When if ever to initiate force?

[volco]

Well, I'm not sure whether this should be in Ethics but since the subject deals with how people should deal with one another inside a community I'm posting it in Political Philosophy.

I know Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to cults, she surely must have seen them as the most dangerous form of collectivism that can arise in a free market.

It is often heard around these circles that we should not advocate laissez faire before advocating the philosophy that would make it work, before changing the culture. Like not giving a car to a child (or a grown up who's never driven!). Peikoff wrote that the most dangerous threat in America came from the religious right not socialism.

But at the same time we can't help but to advocate less government intervention, and rejoyce in the events of 1776 when a society clearly not prepared for -Objectivist- Capitalism created the political framework that would enable its closest -grey- version.

So my question is specifically about cults:

It is now illegal to kidnap a person, an adult, and deprogram him. Surely a man has a right to his own body and that law protects him from being deprived from his freedom. But this view evades the fact that we are not only bodies but also minds, and -as difficult as it may turn out to prove it to a court of law- the mind of a cult's acolyte has already been hijacked by the organization.

From an Objectivist perspective the initiation of fraud was by the cult and the kidnapping and deprogramming would be liberating the person.

But what if the person wanted voluntarily to belong to a suicide sect, the same way some drug addicts chose to inject ever increasing doses of H?

Well it's not exactly the same: drug dealers don't actively publicize and search for new customers since the latter go to the former. And in a free market they would but witht the obligation to specificate the risks of the substance.

But what about cults, which in many cases are legal religious organizations like in the case of the most famous one, being able to seduce acolytes under false premises and conceal by systematic fraud the nature of their association?

Should the government allow relatives or "others" to liberate a person from a dangerous cult?

[volco]

hmm, did I phrase my question difficultly or are you still thinking about it?

Let's leave the gov behind and approach this issue from Ethics:

Is it ever moral to initiate force? as in the case of a man kidnapping his brother from a suicide cult?

I still insist this shouldn't be that controversial since it wouldn't actually be initiation, but retaliation from fraud by force.

[DavidOdden]

Is it ever moral to initiate force?

No, it is not.

as in the case of a man kidnapping his brother from a suicide cult?

You mean, where his brother willingly volunteered to commit suicide. Even then it is not moral to initiate force.

I still insist this shouldn't be that controversial since it wouldn't actually be initiation, but retaliation from fraud by force.

No, initiation of force is still immoral. Retaliatory force administered by the government in accordance with objective law would be appropriate were there a fraud. But we're only talking here about initiation of force. I assume you grasp the difference between initiating force and using force. Did you want to re-phrase your question more precisely? Otherwise, the answer is no.

[volco]

No, it is not.You mean, where his brother willingly volunteered to commit suicide. Even then it is not moral to initiate force.No, initiation of force is still immoral.

No, if that would be the case I'd agree. I mean specifically when there's initiation of fraud by the sect and the guy doesn't know where he's heading but you do - simply because sect members are often blinded or censored against criticism, the press, the "wogs".

So the question would be reduced to this: Is it moral to retaliate with force the initiation of fraud? - particularly in the case of life-threatening fraud.

Edited August 16, 2008 by volco

[tito]

The "programmed" man still has volition. He can change his mind if he would only choose to - if he chooses not to, then he's pointing a gun at his own head.

[Zip]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any person, against his will, is to prevent the initiation of force against others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for the use of force."

[volco]

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any person, against his will, is to prevent the initiation of force against others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for the use of force."

or fraud.

Traditionally the threats to human freedom have been not only from the warlords but also from the priests.

[DavidOdden]

I mean specifically when there's initiation of fraud by the sect and the guy doesn't know where he's heading but you do - simply because sect members are often blinded or censored against criticism, the press, the "wogs".

So for example, he was told that he was going on a tour of the Carribean but he was actually held by force and forced to kill himself? You have to be more explicit with this scenario.

So the question would be reduced to this: Is it moral to retaliate with force the initiation of fraud? - particularly in the case of life-threatening fraud.

No, but in an emergency it is moral to use force against your brother or his kidnappers (depends on the scenario) to ascertain whether there is coersion. Say they gave him a pill telling him it was Mefloquine (standard malaria prophylaxis), but it was really cyanide. It would be moral to use force to stop him from taking the pill, but once you've presented your evidence of the poison, if he decided that he wanted to die (so there is no fraud), you cannot morally compel him to live. You also can't morally decide to go after the culties with a baseball bat to take revenge -- that is the job of the government (not using bats, of course). You can use force to prevent them from furthering this murderous fraud. But really, what you're doing is using defensive force against attempted murder, and fraud is just an incidental modality for committing the murder. If, for example, some person sells decorated feathers as a proven cure for cancer, you can't morally shoot the feather salesman. You idiot brother has the right to forgo proper medical treatment, and he has the responsibility to find out what does and does not work. The only excuse for using force in such a case is when there exists an immediate threat to his life and you know that he has not knowingly and freely chosen this course of action. If you are wrong, you would deserve punishment.

[volco]

So for example, he was told that he was going on a tour of the Carribean but he was actually held by force and forced to kill himself? You have to be more explicit with this scenario.

There's a whole range. I wouldn't point out Jonestown or Waco because there were children involved, but what about, well, Scientology? I'm sure there're better examples, but Scigy acolytes are seduced by blatantly false premises that in a minimum percent of cases ends up with the dead of the person. Ok, that's not enough, but we don't know what their plans are, what they are going to do when "all the world becomes clear", or when they recognize that it's an impossible task.

Or in the case of other many sects, imagine, he doesn't know what's in the punch.

No, but in an emergency it is moral to use force against your brother or his kidnappers (depends on the scenario) to ascertain whether there is coersion. Say they gave him a pill telling him it was Mefloquine (standard malaria prophylaxis), but it was really cyanide. It would be moral to use force to stop him from taking the pill, but once you've presented your evidence of the poison, if he decided that he wanted to die (so there is no fraud), you cannot morally compel him to live. You also can't morally decide to go after the culties with a baseball bat to take revenge -- that is the job of the government (not using bats, of course). You can use force to prevent them from furthering this murderous fraud. But really, what you're doing is using defensive force against attempted murder, and fraud is just an incidental modality for committing the murder. If, for example, some person sells decorated feathers as a proven cure for cancer, you can't morally shoot the feather salesman. You idiot brother has the right to forgo proper medical treatment, and he has the responsibility to find out what does and does not work. The only excuse for using force in such a case is when there exists an immediate threat to his life and you know that he has not knowingly and freely chosen this course of action. If you are wrong, you would deserve punishment.

To reduce it, what about sects that pose not an inmediate but a huge potential risk ?

[DavidOdden]

To reduce it, what about sects that pose not an inmediate but a huge potential risk ?

If a man wants to shave his head and howl Hare Krishna, you have no right to force him to act reasonably.

[volco]

If a man wants to shave his head and howl Hare Krishna, you have no right to force him to act reasonably.

Krishnas aren't a suicide sect, and they don't kill their members through inanition.

What if you see someone go down a path to his certain own destruction, but unlike the heroin addict, doesn't know it, and is constantly lied and shunned from the "outside" world. Pretty much like Scientology, but rather like more clearly suicide sects. In this scenario the church initiated fraud. How to retaliate if not by abducting the loved one, and allowing him her to see the outside world again, and judge again whether he really wants to go back?