Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bogdan

Regulars
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bogdan

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/11/1964

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Canada
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Quebec
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    As I thought, our disagreement resides at a more fundamental level - metaphysical, causality to be more specific. This should be discussed in another topic, in the appropriate forum. But since I have the feeling that we're not getting anywhere anyway, I'll throw in a few lines. You're wrong. Here is why: Someone's action is the cause of something only if the entire subsequent chain of effect/cause triggered by that action is purely metaphysical (I use the term 'metaphysical' in the sense given by Ayn Rand when she made the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made). Therefore,
  2. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    This is why I brought the argument that B has a choice. If by "action" you mean "the killing of C", then I disagree: The action cannot be traced, as a cause, back to A. It stops at B. To instigate someone to kill C is not the same as to shoot a bullet toward C.
  3. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    I find it interesting that you use 'Ordering'. This seems to be an attempt to circumvent the fact that B is a human with a choice. Somehow, because he was ordered, he is absolved of guilt, just like the bullet in a previous example. In fact, now that I admitted I can't yet prove my point, I can address other issues raised in this thread. One is that I should have stayed away from the Hitler analogy/example. That's because 'orders' are different from other types of persuasion such as money, or virgins in Paradise. That's because (on Objectivist grounds) orders, correctly defined, apply only
  4. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    A indeed initiates something, but not force. It could be a conversation, a plan, a plot, a conspiracy, etc. But not force. B is the one who initiates force. Incidentally, this is different from the case whereby A fires a bullet and then claims that it was the bullet that initiated force. That's because, as opposed to the bullet, B is a human being who always has a choice not to hurt (or threaten ) C.
  5. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    DonAthos, I believe we can reach a conclusion: We disagree :-) . The way I see it, a thief who returns the stolen object is still a thief. His punishment might be reduced, but he WILL be punished, since the crime was committed, the damage was done. However, I see a big, essential difference between a thief who returns the object and the guy who plans a theft to the last detail but never commits it. The latter never used force. He only threatened to use it. You, on the other hand, argue that the planning itself IS force, since it's a threat. The withdrawal of the threat is the same as the r
  6. I probably shouldn't say anything about this since I really have not information to go on.... So here it goes. It's difficult to define rich and poor, and those who do define them usually have hidden agendas. The lines of separation between classes are also unclear and shift according to the point to be proven. I am sure statistics have also a lot to do with this. Here are a few examples starting with a base year in which a rich guy makes $1 million and a poor guy makes $10000 and next year the rich guy gets richer by more than the poor guy. - Next year they make $2 million and $20000. Th
  7. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    I totally agree that it's only the actions that we need to look at. Bear in mind though that the moral (or legal, if you will) evaluation of the actions is made at step 3, when B2 is on his way to C's house, carrying a rifle in his hand and all the required information in this head. And I think this is where we disagree. The action of the others of handing to B2 the rifle and the layout of C's house, of patting him on the back and wishing him good luck are equivalent to backing down from their initial threat. When they say to B2 "May God be with you", they're in effect saying "You are in it. W
  8. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    DonAthos, First - yes, I am making (or at least this is my intention) my case on Objectivist grounds. I am now trying to pinpoint where we disagree. The topic has shifted to a more fundamental level than it was originally intended. Consider again the gang who plan to kill someone and then draw straws. I say that the action (or rather non-action) of the ones who didn't draw the short straw and stay home is morally equivalent to that of the 'aggressor' who withdraws the threat. I am not sure whether you agree with this or not. I think you do, but while I say that this would render them n
  9. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    Weird, huh? I am quoting myself... In fact the above is somewhat explicit when she says in The Objectivist Ethics
  10. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    This approach doesn't allow for the case whereby the person who threatens to use force, subsequently withdraws the threat, apologizes and goes home. It may be that to consider that he's done nothing wrong is exaggerated but surely the threatened man is no longer entitled to 'self-defense'. Some 'retaliation' is in order, but certainly not to the same extend as if the threat was still active. Equating a threat, which is a potential use of force with an actual use of force would mean that the same 'defensive' actions maybe taken at any moment after the initiation regardless of what the perpetra
  11. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    Up to the last paragraph I agree with you almost completely, with a small note: It's not about initiation of actual force, but of a threat to use it. The threat is real, it's directed at me, which entitles me to defend myself and hit you first, or have you arrested or whatever. It might not matter for this thread though. Not quite. Your conclusions are too bundled up. Here is my take, assuming that the scenario you describe actually takes place. I will break it in a few steps. 1. The group starts planning to kill C. When the plan has gone far enough (just like you I won
  12. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    All of the above, true as it might be, is superfluous. You're only stating how things are here, today. The point of this topic is how it should be. And I say that in all the 3 cases the only guilty person should be the killer. Not the priest. Why? It's difficult to explain... let me think... Oh, how about this: because only the killer initiated force.
  13. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    As incentive, the police might offer a reward to anyone with information - A in this case. ("WHOAA!!" - I can hear the readers of this screaming with indignation. "Not only A is off the hook, he also makes money off of it!!"). Yeah, well, it will happen only for a few cases, get over it. While I could agree that my view is simplistic, you're presenting a very specific case. A has a list of people to kill and he must have a verifiable history of relationships with hitmen. B, on the other hand, desperately needs to trust A so that he can sleep well at night after committing murder. It's
  14. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    I agree with DonAthos. It may be that his choice to use "outside" was unfortunate, but his point his very clear: "...initiation of force" which is the same thing as "the violation of someone's rights.". He doesn't say that the violation involves force, as riding would involve a bicycle. But that it is. What you said in the quote above is a slippery and dangerous slope. A man who kills a doctor who performs abortions is not an innocent victim of his priest. We don't put the priest in jail even though he might have triggered the chain of events. I was hoping we wouldn't get into the de
  15. Bogdan

    Violence by proxy

    I know nothing about this theory, so I'll just answer the question: No, I don't.
×
×
  • Create New...