CriticalThinker2000

How can you make sweeping statements about what Rand thought/ignored/didn't ignore when you haven't even read her book on epistemology?

I recognize that there is a difference. But you keep equivocating civilian with innocent. Can we accept that these two are not interchangeable? Civilian populations are not collections of two year olds. Sure I agree with this. Dresden was peachy? Really? Who said that? Misrepresenting my view is not helpful. Well we're in violent disagreement on this point. I don't even know how to combat such an assertion. War should not be accepted as some every day occurence. I mean, that's just messed up. War is not some every day occurrence anymore than getting mugged is an every day occurrence. How can you accept that this is how we should expect to live? Why is living under threat of force normal to you? I see you're a mod so presumably you are at least sympathetic to Objectivism and appear to have an understanding of it. If this is true, how do you accept the idea that someone threatening your life by force is an every day occurrence? I get that you refuse to accept the zero-sum paradigm. But at the same time you accept that in a rational war of self-defense, some innocent people will have to die for you to protect yourself. Can you explain how this is not a zero-sum situation? Is this really an honest misunderstanding of my view? Why the F would you take a swing at the guy's child? You keep trying to distort my view into: kill two year olds. Seriously, stop it. If the man is using his child as a shield I think that what happens to the child when defending yourself is his fault. With that being said, a government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens. That means it's the government's job to protect the child who did not initiate force. It is NOT the job of our government to protect the rights of people outside of its domain. That means that when protecting our rights necessitates damaging people who did not initiate force against us, the government does what is necessary to protect us. Oh gee wiz I wonder. *as they deem necessary for returning to normal life. Yes, I think that's close to what she meant. That is consistent with Objectivism and it's consistent with everything she said about how man should act in situations where metaphysically normal life is not possible (as in war). It's also completely consistent with what she never said: That nuking Japan was immoral. That bombing civilians is always immoral. Etc. There is a certain 'higher ground' that goes along with claiming that a certain issue is too complex, or necessitates 'quite an undertaking' to explain. However, this is a specific point that should be incredibly obvious to someone familiar with history. The allies bombing of civilian populations in WWII not only was necessary to end the war but also necessary to reduce allied casualties. This is far from being some complicated claim requiring vast historical study. In fact, I would say that such a conclusion was damn near perceptually given for people alive during the war. If you want to formulate it that way, yes. That is, our government cannot both protect our rights and protect the rights of the innocents within an enemy country. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. That's what happens in war. Dare I use the term, zero sum? It's our governments obligation to protect our rights- not their rights. Anyways, I'm done with this thread. My view continues to be misrepresented as being in favor of punching two year olds.

What are you saying here? The fact that a principle is contextual means that it's not fundamental? Do you mean to say that the fact that a principle is contextual means that it's not absolute? I think you're getting you might be getting your terminology mixed up. Principles are formed under certain contexts and they are absolute within the context. Under other contexts the principle is not necessarily valid. It is always in fundamental contradiction with your nature but suppose you are in a situation where the very existence of values at all requires you to use force (as in a situation with a terrorist holding a detonator, or war, or when a criminal breaks into your house, or whatever situation you can conjure up). In such a situation, it's impossible to live according to your nature. The non-initiation of force principle presupposes a world in which achieving and sustaining values in accordance with your nature is possible. But my question to you is, why would you bother focusing on these situations before you have an understanding why stealing is wrong in the context of daily life?

You're really trying to separate the principle from practice. The fundamental cause of the immorality is the fact that theft requires force (just a restatement of: it is in contradiction to your method of creating/sustaining values). It's not a valid method of achieving values and is therefore immoral. Also, because it's not a valid method of achieving value, there are negative consequences when you attempt to gain/sustain a value obtained via theft. As Aleph mentioned, there are contexts under which the principle is invalid but I wouldn't worry about that until you understand why theft is wrong in the first place.

Why are they exclusive? If you act in contradiction to your method of survival, there are negative consequences.

I posted this in the previous thread: Man has a specific nature and acquires values in a specific fashion, just like every kind of animal. The source of man's ability to create and retain values is the rational faculty. Theft is the initiation of force and is in fundamental contradiction with your nature as a human being. In the above video Mr. Schwartz explains how theft necessarily inverts what you need to do to retain your stolen value- from uncompromising adherence to reality to an evasion of facts and reality. Have you read through other threads? If so you should have a question more specific than, 'explain it to me'. If not, well I'm not going to re-hash what's already available from many sources.

What. As I explained in the prior thread stealing is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense. But there are a thousand threads on this topic, I'm sure. Did you search?

Geeze, maybe we're not arguing about the same thing. I don't think it's moral to target the innocent- I think it can be moral to target civilians (many of which may be innocent). You still disagree with this formulation? Oh for goodness sake. Look, when I say innocence is inconsequential, I meant innocence is inconsequential during war. I thought we understood that the context of normal life- of a non zero sum world- was out? I mean, I understand objectivism so please don't claim that I'm conflating two states. We're talking about war- don't equivocate it with normal life. OK. Read a history book. I've nothing else to say about that. Was it false for the Japanese two year old in Hiroshima and the American soldier? You've accepted the idea that civilians may die in war meaning you've already accepted this premise. That there are times when, in protecting yourself, there is an innocent person in the way. I believe you've said you agree but now you don't agree? There are times when, in protecting yourself, you have to target a civilian population as well (which may include innocents). I mean that there have been many occasions throughout history where victory was unacheivable without targeting civilian populations. If you don't think this is true than we disagree on a fact of war which I think can be seen in the history of many many conflicts. Yes, it's hyperbole for me to say, the entire history of war. Only a few lines prior you claimed that there is no conflict between your self defense and the innocents in war (specifically a two year old), but now you claim that you know that they have to die. Well if they have to die, their life is in conflict with yours. That's what it means to have to die. This is silly. As I stated in the prior post, the generals themselves are not in a metaphysical emergency but they are making decisions concerning the lives of men who are. It's pure context dropping to say, oh they can eat in a steakhouse so it's not an emergency situation. As I explained earlier, the fundamental cause of emergency situations is the existence of a zero-sum world. Is that true of police under normal circumstances? Obviously not. However, when someone is coming at the police officer with a gun, the gun wielding criminal isn't tried before a court of his peers before the cop shoots him. So yes, it does apply to police in this way. OK. Let's be precise. Ayn Rand is saying that the government of those attacked does not suddenly have the right to violate the rights of those whose job it is to protect. I think this is a straw man because I'm not saying that you should target a two year old child. That is absurd. I'm saying that there is nothing immoral about targeting a civilian population (which may or may not include two year olds) should the preservation of your life demand it. What is your opinion of this exact formulation? You would agree but think that targeting a civilian population is unnecessary (which is a disagreement of practical fact)? Or would you disagree because there are two year olds caught in the way (which is a disagreement of moral principle)? I honestly still do not understand your position because in one part you claim that you understand innocent people (of which the two year old is a pure example) will die and in another part you claim that the innocent's lives aren't in conflict with your own (again the two year old). Well if the innocent person has to die for the sake of your protection, then their lives are in conflict with your own- however terrible it might be. And I don't want to be portrayed as some war monger. I think war is disgusting and terrible for the very reason that your life becomes diametrically opposed to other's lives. It's disgusting and horrible and should be ended as soon as possible with as few casualties on your side as possible. And I'm not for targeting two year olds. That's horrific but also a moronic tactic.

Thanks!

OK I'm in agreement. I wish such a thing too- but unfortunately that is no longer one of the options. Right, I absolutely do not wish a two year old death either. So what exactly is going on here with our disagreement? There is no bomb that will kill only adults. There seems to be a fundamental fact here, rather than a principal, that I accept and you disagree with (maybe?). That fact is: to destroy an enemy it is sometimes necessary to bomb the civilian population. Innocence, as we've been talking about, is inconsequential. It is a simple fact of war that civilian populations are ultimately what give rise to the governments that rule them and therefore must be bombed in order for a threat to be removed. I think the entire history of war backs this premise. Simply look at any war. Could this be the point of our disagreement? Because neither of us think the two year old in Iran deserves death. It certainly doesn't, but by living in the civilian population its life is now diametrically opposed to your own. Again, this is through no fault of its own nor any fault of your own. This is what I mean by metaphysical emergency. Someone has to die and that's why war is disgusting. Yes, I agree. But that principle is contextual- it depends upon a context of normal life. It presupposes that you're not in a fight for your life. That context is gone and so is the principle. Yes, I guess this is true. It's more like, if you want to live, this is what you need to do. I guess this is a good point to address Marc K as well, who said: I see both of your points in that war does not necessarily fulfill Rand's description of emergency. But take a step back, what is the fundamental cause that gives rise to 'emergency' in the lifeboat scenario? It's the fact that life is now zero-sum. That very same fundamental cause is active in war as well. The two should be grouped together under the same fundamental- the existence of a zero-sum world- and formed into a concept: emergencies. Edit: Actually now that I think about it more I do think that a war of self defense meets even those descriptive criteria of emergency: It is unchosen (you did not choose to be attacked), It is unexpected (in a certain sense), it is limited in time (war is not indefinite- the point is to end it), and human survival is impossible (someone is going to die). So to say that generals planning bombing runs 2,000 miles away from the battlefield is not an emergency situation is to ignore the fundamental cause of emergencies and to also ignore the fact that the general's decision making deals with the life and death of soldiers. In other words, even though the general is far away he is making emergency decisions- decisions that deal with a zero sum world in which some people are going to die. As for your American soldier example, I think such a person would be justified in defending their immediate existence and then getting the heck out. That doesn't imply a contradiction with what I'm saying. So I think this is possibly more evidence that you think that bombing civilians is not necessary to prevent casualties on your own side. Maybe that is our disagreement? If that is what you think (don't want to put words in your mouth), I think the evidence against such a position is tremendous. Certainly. But no omniscience is necessary to see that the aggressor nation is the culprit. I was merely pointing to the fact that many people might not come to the proper conclusion but whether they do or not is irrelevant. Well, without delving into a historical example it's sufficient to say there are times when bombing a civilian population is necessary for a government to reduce casualties on its own side. There are many examples.

Yes, reasonable moral men should not target your family, of course! Let's be very clear about where the disagreement is in application to your family. My view, and I believe the view of Ayn Rand, is that you cannot morally equate each side of a conflict by default. That is, there is no moral reason for anyone to kill innocent Americans. And your family is American. However, say you lived in Iran- that protection would not apply because Iran is a mortal enemy of the citizens of the United States. Yes, they are. Yes, I would think they would be. Would that justify them killing your family? NO. It would justify them killing those people that placed them into such a situation. The initiatiors of force, not the defenders!! I think this is moral equivocation. The rational action for them to take is to fight for the country that is rights respecting. Not against those who are bombing but those who necessitated the bombing (assuming the attackers are acting in self defense). In the case of Iran that would mean an innocent moral man in Iran, in the case of a US invasion, should fight against the Iranian government- not the US. Surely you cannot disagree with that? I think you might be misunderstanding the nature of metaphysical emergencies. What sort of principles do you apply in a life-boat scenario? A scenario where either you have to kill the other guy or kill yourself. If those are the options offered there is no universal principle governing both parties without contradiction. The principles of Objectivism assume normal life. They assume that you're not locked in a zero sum game. The nature of war is exactly the same as the life boat. It's either lay down and die or kill and survive. As such, the moral obligation of individuals is to fight to protect their own life. That may involve killing people who had nothing to do with the war. It's sad and it's terrible but that is what war is- sad and terrible. Your daughter wouldn't earn her destruction. She would be placed into a life boat situation through no choice of her own- through no choice except that of the aggressor. No, that would be bizarre to be OK with losing a tremendous value. How SHOULD you feel? Well, you should recognize that your government has continued to kill and support the killing of innocent American citizens and as such American citizens have a moral right to do what is necessary to end the threat- which includes bombing you. Therefore, you should feel indignation towards your own government for putting you in the way of the American military. And you should get the heck out. In what way would it make sense for a man in Iran to be angry at the US for the death of his loved ones? Again, the blood is on the hands of the people that put him into such a situation and that's where his anger ought to be directed. Towards those responsible. Yes, he may not understand that it's his own government at fault but it doesn't matter what he believes. What matters is what's true and how he ought to feel based on the truth. And let's not ignore the implications of your view. Your belief necessitates sacrifice. According to your view we should not have dropped nukes on Japan and instead let hundreds of thousands of Americans (and probably millions of Japanese) die in an invasion. Again, it is the nature of war which necessitates one or the other and I think you should have to answer for the implication of your views- that the lives of innocent Japanese are more important than the lives of innocent Americans.

Wait a minute. It's not just Objectivism that's prone to schisms but all radical ideological movements- from Communism to the founding fathers (some of whom hated each other). The fact is, disagreements in these movements are almost always of a moral nature meaning that the disagreements are particularly vehement. And the opportunity for disagreement is large when you're applying an abstract principle to practice. I just don't agree with the idea that Objectivism is more prone than any other movement.

That is not true. It was essential (along with fat man/little boy) for our ability to win the war without an invasion. Pure and simple.

It turns out that there are plenty of people around the world who would like to kill your wife and daughter because they're not part of an ideology. It has nothing to do with your wife/daughter not initiating force. These people don't care about that. No, they are not fighting for their lives- they're fighting for an ideology. An ideology that is anti-life. They desire to win and consequently they do desire to break America's spirit. Look, no one is saying that it's moral to kill your child. No one is saying that it's moral to bomb Kansas. Even if you're a crazy Muslim. What I'm saying is that sometimes it is moral for a free country to bomb innocent people in defense of the lives of the free country's constituents. Now you want to transfer this over to your daughter?? It's not remotely comparable so in no way shape or form does what I'm saying imply that it's OK to kill innocent americans. No one is saying that it's OK to kill your daughter. Why are you morally equating a free country fighting against anti-life ideologues who want to mutilate your daughter/chop your head off/beat your wife with these same wackjob's desire to win? Just because you want to win a war doesn't mean it's OK to kill civilizans. However, if you are fighting in defense of your life- it is moral to do what is necessary. War is a metaphysical emergency and as such necessitates actions that are not OK in normal circumstances in order to remove the metaphysical threat. It's that simple. And rightfully you should. But I'm mystified as to how you can equate someone coming into America and killing your daughter with America defending itself by bombing the civilian populations that support terrorist regimes. Not all motivations are morally equivalent. Edit: Why was the nuclear bombing of Japan incredibly moral? Because it saved the lives of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of American soldiers who would have had to invade the Japanese homeland. NOT dropping the bomb- sacrificing the lives of Americans for the sake of Japanese- would have been horrifically immoral. That is what it means to be in a metaphysical emergency. There is no good outcome here. There is no win-win possible. And the blood of the dead civilians is on the hands of the Japanese- not the Americans for trying to remove a threat from their own lives.

When I say 'form' in this context I mean specifically form of perception- ie. sight, hearing, etc. The object of your perception is indepentent of the form of perception. A book is independent of your seeing it. This is not what you're talking about in the above quote so in the interest of not confusing the subject further I'm not going to comment on your assertion 'objects indeed have forms.' Right, you can't just will something into existence or just will it to change. Your consciousness and your body exist- is that what you mean by describing them as objective? Sure. I guess... if what you mean is that we can physically interact with reality and that physical interaction is directed by our consciousness.

The definition of terrorism is not targeting civilians. When we firebombed Japan that was not terrorism- that was a bombing campaign. Terrorism is a tactic of war that involves guerilla style-attacks. Targeting civilians can be completely rational- as it was when we used nuclear weapons against Japan. Indeed I would argue that it's often rational in that it's often necessary to secure peace- as it was in Japan and Germany and countless other examples. Also, if you think that this is the definitoin of immorality I'm afraid you either don't understand what it means to hold your own life as the standard or you don't understand that war is a fight for your life.

No, your consciousness is part of objective reality just as everything that exists is. And it has a relationship to reality, it perceives it. The form of perception is dependent upon the object of perception but the object is not dependent upon the form. To concretize the distinction I'm making, take your sight as a form of perception. The object you see exists independent of whether you see it or not. The object is independent of the form. However, your sight still has a relationship to the object it perceives in that it gathers reflections of light. It's simply that the object of perception is not dependent upon (ie is independent of) your sight. If you do not make this distinction you collapse into contradiction. If you make the distinction between object and form as Rand makes, why does saying that object is independent of form imply that you have no relationships to anyone?? That doesn't follow and it's why you need to make the distinction. OK, but consciousness is part of reality. It's only that reality is not dependent upon your perception of reality. When an Objectivist says that reality exists independent of consciousness they do not mean that there is a consciousness and there is reality and they exist in two different dimensions or something. It simply means, as I've explained in the post already, that the object of which you are aware is not dependent upon your perception of it- reality is independent of your consciousness. They are both metaphysical, meaning that they both exist. There is a relationship between the two. Consciousness perceives objective reality but objective reality is not dependent upon your consciousness's perception of it- hence it is independent.

Fundamentality is contextual. In what way does this make fundamentality redundent? Redundent in what respect? Where is the redundancy in Rand's example?:

No, objective reality is recognition that reality exists independent of consciousness. It is not 'without the self'. It is independent of your consciousness. Meaning it exists independent of your perception of it. Of course your consciousness is part of objective reality. No, you've completely confused what metaphysical objectivity is. No no no. Your family exists independent of your consciousness. That's what 'objective reality' means- it exists independent of your perception of it. Objective reality does not exclude the scientist. The scientist is part of objective reality by virtue of his existence. His consciousness exists in reality, as does his body. Objectivity is an essential concept that was created in recognition of that fact that the scientist's conscioussness does not create the facts external to it. It perceives them according to the nature of consciousness (Rand called the recognition that consciousness has a nature epistemological objectivity). Your misunderstanding of what objective reality means causes contradictions and musings like this. I don't think Rand was unclear about her epistemology here. Objective reality exists independent of consciousness and we perceive reality in accordance with the nature of consciousness. This is a distinction made between the object of perception (metaphysical objectivity) and the form of perception (epistemological objectivity) yet you're conflating the two. The error of conflating the object of perception and the form of perception leads you directly to the contradiction you observe: that objective reality necessitates a break between 'human descriptions' (concepts) and reality. But this is not the case and Rand's epistemology solves the problems you bring up. Edit: This could help clear it up for you: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

The irony of watching an empiricist answer the OP's question...

Of course, people fight harder the closer they get to defeat. But the general principle is that peace does not persist until the aggressor, and the population that allowed the aggression, has their morale completely broken. Like Sherman's burning of Atlanta. In my opinion, regarding war as a merely physical phenomenon and disregarding morale/motivation is an outgrowth of a mind-body dichotomy. You need two things to fight a war: physical capacity and motivation. Anyways, there's a book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Less-than-Victory-Decisive/dp/0691135185/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402667530&sr=8-1&keywords=john+david+lewis

Yes, that describes the process in essentials I believe but it isn't that simple in practice. Even if you completely correct the error through logical reasoning that you know to be true, emotions can continue to persist for a while. I believe Peikoff describes (I have no citation for this) a process of sort of dis-integration. Getting rid of a certain context or hierarchy in your values that you hold which gives rise to clashes in your values even when you've logically corrected your error. I think that this sort of theory is consistent with phenomenon like needing to go through a mourning process after losing a significant value. Yes, and this also is important when considering Ayn Rand's definition of happiness: a state of non-contradictory joy. I think what's she's saying is that when your values are non-contradictory, your emotional responses will all be in alignment. The joy you feel will be non-contradictory because the achievement of your value didn't interfere with any of your other values. But not with concepts? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fundamentality,_rule_of.html

Oh come on.

Really? Because the history of war suggests the exact opposite. History suggests that aggression does not end until the horror of war is made real to the civilian population that initiated/supported/passively allowed the aggression.

How does this make any sense at all? I don't know what epistemology you subscribe to but this is a whole lot of gobbly gook. Again, I have no idea where you're getting this but you should know that this is not consistent with Objectivist epistemology. What is a 'more proveable sense'? Colors are the result of varying wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. According to your epistemology, do you deny the distinction between red and green too? That upon which the most things in a given context depend.