rasconia

No, "doing whatever we can to survive" is not the only option that remains: You could instead choose to not do whatever you can to survive. People occasionally do choose to kill themselves, after all. Trying to survive (rather than trying to get yourself killed) obviously would be the rational choice, since you value your life. However, this means that rational action is still possible.

Then why did Rand say that self defense was a moral imperative? It sounds to me like she did think there was a rational/moral option. The question wasn't about who has responsibility for the outcome- it was about the reason why violence is immoral in Objectivism. Ayn Rand doesn't seem to think that all the victim's options are equally valid: she claims self defense is a moral imperative. Thus, the victim is still able to act morally, in his own rational self interest.

Here's the problem, folks: Ayn Rand said violence could be justified - but only if it was taken in one's self-defense. "The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative." -Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness So here are the options: 1. "Self defense is impossible, since the victims of violence are forced to act against their rational self interest." -If this is the case, then Ayn Rand is contradicting herself, since she said that self defense was a moral imperative, which presupposes that it is possible. 2. "Self defense is possible, and is in one's rational self interest" - If this is the case, then Ayn Rand is also contradicting herself, because she said the victim of violence is forced to act against one's rational self interest. 3. "Self defense is possible, but is not in one's rational self interest" - If this is the case, then Ayn Rand is also contradicting herself, since she says that self defense is a moral imperative. Having the right (and the moral imperative!) to act in one's own self-defense presupposes and depends on the fact that the victim of violence is not forced to act as the attacker wishes. As long as I can act in my self-defense, I am not being forced to think or act against my self interest. Thus Ayn Rand contradicts herself. In objectivism, what makes violent actions wrong is not their intention, but the (supposed) inability of the victim to be rationally self interested.

The issue was never about whether your ability to reason, think and act were ever impacted; it was about whether you were forced or not. Once again, the same is true of divorce threats. I think it's time for a re-cap: Lets say a mugger confronts you with a gun, and gives you a choice: "your money or you life!" The mugger has not drugged you. He does not have mind control powers. Since he cannot control your mind: you still have the ability to think and reason You still have the ability to imagine possible courses of action that weren't suggested by the mugger (e.g. physically retaliating or running away) You still have the ability to evaluate which possible choice of action is the best, according to your rational self interest You still have the ability to decide on a course of action, even if you'd be disobeying the mugger when doing so (e.g. physically retaliating or running away) You still have the ability to act on your decision, rather than submit to the options provided by the mugger. Given that you retain all these abilities, in what sense can you said to be forced by a threat?

Actually, I was hoping for a clarification. I'll try to explain my train of thought though: First you said: "Right, that's why "having to choose between options you don't accept" is not the criterion for a rights-violation. The initiation of physical force by human beings is." Later you said: "If your wife threatens you with divorce there is no initiation of force because the criterion of a rights violation is not "not getting my every whim."" But if you take these two statements together, you end up with the conclusion, that "If your wife threatens you with divorce there is no initiation of force because the criterion of a rights violation is the initiation of physical force by human beings."" ...anyways.. Why, exactly, does that cause the loss of one's "right" to make a choice? Where do these rights come from? Are they socially constructed, or objective? And how can you tell? Also, I think you are making an implicit assumption: you seem to be assuming that if someone lacks the right to do something, then that means that they are forced to not do it. But there's no reason why this should be the case- the fact that some people rebel and retaliate against muggers proves that people are not prevented from acting by the lack of a right to do so. In fact, it seems to me that this would be the rational choice- shouldn't one's choices be guided by one's own self interest, rather than the desire to adhere to ideals like "rights"? On the contrary, I was not equivocating because I was only referring to freedom of will (objective freedom). Once you start talking about social freedoms, you're talking about social constructions, rather than objective reality. Consider this: It is possible for a person to have the freedom(of will) to reason and to act in his or her own self interest, yet simultaneously lack the (social)freedom to reason and act in his or her own self interest. Right? If I am being mugged and I choose not to retaliate or otherwise act in my rational self interst because I don't have the (social)freedom to act, then how can we say that the mugger is what prevented me from acting? No, the thing that prevented me from acting was my own sense of rights and social freedom, not the mugger himself

Yes- I was citing the objectivist position. But I don't agree with the objectivist position. A violent threat is not a form of mind control. A violent threat does not prevent you from thinking, reasoning, evaluating the available options, making a decision, disobeying the mugger, or taking action (e.g. fighting back). So in what sense can you be said to be forced to act against your own reason?

In terms of making decisions and reasoning, getting shot to death is not the same as being threatened. You can still think, reason, and act while you are alive; you can't while dead.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Obviously there is a difference- its just not a difference that is relevant to the point at hand. As I understand Objectivist ethics, violence is immoral for a reason- and that reason has nothing to do with the physical pain or harm a person might experience. Obviously having your kneecaps broken is much more painful (physically, at least) than going through a divorce- but the morality of the action does not depend on how much physical or emotional pain the victim experiences- the morality of the action depends on how it affects the other person's ability to reason and act.

I didn't say that there was no difference. Obviously there is a difference; the onus is still on you to show why that difference matters.

And here I thought Objectivism relied on logic and reason instead of emotional appeals....

Because they estimate that violent threats are more likely to get the victim to do what they want.

Just because the choice to resist is available doesn't mean it's the most rational one. In fact, unless you are some sort of martial arts superman, the choice to resist a violent attack is almost certainly irrational. But it's still a choice - not even the mugger can force you to not resist- he can only react to your decisions.

I may have gone too far there, but I'm sticking to my point: The victim still has free will- even if threatened with a gun.

When I ask why violent threats are immoral, I get answers about how it is violating your rights by forcing your choices. But as I have shown, people retain their free will, even if threatened- and so thus far I have seen no reason to conclude that non-violent threats (and other forms of persuasion) don't force your choice just as much as a violent threat. Both violent and non-violent threats are cases where other people influence your decisions to their benefit and your loss by giving undesirable options. In both cases, if you refuse the threat, you risk facing negative consequences to your self interest. The only real difference is that the violent threat deals with violent, physical force- but you can't use this fact to prove that it is immoral, because that would be circular logic.

Strictly speaking, those are the choices he wants me to consider. I still have other options- I could try running away, or retaliating, or simply refusing. I could even try calling his bluff- just because he makes a threat doesn't mean he actually intends to follow through. Once that's established, it merely comes down to making the choices that likely to have the best consequences for my self-interest. I might not like the choices that are available...but that's life. Reality isn't obligated to cater to my whims. Right?

And the unfortunate reality is that a lot of people get away with crimes.

Yeah. In the divorce threat, the consequence for not washing the dishes is an unpleasant experience (the divorce). In the kneecap threat, the consequence for not giving the money is an unpleasant experience (having your kneecaps broken).

Then why is the initiation of physical force the criterion for a rights violation? Why aren't non-violent threats also a criterion for rights violation? The answers I've seen so far seem to rely on circular logic or tautologies(e.g. "violence is immoral because it's a rights violation, and rights violations are immoral since they involve violence") Wait...so a divorce threat is not the initiation of force because the criterion of a rights violation is...initation of force? see above statement about tautologies And if a man holds you at gunpoint and asks for your money, you have the right to refuse him. If you don't like it, then you're just like James Taggart, complaining that "reality is enslaving you by not giving you your whims!". Right? The ability (as opposed to responsibility) to act independently depends only on your metaphysical autonomy. And honestly I don't see too many cases in which people actually do lose moral autonomy- unless the person has been drugged (or rendered unconscious), or unless the person is too young or mentally disabled to understand the consequences of their actions. If a slave knowingly beats his wife for cheating on him, wouldn't he be morally autonomous? According to the criteria you've given, he would not be, since he lost moral autonomy. But this is absurd, as his being enslaved is not what caused him to attack his wife. So what are the criteria for being morally autonomous?

Does the mugger want you to present an argument? No! He wants you to give him the money. If you start presenting an argument, you are acting against his desires. If you feel that you are "compelled" to act a certain way, it is due to your own desire for self-preservation; not because the mugger is controlling your mind or your decisions. Once again: The mugger doesn't have magical mind control powers. He can't force you to think a certain way. The Jedi Mind Trick doesn't actually exist in the real world. On the contrary, threats (whether they are violent or non-violent) are merely a means of persuasion. For that matter, what basis do you have for saying that physical threats are immoral if non-violent persuasion isn't immoral? If violent threats are a form of mind control, then it implies that persuasion is also a kind of mind control.

Ok, I'll agree- my wife isn't forcing me. But that just proves that a man who points a gun at my head isn't forcing me either. Let's say a mugger points a gun at you and says "your money or your life!" and in response you give him the money. You protest that you have been restricted because you value your life above all else. However, the reality is that you still have free will: you simply act and give him the money as a reflection of your value selection. If you disagree - please help me to understand how you value anything less than your own survival, according to objectivism. If you can't - then we've established that your supposed "forced action" is nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it is the most rational action possible given a man who values his life above all else. Thus, there is no reason within objectivism to say that mugging is immoral, since the victim is still able to take rational actions.

That's exactly my point! If my wife threatens me with divorce, she is still getting me to act how I would not otherwise want by constraining my choices (just like a mugger)- it's just she's using the threat of ending the relationship rather than the threat of physical force. She is removing options from me that you never agreed to -just like a mugger. If highway robbery is immoral since it forces people to choose between options that the victim did not accept- then it follows that *any* action that forces people to choose between options that the victim did not accept is also immoral- even if its just my wife threatening me with divorce. But this is absurd, so it is obvious that this critera is overly broad. Of course they are! It's not like their mind is being controlled by someone else, or like they're acting automatically. No you aren't; there are other choices: you could simply stand still and do nothing, or you could try to argue with the robber, or you could try running away, or you could try to call for help and so on. The robber can't make you choose- you still have free will and have to make a choice!

The problem is that this criterion is overly broad. There are many non-violent ways of manipulating people into doing things that are against their self interest by constraining their choices between undesirable alternatives. Almost any non-violent threat would fall into this category- bosses can threaten to fire their employees, wives can threaten their husbands with divorce, other people can threaten you with lawsuits etc. For example, lets say my wife tells me to stop reading Ayn Rand novels and to wash the dishes instead, or else she'll divorce me. 1. I would choose to do read Ayn Rand novels (i.e. I judge it to be good for me.) I dis-value washing the dishes and getting divorced (i.e. I judge them to be bad for me.) 2. I will wash the dishes rather than getting divorced. 3. I will argue my wife rather than getting divorced. Within the context of the hegemonic relationship, I can still choose to act towards 2, and it may be true that doing Y rather than being divorced might be the best decision given the circumstances, but I am still being prevented from pursuing my rational self-interest by being denied choice 1. The whole point of utilizing a non-violent threat to force others to submit is to bring about a state of affairs in which subjection to the terms of the threat is considered by the victim more desirable than rebellion. So if Rand is right, this would also have to be equivalent to a violent threat- but that's absurd.

But why would you need character if you're able to steal without getting caught? If you steal something that you desire, and you're never caught, that proves that you did not need to be productive in order to achieve your own desire (because you successfully attained it through theft rather than hard work). So, if a thief has a score so big that he can retire from the stolen money, and he's never caught- how exactly was it bad for the thief in the long term?

Yesterday my wife said that if I didn't wash the dishes, she'd divorce me. Obviously my actions are controlled, as my future plans were rendered irrelevant and I wouldn't be able to lead my life in a manner that I choose. Therefore, her threat was an act of violence according to your criteria. (Note: This event did not actually happen) But what if I've had special martial arts training that taught me how to deal with these situations? It is not inevitable that the mugger will kill you; even a quick google search can find news reports of would-be victims who successfully fight back against muggers. If you are skilled at martial arts and can disarm people, then choosing to obey the mugger would be irrational, since you might be able escape with both your life and your money if you disobey. And just because your life is threatened doesn't mean you shouldn't act rationally anymore. On the contrary, rational self-interest is of vital importance when your life is at stake. Likewise, you are no less free just because you're being threatened, since you still have to make a choice and you can quite easily choose self destruction if you want.

Here's the problem: Lets say there's a thief who makes a theft but never gets caught. He gets to enjoy the spoils of his crime without punishment- so obviously, committing the theft was a benefit to him. Therefore, the rational, self-interested choice in this case was to steal. After all, if he had chosen to not commit the crime he would have ended up with less money than he otherwise would have had, which definitely would not be in his self-interest. If you act unvirtuously and benefit anyways, then it proves that you didn't need virtue after all. And once it is established that theft can be in one's self interest, the decision to steal or not basically comes down to a rational cost-benefit analysis, rather than principles or virtues (other than the virtue of selfishness, of course). P.S. To anyone in doubt, I am not advocating theft or the use of violence - I'm merely pointing flaws I see in Objectivism