Arkanin Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 (edited) This is a multi-parter. A.) When do you believe the use of violence is justified? B.) Is this clearly harmonious with your moral absolute of rational self-interest? (E.g., "Violence is justified when it is in accordance with my rational self-interest" is obviously harmonious with a principle of rational self-interest) C.) If they aren't obviously harmonious -- what is the linchpin, the argument or idea, that reconciles the two? Thanks! Edited October 11, 2008 by Arkanin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 A.) When do you believe the use of violence is justified? When force has been initiated against you. B.) Is this clearly harmonious with your moral absolute of rational self-interest? Yes. It is morally imperative that you defend yourself. Why do you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriatarka Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 (edited) A.) When do you believe the use of violence is justified? Theres nothing inherently wrong with violence so one answer could just be "whenever its fun" - in martial arts for example, where the use of physical force is consensual. The problem isnt with violence per se, its when the rights of others are violated. To avoid violating rights, this generally rules out non-consensual violence in most cases other than self-defence (when someone either initiates force against you or threatens to do so), although I dont think you could really call it immoral if person X gave person Y a slap for being obnoxious/verbally abusive. Edited October 11, 2008 by eriatarka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkanin Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) Theres nothing inherently wrong with violence so one answer could just be "whenever its fun" - in martial arts for example, where the use of physical force is consensual. The problem isnt with violence per se, its when the rights of others are violated. To avoid violating rights, this generally rules out non-consensual violence in most cases other than self-defence (when someone either initiates force against you or threatens to do so), although I dont think you could really call it immoral if person X gave person Y a slap for being obnoxious/verbally abusive. So non-consensual, non-self-defense violence is wrong, and this emerges from a larger concept of personal rights. Would you say the concept of personal rights emerges a priori from the principle of self-interest, from the principle of self-interest combined with practical observations about the world, or that it is sort of a separate principle? Edited October 12, 2008 by Arkanin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Does the value of personal rights stem solely from the principle of self-interest?In a sense, yes. In the sense that it comes from asking: what type of social system allows men to pursue their self-interest, in principle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkanin Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) In a sense, yes. In the sense that it comes from asking: what type of social system allows men to pursue their self-interest, in principle? Could I phrase that as: what type of social system allows everyone to persue their self-interest in a way that is equally fair, in principle? (Mind you, not that everyone *is* equal or will succeed equally, or even has the same resources) Edited October 12, 2008 by Arkanin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Could I phrase that as: what type of social system allows everyone to persue their self-interest in a way that is equally fair, in principle? (Mind you, not that everyone *is* equal or will succeed equally, or even has the same resources) Better just to avoid confusion and leave off "equally fair" because it does imply what you suggest. Also, to avoid any dichotomy in the answers to this question I might just leave off the "in principle", since you could just as easily say "in fact" (though I think softwareNerd was answering your specific question). So: What social system allows each individual to pursue their rational self-interest? (Depending on the audience, you could leave off "rational" since it is redundant). ------------------- P.S. It appears you edited your post before last so that softwareNerd's quote of same does not match it anymore. Be careful because you have snuck in an illegitimate concept: a priori. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.