body of knowledge that asks: how we should live with each other and deal with each other. Robinson Crusoe does not use force (unless he equivocates ;). ) Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 

I am confused by your statement from post #16, “I think the issue is that I'm assuming you have a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics.  What I really need to do is reevaluate that and start from the beginning.  Otherwise I'm going to being going in circles with you and that will just frustrate you.”

 

What does this mean? Are you saying that if I had what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics that I would instantly understand and have no further questions when you make a statement like, “Life is impossible when people use force” or provide a two word answer of “Self Defense”?

 

Yes.  But further I would not have assumed that answer would have sufficed.  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.  Your question is coming from a different context and deserves an answer that starts from the beginning.

 

Self Defense stands on it's own.   Unless you do not think people have a right to defend themselves then we have a different conversation completely.   

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?

 

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.

 

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FredAnyman,

"I agree that if life is your standard of value then you are against that which threatens it. What I do not understand is your statement about double standards. I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you make the jump from I value my life so I must value your life?"

I'll explain it to you.

You would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others. If others held that same standard, it would be OK for them to sacrifice you, but not OK for you to sacrifice them. If everyone held that standard, everyone would try to sacrifice others whilst at the same time bemoaning the fact others are trying to sacrifice them. As a standard, it leads to self-defeating conflicts.

Alternatively you would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others. For this to work, every other member of society would have to hold that it is OK for them to be sacrificed by you, but that it is not OK for them to sacrifice you. The standard you hold them to is not one you would live by. If they are rational, they would not live by it either as it would permit self-sacrifice - given they want to live this would again be self-defeating.

If you held as your standard that it is not OK to sacrifice others and it is not OK to be sacrificed by others, and everyone else held that standard, sacrifice would cease to exist and this would be in everyone's rational self-interest. Therefore it is in your own rational self-interest that no one sacrifices, including yourself.

Edited by Jon Southall
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...