Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wealth from others = slavery?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I didn't mean any insult, Kurt. You admitted yourself that your definition was a "spur of the moment thing", and I found that a little frustrating. I expressed that, but I wasn't going for an insulting tone.

Anyway, David is on the right track, the threat of force isn't an axiomatic concept, and that must be the source of our disagreement. I don't really see the need to further discuss the reason why the threat of force is the same as force (in a political context), I find it obvious that a credible threat has to be treated as a violation of rights, therefor I see no reason for trying to express that by introducing new concepts.

There's also nothing more that I can think of to prove that Ayn Rand defined force as physical force, and never saw any reason to introduce a definition in a political context, of a political concept called "force" the way you are trying to do. I think force as it is defined in physics, whether inferred or actual, is the right concept to use when describing the political system men should live in, and any other concept would be the wrong one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't mean any insult, Kurt.

My spur of the moment idea is that you should read "Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology" before you try coming up with further definitions.
You don't think that's insulting?

You admitted yourself that your definition was a "spur of the moment thing", and I found that a little frustrating. I expressed that, but I wasn't going for an insulting tone.
I could understand frustration with it being in error, but not simply on the basis that I came up with it off the top of my head. I don't claim that it is flawless, but I can't say that I see a problem with it. Do you find it in error?

Anyway, David is on the right track, the threat of force isn't an axiomatic concept, and that must be the source of our disagreement. I don't really see the need to further discuss the reason why the threat of force is the same as force (in a political context), I find it obvious that a credible threat has to be treated as a violation of rights, therefor I see no reason for trying to express that by introducing new concepts.
Nope, that isn't the source of our disagreement, either, because I don't view force to be anywhere near axiomatic; there are tons of more fundamental concepts upon which it depends. The source of our disagreement appears to be that you regard the threat of force to be described under Newton's Second Law of Motion. I don't know how you think that, but you argued it here and in earlier posts.

There's also nothing more that I can think of to prove that Ayn Rand defined force as physical force, and never saw any reason to introduce a definition in a political context, of a political concept called "force" the way you are trying to do. I think force as it is defined in physics, whether inferred or actual, is the right concept to use when describing the political system men should live in, and any other concept would be the wrong one.
Okay, but why? Why is the change in an object's velocity sufficient to qualify an action such as brandishing a knife as force? I maintain that such an action is force, but not because the victim's velocity has changed due to the knife being brandished, but because the victim must focus his mind on the possibility of this maniac stabbing him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main problem with this is that the threat of force is not the same as actual force (even if it is treated similarly in a moral system for rational beings), and yet because of the "give no choice" problem, force and threat of force are both violations of rights and to be morally condemned. What makes it imperative to treat threatened actions like actual actions is because reason tells you that the threat will become actual force. Whereas actual force is an axiomatic concept, a threat is often a very high-level inference, and the inference can never be certain when dealing with rational beings (since we have free will). Just because force and threats of force are "as good as the same" in terms of a system of rights, doesn't mean that force is a non-physical concept.

I agree. The threat of force amounts to actual, physical force. It is implied, as distinguished from a physical act taking place, only in that it is delayed by some indeterminate period of time. Someone threatens you, the harmful act is coming, and maybe immediately or maybe well down the road, but what matters is that it's coming and you will suffer harm as a result.

I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you mean by saying that "force is an axiomatic concept". My understanding is that there are only three axiomatic concepts: existence, identity, and consciousness. Do you mean that force is ultimately metaphysical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The source of our disagreement appears to be that you regard the threat of force to be described under Newton's Second aw of Motion.

I regard the force that threat talks about to be described by Newton. David added that in this threat force isn't an actuality yet, because it hasn't happened, nor is it a certainty, because the attacker's free will means he could never bring it to bear. That is a distinction one has to make by saying "force and the threat of force" instead of just force, in a legal context for instance. However, it's not a distinction that changes the attributes of the force to something that exists relative to the victim's mind for instance (that is how you defined it).

I maintain that such an action is force, but not because the victim's velocity has changed due to the knife being brandished, but because the victim must focus his mind on the possibility of this maniac stabbing him.

Since according to your definition, what makes an action force is that the victim's mind must focus on something, what I describe next doesn't count as "force":

You are standing in front of a wall. At first, you threaten to punch the wall. That's not force since your target's mind isn't focusing on anything.

Next you punch the wall. Still no force is present, since the wall's mind still isn't focused. Why your knuckles hurt, and why the paint is chipped on the wall is beyond me then.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The threat of force amounts to actual, physical force. It is implied, as distinguished from a physical act taking place, only in that it is delayed by some indeterminate period of time. Someone threatens you, the harmful act is coming, and maybe immediately or maybe well down the road, but what matters is that it's coming and you will suffer harm as a result.
Because it's a future event and when there is a threat by a man, it does not necessarily become actualized (he may change his mind). Actual force is a fact, not a possibility. The only reasonable way that I can see to to interpret "amounts to" in a way that a threat of force "amounts to" actual force is in terms of moral evaluation. I think that you have forgotten (when you say "you will suffer harm") that men have free will, so if a person threatens to kill you, that does not mean that they will kill you. People do retract their threats when they realize that it would be morally wrong. This is what Jake is saying (and what "Minority Report" is saying). A threat means that you should assume that they will kill you and you should act accordingly, also that the law should treat then as though they would have killed you.
I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you mean by saying that "force is an axiomatic concept". My understanding is that there are only three axiomatic concepts: existence, identity, and consciousness.
To quote from ITOE, "An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge". Rand states that existence, identity and consciousness are the "first and primary axiomatic concepts", but she also states explicitly that "The notion of 'self' is an axiomatic concept".
Do you mean that force is ultimately metaphysical?
Yes, it is: it's the physical concept force, as Rand says a number of times. Actual force is an indisputable fact measurable in standard units. A threat can be highly disputable and currently has no scientific units for measurement. For moral purposes, threats and actual force are unified via the identification "initiation of force", which is what is prohibited. Not only does that cleanly group together the things that a man may not do, but it also identifies on the moral side the proper use (potentially or actually) of force in self defense and retribution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to clarify in my mind the distinction KurtColville is trying to make and whether Jake Ellison and DavidOdden are trying to deny it. So I'm not taking sides yet.

First, I do think that force is one thing. Ultimately it is physical force as demonstrated by Newton. But its operation is altered when you add in volition (as I believe all have acknowledged). So the context of two volitional entities encountering and reacting to force is different from the context of two inanimate masses encountering each other (which accounts for the new category of "threat of force" which obviously isn't applicable to inanimate matter) and I thought that was all that KurtColville was saying.

When KurtColville said:

There is a different sense in which physical force is used in a moral, social context. Not to be repetetive, but force exists when one person gives another person no choice but to deal with him. When you lose your freedom to act rationally according to your own judgment, you are being forced to act.

I immediately thought of taxation. In the context of taxation I am being forced to act against my own judgement. Jake and David might say that it is the threat of force that is causing me to act and I would say that is probably true.

But it seems to be more than that. Force is actually being applied to me and it is changing my behavior even though no mass has left a gun or is pushing up against me.

So I am unclear as to whether this is a semantic issue or if there is an actual distinction which is being made by either side or whether one side is denying that a distinction exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Force is actually being applied to me and it is changing my behavior even though no mass has left a gun or is pushing up against me.

So I am unclear as to whether this is a semantic issue or if there is an actual distinction which is being made by either side or whether one side is denying that a distinction exists.

I think it is a semantic issue. I have no quarrel with people saying that they are forced to pay taxes rather then saying they are threatened with force if they don't pay their taxes. That's a perfectly normal way to talk. What I object to are philosophical attempts to detach the moral notion of force from physical force. For example if you try to define "force" in the moral sense as something like "not leaving a person a choice", which fails to distinguish actual physical force and a lack of realistic negotiating options.

Actual force and threats have to be treated differently in a moral and legal context, because of volition. Of course threats of force under color of law in society respecting the rule of law should not be treated different from actual force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a semantic issue. I have no quarrel with people saying that they are forced to pay taxes rather then saying they are threatened with force if they don't pay their taxes. That's a perfectly normal way to talk. What I object to are philosophical attempts to detach the moral notion of force from physical force. For example if you try to define "force" in the moral sense as something like "not leaving a person a choice", which fails to distinguish actual physical force and a lack of realistic negotiating options.

Actual force and threats have to be treated differently in a moral and legal context, because of volition. Of course threats of force under color of law in society respecting the rule of law should not be treated different from actual force.

I've gone back and read this thread several times through to see where the disagreement lies, and I agree that all we are arguing over is semantics. If I conveyed the notion that physical force was not essential to the concept of implied force, that was not my intent and may have been the result of poor wording. The only sense in which I was making a moral distinction between the two is that implied force adds the concept of "threat" to physical force -- hence the need for two different terms to denote two different concepts. Sounds like we agree on the nature of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of force (in the moral sense): an action that requires a person to act, because to do otherwise would result in harm to that person. It means that someone presents you with a situation which, in order to be rational, you must consider it and evaluate a course of action, because if you ignore it, you'll suffer harm. It is a person causing you to use your mind against your will by exploiting the relationship between facts of reality and your nature as a human being. (I'll provide examples of what I mean by this, if you wish.)

I've gone back and read this thread several times through to see where the disagreement lies, and I agree that all we are arguing over is semantics. If I conveyed the notion that physical force was not essential to the concept of implied force, that was not my intent and may have been the result of poor wording. The only sense in which I was making a moral distinction between the two is that implied force adds the concept of "threat" to physical force -- hence the need for two different terms to denote two different concepts. Sounds like we agree on the nature of the two.

You claim that you never implied physical force to be non-essential to the concept of implied force. But I would argue that defining A without mentioning B clearly implies that B is non-essential to A. As a matter of fact, that is precisely the definition of definition.

The reason why I'm mentioning this is because now you're implying that I've been arguing over semantics. I wouldn't do that.(hehe, how ironic, since this last argument is over the words essential and semantics. However, the argument before was not over a few words: your definition above blurred the issue in a way that made it impossible to contradict the original post for instance)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I object to are philosophical attempts to detach the moral notion of force from physical force. For example if you try to define "force" in the moral sense as something like "not leaving a person a choice", which fails to distinguish actual physical force and a lack of realistic negotiating options.

I completely agree.

So then I would just ask you, KurtColville, about your statement:

There is a different sense in which physical force is used in a moral, social context. Not to be repetetive, but force exists when one person gives another person no choice but to deal with him. When you lose your freedom to act rationally according to your own judgment, you are being forced to act.

Do you understand that "freedom" here is something that can only be violated by physical force?

And that if someone owns the only watering hole in town, they are not forcing you to drink their water. Or if a man owns the only factory in town he is not forcing you to work for him?

If so, I think we agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then I would just ask you, KurtColville, about your statement:

Do you understand that "freedom" here is something that can only be violated by physical force?

Absolutely.

And that if someone owns the only watering hole in town, they are not forcing you to drink their water. Or if a man owns the only factory in town he is not forcing you to work for him?

If so, I think we agree.

Absolutely. This isn't force, because I'm still free to exercise my own judgment; the owner isn't depriving me of a value that I have earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

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...