Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

[DPW]

Granted, but if dishonesty doesn't fake any particular fact, then how do you know that dishonesty fakes any facts, assuming dishonesty isn't simply defined as "faking reality?"

But it is defined as "faking reality." That's what dishonesty means.

Let me stop there for a second. If the Artful Dodger steals a wallet and rationalizes this action as no different from taking honey from a beehive, what makes one action honest, and the other dishonest? Variants of property rights carry the spectre of circularity.

As to your last point, if you establish that property rights are a fact, then pretending that someone else's property is yours is dishonest. That isn't circular. It would only be circular if I said that the justification for honesty as such depended on the prior justification of property rights. I have been absolutely clear in stating that it doesn't.

Now, as to this example, if a man rationalizes stealing, then yes, he's being dishonest. If he pretends to himself that his action is no different than taking honey from a hive then he is faking reality in his own consciousness. But now, let's say he was convinced that his action really wasn't wrong, that taking the wallet really wasn't theft (I'm not saying that's actually possible, but I'll stipulate it to clarify the principle involved) -- then, to that extent, he isn't being dishonest. But in that case it doesn't matter because he's still not better off than the man who knows stealing is dishonest...no more than a man is better off drinking poison if he thinks it's spring water.

Don Watkins

Edited September 22, 2005 by DPW

[dougclayton]

Let me stop there for a second. If the Artful Dodger steals a wallet and rationalizes this action as no different from taking honey from a beehive, what makes one action honest, and the other dishonest? Variants of property rights carry the spectre of circularity.

But this is exactly your problem: you can't stop there. Your point comes in at #4 in my condensed argument--issues of whether or not one is honest when one steals depends on both the nature of honesty and the nature of property. You can know what "honesty" is without reference to property rights, you know. In general, first you understand the facts, then you can identify what is honest.

I can't quite put my finger on the error you're making, but you definitely are approaching this wrong. When one debates the nature of property, one doesn't worry about whether or not the people in question are honest--one takes it for granted they will be. In other words, I don't intend to convince the Artful Dodger to be honest by convincing him I have property--I intend to assume he's honest and convince him it's my property. If he's not honest I won't be able to rely on him accepting any given fact of reality, because that's what it means to be dishonest.

Let me draw an analogy: you have to be honest to recognize that 2+2=4. Now, given the facts of mathematics, one can discuss how to balance your checkbook. It goes without saying that you will have to be honest to balance it properly--this is simple deduction from the principle of honesty. It doesn't mean that mathematical rules in any way depend on people being honest. But this is what you say:

"If the Artful Dodger cooks the books and rationalizes this action as no different from standard accounting methods, what makes one action honest, and the other dishonest? Variants of accounting carry the spectre of circularity."

It should be clear that an accountant can know that "cooking the books" is fraudulent, and thus that it is dishonest for an accountant to do it. That isn't a circular argument. No one says, "wait a second--you can't know it's dishonest until you know what proper accounting method is, and you can't know what proper accounting is without knowing what's honest. Accounting is circular."

[dougclayton]

Let me stop there for a second. If the Artful Dodger steals a wallet and rationalizes this action as no different from taking honey from a beehive, what makes one action honest, and the other dishonest? Variants of property rights carry the spectre of circularity.

I've been thinking about your post, and I think I figured out the fundamental error you are making: the primacy of consciousness. The truth of the matter does not depend on what the Artful Dodger thinks in any way, yet this is what your statement means. It means that if he pretends to himself ("rationalizes") that stealing is honest, then there's no way to know that it isn't.

[mrocktor]

Doug,

I wouldn't say the issue is the Primacy of Consciousness. You see, property is not a physical characteristic of anything. If every human died on the planet, a rock would still be a rock. This is the Primacy of Existence. Doug's pet rock would still be a rock, but an alien landing on Earth has no way to know it's Doug's rock. Thus property is a concept that is not inherent to physical reality, it is related to how man interacts with physical reality.

I liked your tack on "stuff I need, stuff I'd like to have versus stuff I value". I'm short on time now but I'll put some thought into it.

Well, for my part, I can say it's good to discuss this with someone who seems to be actually concerned with understanding the nature of reality. These discussions can often be a waste of time.

Thank you.

mrocktor

[dougclayton]

I wouldn't say the issue is the Primacy of Consciousness. You see, property is not a physical characteristic of anything. If every human died on the planet, a rock would still be a rock. This is the Primacy of Existence. Doug's pet rock would still be a rock, but an alien landing on Earth has no way to know it's Doug's rock. Thus property is a concept that is not inherent to physical reality, it is related to how man interacts with physical reality.

Actually, it is primacy of consciousness if there is any aspect of "if I think it, it will be true," and I detected a strong hint of it in hunterrose's post. It's possible that wasn't hunterrose's intention, or that I misinterpreted it, which is why I qualified my conclusion with "I think."

Also, you might be misunderstanding the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of existence doesn't say "rocks will exist even without a consciousness"; it says, "rocks [and all other facts of reality] will be what they are regardless of what anyone thinks." Correspondingly, the primacy of consciousness says, "The nature of this rock [and all facts of reality] depends on what I think it is." Given that, which premise do you think is behind hunterrose's claim that the nature of property is dependent on someone's rationalization?

Using an example is useful, because it makes abstractions concrete. Unfortunately, I think your example brings in unrelated aspects and can confuse the issue. The fact of whether a rock is mine could very easily die with me, leaving an alien no way to know whose rock it was. This is what your example shows. However, what we are talking about is the nature of property itself, and that a rational alien would understand just as a human would. Observe that hunterrose's Artful Dodger is not claiming he can't know whose property he is taking--he is claiming nothing could ever be anyone's property. On the other hand, your alien that says, "Wow, I don't know which humanoid this belonged to, if anyone," is affirming the concept of property, not denying it. Does that make the difference clear?

I'm short on time now but I'll put some thought into it.

Please do. I am just beginning to understand some of these issues myself and working to express my understanding precisely is rewarding.

[hunterrose]

Actually, it is primacy of consciousness if there is any aspect of "if I think it, it will be true," and I detected a strong hint of it in hunterrose's post. It's possible that wasn't hunterrose's intention, or that I misinterpreted it, which is why I qualified my conclusion with "I think."

which premise do you think is behind hunterrose's claim that the nature of property is dependent on someone's rationalization?

However, what we are talking about is the nature of property itself, and that a rational alien would understand just as a human would. Observe that hunterrose's Artful Dodger is not claiming he can't know whose property he is taking--he is claiming nothing could ever be anyone's property.

Questioning primacy of consciousness or the nature of property rights wasn't actually my intent. My question is still on the immorality of theft.

It seems to me that theft is ultimately immoral based on empiricism ("you might be disadvantaged by theft") or man's/property rights ("theft of a wallet is wrong because it's theft of another man's wallet.")

If the counter-argument is "you will inevitably be disadvantaged by theft" (i.e. non-empiricist,) is theft immoral because it fakes the reality of property rights?

This is where I make the comparison of stealing a wallet to taking honey from a beehive. If the sole difference between the two is that man has property rights, and bees don't, then the sole reason taking a wallet is immoral would seem to be that man has property rights. There is nothing immoral about taking honey; what else could differentiate the two (i.e. make one honest, the other dishonest) other than the rights of other men?

1)"Taking a wallet is an act of irrationality, because I should respect another's man's rights to a wallet." The problem with saying such is that

2)"I should respect another man's rights to a wallet, because taking a wallet is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?

I'm not arguing against 2) - if taking a wallet is immoral, then I agree with 2). I'm arguing against 1), and the non-empiricist proof that taking a wallet is faking reality.

1) and 2) can't both be correct formulations, because then they would be circular.

But if taking a wallet is not immoral from empiricist reasons, and it's not immoral from property rights reasons, then what reality is taking a wallet faking?

[dougclayton]

This is where I make the comparison of stealing a wallet to taking honey from a beehive. If the sole difference between the two is that man has property rights, and bees don't, then the sole reason taking a wallet is immoral would seem to be that man has property rights. There is nothing immoral about taking honey; what else could differentiate the two (i.e. make one honest, the other dishonest) other than the rights of other men?

1)"Taking a wallet is an act of irrationality, because I should respect another's man's rights to a wallet." The problem with saying such is that

2)"I should respect another man's rights to a wallet, because taking a wallet is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?

I'm not arguing against 2) - if taking a wallet is immoral, then I agree with 2). I'm arguing against 1), and the non-empiricist proof that taking a wallet is faking reality.

1) and 2) can't both be correct formulations, because then they would be circular.

Let me ask a follow-on question so I can make sure I understand your position. Does your worry about a non-empiricist argument apply to life itself, so that you would argue the following?

1)"Taking a man's life is an act of irrationality, because I should respect another's man's right to life." The problem with saying such is that

2)"I should respect another man's right to life, because taking a man's life is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?

And, outside of rights per se, do you also worry how to ground the immorality of cheating on an exam?

1)"Cheating on an exam is an act of irrationality, because my grade should reflect what I know." The problem with saying such is that

2)"My grade should reflect what I know, because cheating on my exam is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?

I ask these questions because I can find nothing essential to property rights in your objection, and thus logically it should apply to more than just that. Seeing it applied in other contexts might help me understand your argument, because frankly so far I have been unable to.

[mrocktor]

Let me ask a follow-on question so I can make sure I understand your position. Does your worry about a non-empiricist argument apply to life itself, so that you would argue the following?

1)"Taking a man's life is an act of irrationality, because I should respect another's man's right to life." The problem with saying such is that

2)"I should respect another man's right to life, because taking a man's life is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?

And, outside of rights per se, do you also worry how to ground the immorality of cheating on an exam?

1)"Cheating on an exam is an act of irrationality, because my grade should reflect what I know." The problem with saying such is that

2)"My grade should reflect what I know, because cheating on my exam is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?

I ask these questions because I can find nothing essential to property rights in your objection, and thus logically it should apply to more than just that. Seeing it applied in other contexts might help me understand your argument, because frankly so far I have been unable to.

I think both your examples are not proper representations of the issue hunterrose and myself are arguing. If you kill someone, he is dead. That is tangible and unequivocal. The right to life is not derived from honesty, no circularity exists. If you cheat on an exam, your grade will not represent your level of knowlege. Although only you might know it, it is still true (primacy of existance). The fact that you don't know as much as your grade says you do is not derived from honesty, no circularity exists.

On the other hand, theft is faking reality only if property is actually part of reality. If the right to property is derived from honesty, then the definition is circular. Thus we are interested in how to derive the right to property directly from reality, without basing the definition on honesty.

(I'll get back with a decent post as soon as I can)

mrocktor

[AisA]

Thus we are interested in how to derive the right to property directly from reality, without basing the definition on honesty.

mrocktor

You have already been given the derivation "directly from reality". Rights are conditions that must exist, vis-a-vis other men, if man the rational being is to survive. Since man the rational being survives by producing what he needs, he must be free to produce what his survival requires and he must be free to keep the product of his efforts (his property). Free means free of the initiation of force by other men. Thus, the right to property represents the implementation of the right to life. What part of this derivation do you not understand?

Granted, some men may attempt to exist as parasites by stealing what others have produced. But this does not change the fact that unless someone, somewhere is free to produce, there will be nothing to steal.

Granted, some nations (like North Korea) can exist in subhuman poverty on the efforts of millions of slaves. But this is not a human existence -- it is closer to the existence endured by animals in the jungle than the existence proper to man.

The decision to steal another man's wallet is an attempt to live off the efforts of others, i.e. it is an attempt to exist as a parasite. The decision to take the honey from the beehive is an effort to live off one's own efforts, as man must. Choosing the former is an attempt to fake reality by pretending that there is no difference between theft and production, that the two are equally efficacious methods of survival, equally proper to man the rational animal.

Your argument amounts to saying, "Why shouldn't I steal, if I can get away with it?" The answer is that you cannot get away with it. You will be a sub-human parasite, by choice -- and you will know it -- doomed to live in fear of detection and burdened with the knowledge that your continued existence will require more crimes in the future.

[dougclayton]

If you kill someone, he is dead. That is tangible and unequivocal.

If you steal someone's property, he will no longer have it. That is tangible and unequivocal. (Of course, the relevance of that depends on the validity of property rights, but then the relevance of someone's death depends equally on the validity of the right to life.)

The fact that you don't know as much as your grade says you do is not derived from honesty, no circularity exists.

If property rights are derived from honesty, then cheating certainly is as well: why should you care whether your grade reflects reality unless you're honest? Why should you care if some item is someone else's property unless you are honest? Isn't that the argument you two are making--that one only needs to recognize property if one is honest? I quote from hunterrose:

If the Artful Dodger steals a wallet and rationalizes this action as no different from taking honey from a beehive, what makes one action honest, and the other dishonest? Variants of property rights carry the spectre of circularity.

On the other hand, theft is faking reality only if property is actually part of reality. If the right to property is derived from honesty, then the definition is circular. Thus we are interested in how to derive the right to property directly from reality, without basing the definition on honesty.

Property is part of reality--it is a least as much a part of reality as "academic integrity." Where in my argument for property rights (link) did I mention honesty? I'm serious: please tell me exactly how that argument relied on honesty. We can't proceed effectively without that.

[hunterrose]

I ask these questions because I can find nothing essential to property rights in your objection, and thus logically it should apply to more than just that. Seeing it applied in other contexts might help me understand your argument, because frankly so far I have been unable to.

Fair enough. It would have been more precise for me to have stated my objection something like:

Why should I respect another person's property? Because violating another's property would be dishonest.

Why is dishonesty qua theft immoral? Because I should respect another person's property.

I could ask why shouldn't a man fake adhering to the rights of other men if he's not caught. The answer would seem to be that dishonesty - "faking reality" - is wrong. But then can you validate honesty with property rights? I don't think so.

I'm not questioning the nature or need of my property rights; I'm saying that the only reason for me to respect the property of others is if disrespecting it would be (immoral) dishonesty. I have no problem with adhering to property rights in this sense - so long as dishonesty is validated on something other than property rights.

But then how is the beehive honey - wallet analogy differentiated?

Falling asleep I didn't reply to much, but I'm not forgetting; I'll post later tonight or in the morning.

[DPW]

Why should I respect another person's property? Because violating another's property would be dishonest.

Why is dishonesty qua theft immoral? Because I should respect another person's property.

No, you should respect another man's rights because rights are the principles that define the conditions necessary for man's survival in a social context. Theft is dishonest because the intiation of force necessitates every vice: dishonesty, injustice, dependence, etc.

I could ask why shouldn't a man fake adhering to the rights of other men if he's not caught. The answer would seem to be that dishonesty - "faking reality" - is wrong. But then can you validate honesty with property rights? I don't think so.

I'm not questioning the nature or need of my property rights; I'm saying that the only reason for me to respect the property of others is if disrespecting it would be (immoral) dishonesty. I have no problem with adhering to property rights in this sense - so long as dishonesty is validated on something other than property rights.

You're not thinking in principle. If something is destructive to human life in principle, it has to be destructive to both the victim and the perpetrator. I feel like I should expand on this point but I have made it again and again. You are asking the wrong question. You are asking, "How is this action destructive to the perpetrator?" The proper question is, "Is this principle proper for man?" Until you grasp that man must live by principle, you will not be able to grasp which principles man must live by.

Don Watkins

[hunterrose]

Theft is dishonest because the intiation of force necessitates every vice: dishonesty, injustice, dependence, etc. You're not thinking in principle... You are asking the wrong question. You are asking, "How is this action destructive to the perpetrator?" The proper question is, "Is this principle proper for man?" Until you grasp that man must live by principle, you will not be able to grasp which principles man must live by.

Okay.

Let me use the blackjack example for a moment to illustrate my problem.

Mr. Smith decides whether to hit or stand on a hand on the basis of a coin flip. How can he validate this principle? He could base it on probability or whether he gains money, but that doesn't validate the principle itself. What else can he use to validate his principle is objectively rational - other than whether his principle has any negative consequences?

If there is another way to validate a principle as rational other than empiricism or negative consequences, I am unaware of it.

That's where I ask "how is this action destructive to the perpetrator;" asking it is not lack of awareness of "living by principle."

Accepting dependence on coin-flips lead to accepting injustice, dishonesty, etc? What is the basis for saying Mr. Smith will inevitably act in these other ways? I ignore for the moment that this seems to be passing the validation buck onto injustice and others... which themselves would have to be proven rational before dependence on coin-flipping could be thus validated.

Not ignoring the theft argument, I just felt this could state my problem better. I can state it in terms of theft if necessary.

[FeatherFall]

Why should I respect another person's property? Because violating another's property would be dishonest.

Why is dishonesty qua theft immoral? Because I should respect another person's property.

Falling asleep I didn't reply to much, but I'm not forgetting; I'll post later tonight or in the morning.

You call this statement circular. A more accurate term for this statement would be oscillation (bear with me). Both the requirement for honesty and the requirement to respect other men's property can be independently related to the facts of reality.

Honesty

We begin with the three axioms existence, identity, consciousness.

Man is capable of identifying reality through his senses and rational faculty, which requires objectivity.

Man's only rational standard of value is life, the sum of all of his actions.

Virtue is an action by which one gains or keeps value.

Honesty is the recognition of the fact that only things that are real can be of value, therefore it is a virtue.

Because virtues are required by all men to live, it is proper to be honest when thinking, and honest when dealing with other men. It follows that you have a right to be dealt with honestly by other men.

Property (The first few parts should be familiar.)

Again, we begin with the three axioms existence, identity, consciousness.

Man is capable of identifying reality through his senses and rational faculty, which requires objectivity.

Man's only rational standard of value is life, the sum of all of his actions.

Virtue is an action by which one gains or keeps value.

Production is the act of reshaping reality to create value, and therefore is a virtue.

Your Property is that value which you produced.

Because virtues are required by men to live, it is proper to decide how your property is used (which requires other men to leave you alone). It also means you should let others decide how to use their property.

Both can be independently verified, and to reject one is to remove that principle from reality. This can not be done. If one attempts this, one rejects all principles, all knowledge, the axioms, everything.

I will again quote your statement:

Why should I respect another person's property? Because violating another's property would be dishonest.

Why is dishonesty qua theft immoral? Because I should respect another person's property.

Falling asleep I didn't reply to much, but I'm not forgetting; I'll post later tonight or in the morning.

Your statement implies, "Honesty and production are both virtues, and rejecting even one is to act without virtue." This is true.

You did not prove (reduce to the self-evident) either one. What you did was identify two valid principles and the fact that they must be consistent with each other.

I think your error is in accepting "proof" as a floating abstraction. You cannot prove something simply by logically relating it to another thing in reality. You can only prove it by identifying cause and effect down every level, eventually arriving at an axiom, the self evident. If you do relate something logically to another thing, it should then be easy to prove.

I used the word "oscillate" to refer to the circular fallacy. I think it is appropriate because "circular" implies completion. "Oscillate" implies reversal and incompletion, and is a better indicator to check your premises.

Edited September 26, 2005 by FeatherFall

[FeatherFall]

In my previous post, I wrote this:

Both can be independently verified, and to reject one is to remove that principle from reality. This can not be done. If one attempts this, one rejects all principles, all knowledge, the axioms, everything.

I think it would be helpful to reverse my examples to explicitly understand (as if there is any other way to understand) how they conflict with reality. It is only important to use one, and which one doesn't matter. So I will simply start by rejecting virtue, since both honesty and production are virtues. If one follows this consistently, one can see how this cascade systematically destroys everything.

Rejecting virtue

Virtue is an action by which one gains or keeps value.

By rejecting virtue, one either rejects that one needs to act to gain or keep value, or rejects that one should gain or keep value.

This splits into:

Rejecting the need for action

By rejecting this, one rejects the fact that man has requirements for life. In effect, one rejects the axiom identity, specifically his own identity and the identity of others.

Or rejecting value

Again, primarily this is a rejection of the axiom identity.

This whole process will eventually be a rejection of existence by way of death. This most certainly wipes out the corollary axiom, consciousness.

You gave another example with a different concrete. I do not know if this is a good example. The thrill of gambling is in identifying every variable possible before acting. If you are not doing this, why are you gambling? There must be some principle that one could use as an alternative to a coin toss. I don't have the time to create a context where every variable leads to a coin toss being appropriate. But I will try to address your comment anyway.

Mr. Smith decides whether to hit or stand on a hand on the basis of a coin flip. How can he validate this principle? He could base it on probability or whether he gains money, but that doesn't validate the principle itself. What else can he use to validate his principle is objectively rational - other than whether his principle has any negative consequences?

I don't know what principle you are referring to here. A coin toss is not a rational method of making decisions. The result of a toss it is not a general truth on which any other truths depend.

Accepting dependence on coin-flips lead to accepting injustice, dishonesty, etc? What is the basis for saying Mr. Smith will inevitably act in these other ways? I ignore for the moment that this seems to be passing the validation buck onto injustice and others... which themselves would have to be proven rational before dependence on coin-flipping could be thus validated.

The frivolous gambler rejects the virtue integrity, or loyalty to rational principles. A person who accepts a trivial method for deciding how to act is not to be considered the same as a liar or a theif. If the measure of a good man is his rationality, then the measure of a bad man is his irrationality.

While one might exchange pleasantries with a good natured but incompetent gambler, one might not allow him manage one's finances. One might refuse to speak to a liar but still save him from the cold if his car breaks down. One might save a thief from drowning if one knows the thief has no weapons or other means of extortion, or abandon him if he does. One might simply leave a murderer to die of any malady.

Edited September 26, 2005 by FeatherFall

[mrocktor]

FeatherFall,

Your derivation of property is what I was looking for. As Doug had stated in a previous reply, deriving the principles (as Don always chides us about) erases the distinction between preperty I need versus property I'd like to keep.

All value is created to sustain or further life, life is not only biological life, but life as a rational being. Thus all value created by the individual pertains directly to his life. Don brought up this line of reasoning as well.

Feather seems to have brought things together for me, thanks.

mrocktor

[brit2006]

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. sN]

I’d like to start a thread about the prudent predator principle. Why is it immoral to be a prudent predator? If there is minimal chance of getting caught for a crime and the benefits are large, then why is it not rational to commit the crime?

I have read and re-read other posts that cover this, but none of it really makes sense to me. I need specific concrete reasons on why I would not be acting in my long term interest by acting like a prudent predator.

Edited October 4, 2006 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Have you checked out this earlier thread.

[brit2006]

Yes I have read that thread. It is completely unsatisfactory to me.

What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?

[intellectualammo]

Why is it immoral to be a prudent predator? If there is minimal chance of getting caught for a crime and the benefits are large, then why is it not rational to commit the crime?

This reminds me of the maxim Philip was living by in Of Human Bondage, by Somerset Maugham..."Follow your inclinations with due regard to the policeman round the corner." So, if you think that you can get away with a crime, then it's okay to do it, when the benefits are large? What does the concept "crime" mean to you? What is crime? Why is it a crime? What's the standard to determine if it is, a crime?

Okay, brit2006, look at it this way, if someone else saw a "minimal chance of gettting caught for a crime and the benefits are large" in a crime against you, maybe you would be able to answer your own questions.

Does the initiation of physical force against another person, sound rational to you?

Is it rational for someone to do that against you, when the benefits are large in their mind? Theft, rape, murder...are they then rational to commit against you, if a person sees a "minimal chance of getting caught for a crime and the benefits are large"?? Do you think that that's rational, brit2006?? Is to be a brute, then, rational, in the said context?

What does it mean to be rational to you? What is the standard of it's determination?

Edited February 12, 2006 by intellectualammo

[brit2006]

I accept that stealing is wrong.

Yet if there is minimal chance of getting caught and the item in question is worth $1 million, why should I not steal it?

I know its wrong to steal it. I know if everyone acted like this then society would fall apart. I know that I would be pissed off if people stole my property. I know all of this.

To repeat.

What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?

(Just in case you didn't understand, I am not arguing that stealing is moral. I am not arguing that there should be no laws against stealing. I just want someone to answer my question.)

My question is:

What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?

[softwareNerd]

What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?

The problem is that no description will be convincing. I can tell you that, in essence, you will lose self-esteem, with all that implies. I doubt I can convince you of it.

Paradoxically this question is usually asked by honest people. For instance, if you consider yourself relative to your acquaintances and rate according to honesty, where would you place yourself? Would you be in the more honest half or the less honest half?

[intellectualammo]

What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?

That's contextual. The severity of the harm to you or to your psyche, depends upon what you are specifically applying the predator principle to. Even if you were to actually get away with a crime, and reap the "large benefits" that may come from it, it's the initiation of physical force against another, that would have to be justified in the crime. (Can you even call them "benefits"?) Do you have the right to do that to someone, do they have the right to do that to you? To initiate force? Should they have the right, should you have that right?

Edited February 12, 2006 by intellectualammo

[DavidOdden]

What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?

You've stated that you think it is wrong to steal -- you may retract that if you want. But taking you at your word, that means that you recognise that stealing is anti-living (assuming you're not adhering to something like intrinsicist or contractarian morality): it contradicts your fundamental decision. Now suppose you are faced with the choice of stealing a million dollars, or not stealing. You can only chose to steal if you believe in contradictions -- stealing is right (allowing you to steal) and stealing is not right (as you said at the start). But that is irrational. Accepting A means rejecting its antithesis. To accept this particular contradiction, you have to abandon logic, since logic is the art of non-contradictory identification: you must instead embrace anti-logic, the art of contradicting. When you reject logic, you are abandoning reason, that is, you are accepting irrationality. Would you consider that to be harm to your psyche? I'm not sure exactly what a psyche is, so I'm not sure if that gets you close enough to where you want to be in order to reject prudent predation as a moral principle.

[brit2006]

The problem is that no description will be convincing. I can tell you that, in essence, you will lose self-esteem, with all that implies. I doubt I can convince you of it.

Paradoxically this question is usually asked by honest people. For instance, if you consider yourself relative to your acquaintances and rate according to honesty, where would you place yourself? Would you be in the more honest half or the less honest half?

Finally! You are the only person so far to try and answer my question!

That's contextual. The severity of the harm to you or to your psyche, depends upon what you are specifically applying the predator principle to. Even if you were to actually get away with a crime, and reap the "large benefits" that may come from it, it's the initiation of physical force against another, that would have to be justified in the crime. (Can you even call them "benefits"?) Do you have the right to do that to someone, do they have the right to do that to you? To initiate force? Should they have the right, should you have that right?

I know I don't have the right. I know they don't have the right. I know that both they and I shouldn't have the right. But my question is "What specifically will happen to me or my psyche that will cause me harm if I operate by the prudent predator principle?" If you need a context, think of any that you wish, however I would prefer if we kept to a general case.

You've stated that you think it is wrong to steal -- you may retract that if you want. But taking you at your word, that means that you recognise that stealing is anti-living (assuming you're not adhering to something like intrinsicist or contractarian morality): it contradicts your fundamental decision. Now suppose you are faced with the choice of stealing a million dollars, or not stealing. You can only chose to steal if you believe in contradictions -- stealing is right (allowing you to steal) and stealing is not right (as you said at the start). But that is irrational. Accepting A means rejecting its antithesis. To accept this particular contradiction, you have to abandon logic, since logic is the art of non-contradictory identification: you must instead embrace anti-logic, the art of contradicting. When you reject logic, you are abandoning reason, that is, you are accepting irrationality. Would you consider that to be harm to your psyche? I'm not sure exactly what a psyche is, so I'm not sure if that gets you close enough to where you want to be in order to reject prudent predation as a moral principle.

You are not understanding what I am getting at, and I am not sure how to explain it without repeating my question again. Btw, when I say psyche, I mean my mind, my self esteem, my consiousness, my soul, whatever.

Softwarenerd, I would definitely place myself in the more honest half of society. Try and convince me. What is it that will break my self esteem and how do you know it will do this?

I need specific concretes here people!

edit:

Actually, I think I'm in the exact middle when it comes to honesty. I've told some bad lies and generally screwed up before, I guess, but know people who have done worse. But still I think I'm pretty honest, just not puritanical.

Edited February 12, 2006 by brit2006