Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why is it in my self interest to not violate the rights of others?

Rate this topic


Shimoniskey

Recommended Posts

The closest thing I can come up with is that not violating the rights of others is nearly always in my interest because then I can get the full potential of their minds, particularly if they are a "fully rational" (or close to it) being. The problem is that there are a lot of people, especially ones who are effectively irrational, who could conceivably benefit me more if I did violate their rights.

There are two parts to John Galt's oath:

1. I swear by my life and my love for it that I will never live for the sake of another man

2. nor ask another man to live for mine.

I understand the objective basis for number 1, but I'm having a hard time finding one for number 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot realistically expect other men to respect your rights if you are unwilling to respect theirs.

Additionally, do you think it would be in your long term self-interest to further by your actions a society that is ruled by "might is right" rather than by men who use their minds to engage in voluntary trade of value?

Also, Objectivism would hold that it is contrary to your nature as a man for your life to 'thrive' with the inescapable knowledge that you have not 'earned' your life or that which sustains it. Admittedly, I think it is hard to prove that universally, however based on introspection I think it is the case. I know when I have received something that I haven't earned and how it is far less fulfilling to me than getting what I deserve, what I have earned.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thank you for a very good answer.

On the last point, It would seem to me that by forcing others (or even merely being a non forceful moocher) I am relying on someone else's moral shortfalls as a substitute for my own motive force and value. This is degrading to my own human spirit because I know that I am nothing better than a looter or a second hander. I think this is why it feels so wrong to get something that you don't deserve/ haven't earned. Because it actually is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good you feel that way Shimo; not good if you find yourself in such situations, but good that you carry out such a precise introspection of the scenario.

As for benefiting by the use of force, I like to say that, 'The rule by the fist is limited by the length of the arm', that is, the degree to which you can survive by force is limited by how wide the influence of your force reaches, or the degree to which you can ensnare people within your trap. If you start living by force, it becomes a contest to see who can draw the bigger gun, or who can convince enough people that a torture rack is a four-poster bed.

Essentially, a rights-respecting culture is born out of a recognition that there is an objective reality with rules that exist neither as a nominal, arbitrary word game, nor a divine command, but as things which are true and will always be true -- rules not limited by any range-of-the-pistol thinking. You respect another man's right to his life because you recognise that no matter how much you point a gun at him, it won't get you what you need as a man.

But then, of course, this all presupposes you respect that reality is real, that men can know it and that it matters whether or not they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If we take it to an extreme for the sake of discussion though, what if I am the most powerful man on the planet? Then why would it not be in my interest?

You mean most powerful than all the other men combined when they all gang up on you for violating their rights?

Wondrously fantastic hypotheticals are not the basis for ethical evaluations. The best answer to "What if's" like that are "You're not and it's irrelevant to any ethical considerations until you are."

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean most powerful than all the other men combined when they all gang up on you for violating their rights?

Wondrously fantastic hypotheticals are not the basis for ethical evaluations. The best answer to "What if's" like that are "You're not and it's irrelevant to any ethical considerations until you are."

Indeed, I knew it was rather fantastic, but it is indeed "wondrously fantastic." Its a very valid point that this is pretty much an impossible situation, as even your power would be dependent upon thousands of others in a chain of command.

Also, that is an excellent way of dealing with extreme ethical (and other) hypotheticals, Ill be sure to use it, as I have a friend that vastly over uses them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, that is an excellent way of dealing with extreme ethical (and other) hypotheticals, Ill be sure to use it, as I have a friend that vastly over uses them.

Indeed, hypotheticals many times masquerade as seemingly valid ways to test generalizations, but when the test is stripped of its correspondence to reality it is instead a non sequitir.

Hypotheticals must be tied to reality for them to have any meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition you lower the overall level of trust and damage a potential trading partner.

Well, assuming they are a rational or mostly rational being, there is no way you could get anything good out of them by force (what a nice world that would be).

Unfortunately though, there are many people who refuse to recognize that they should exist only for themselves and would go along with the forced sacrifice enough that it could possibly outweigh the advantages of not forcing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is in your self interest to surround yourself with a network of friends, as has been said, to trade knowledge and benefit from others' intellectual pursuits. As far as people who have not been awakened to objectivism and thus do not offer you very much in that area, think of it this way: We could round up all the retards in the world and decide that since they can offer nearly nothing to society, they will either be forced to do manual labor or be sterilized. This is an example of irrational selfishness, because #1 you cannot make the blanket claim that all retards will not offer you any kind of lesson in life, #2 you are essentially living your life waiting for the next prodigal genius to come along and deem you a retard, thus you are in that boat. If you have respect for the idea that you as a -human being- deserve to pursue your own happiness, then you cannot but contend that all other human beings deserve that right as well, else you are moving down a road of species and self destruction. That's why Objectivism isn't the latest Nazi movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If we take it to an extreme for the sake of discussion though, what if I am the most powerful man on the planet? Then why would it not be in my interest?

As an overall all love of life in general, you should respect everyone's only tool they possess to further it. If you initiate force against someone else, you render their ability of reason to be meaningless which would be the moral equivalent of saying "Isn't in my self interest to kill everybody and have the entire planet to myself?" If you evaluate the long term effects, you'll find that life becomes very difficult to live when your the only one left who can think, therefore you should respect everybody's rights to life, liberty, and property so that you and everybody else will be able to further their own existence through the free market place of values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot realistically expect other men to respect your rights if you are unwilling to respect theirs.

Additionally, do you think it would be in your long term self-interest to further by your actions a society that is ruled by "might is right" rather than by men who use their minds to engage in voluntary trade of value?

You can if they dont find out about it, and I think its unrealistic to expect your actions to have that great an impact on the direction of society. What youre saying here seems dangerously close to Kant's ethical philosophy, in that youre deriving moral judgements by considering what would happen if a judgement were to be universalized ('a society where everyone violates the rights of others is rationally undesirable therefore its wrong to violate the rights of others') rather than focusing on the actual consequences of violating rights in a particular situation. If I steal something from my neighbour, this is not realistically going to have any effect on society as a whole, nor is it going to push us closer to a society where 'might is right'. That might be the case if everyone stole from their neighbours but we arent talking about everyone in a universal sense, we're talking about me in particular. You cant go from the premise that something would be undesirable if everyone were to do it, to the claim that its wrong for an individual person (eg a prudent predator) to do it, without invoking some kind of categorical imperative as Kant does. Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The values that you hope to gain from others can only be gained by letting them use their minds and their rationality to produce. If you violate the rights of others, you destroy the source of the values you might hope to gain.

Consider the following: You need a delicate brain operation to save your life. Only one neurosurgeon in the world can do the operation safely. Would you prefer to offer him a value in trade so that he treats you voluntarily, exercising his full rationality, skill, and judgment to do a good job? Or would you rather kidnap his wife and blackmail him into helping you? Would you trust that he would be willing and/or able to exercise his full rationality for your benefit?

Of course, this example merely illustrates the basic point. In real life, it's rarely quite so essentialized. But the same principle applies -- you can't force a mind. Those who live by looting may seem to get away with it in the short run, but it's not a long term viable strategy.

Plus someone who lives by predation (i.e., violating others' rights) puts himself in a dicey situation where the reason and ability of others becomes a threat to him, not an asset. I'd rather have the smartest, most productive minds on the planet wanting to trade with me voluntarily, rather than being pissed off because I cheated or stole from them and them wanting to hunt me down and get justice.

I want the brains of others working *for* me, not against me! The only way is through honest trade, not predation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If we take it to an extreme for the sake of discussion though, what if I am the most powerful man on the planet? Then why would it not be in my interest?

I would add that in addition to all the other good reasons mentioned, it is a monumental waste of time and would demand all of your waking moments and effort merely to control the rest of the people. Hardly what could be consider a fulfilling or flourishing life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with "if everyone violated everyones rights then......" or "on average it is good for me to respect other peoples rights" or "if i scratch your back you scratch mine" type of explanations. The reason for respecting other peoples rights is based on your purpose in life, your happiness. Being a "second-hander" has grave psychological effects on a persons mind, and even if i could "survive" by stealing and living off others, it would not be living as a human being, and it would be detrimental to a rational mans purpose, happiness. In other words, by being a "second-hander", you deny yourself the possibility of being happy.

The evidence is quite clear for this as well. All you need to do is look at people living on welfare as their sole basis of income or children of wealthy parents that do nothing productive with their own lives. I can guarantee you, you will not find one single happy person in the world among these groups, because they have made themselves second-handers and denied the possibility of being happy. Even if being rational doesnt guarantee happiness, being a second-hander guarantees misery(in the sense of the state of mind, not necessarily material wealth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...