defining "initiation of force"

[Tom Rexton]

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to define "initiation of force" without forming a circular defintion. This is what I have so far:

Definition: an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will, provided that this individual himself has not initiated force.

Conceptual Common Denominator (CCD): intentional, physical action on an individual or property thereof

Differentia: contrary to the will of the individual who (or whose property) is acted upon and who himself has not initiated force (source of circularity)

Examples of Subsumed Units:

• physical assault
  
• rape
  
• murder
  
• theft
  
• robbery
  
• arson
  
• fraud
  

--------

some explanation:

"intentional, phsyical act" -- intentional because accidentally damaging or destroying another person's property is not an initiation of force; physical because thinking about, dreaming of, visualizing, (or otherwise doing any mental with) someone's body or property against his will is not an initiation of force.

[Citizen Publius]

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to define "initiation of force" without forming a circular defintion.  This is what I have so far:

Definition:  an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will, provided that this individual himself has not initiated force.

I would drop this part: "provided that this individual himself has not initiated force."

Never use one of the terms that you are defining in your definition. In this case, you are defining "initiate" [EDIT: root of "initiation"] and using "initiated" in your definition.

[Tom Rexton]

I would drop this part: "provided that this individual himself has not initiated force."

Never use one of the terms that you are defining in your definition. In this case, you are defining "initiate" [EDIT: root of "initiation"] and using "initiated" in your definition.

That's why I stated I can't find a way to avoid circularity. If I dropped that clause, it would be simply a definition of FORCE, not an INITIATION of force.

[Ed from OC]

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to define "initiation of force" without forming a circular defintion.  This is what I have so far:

Definition:  an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will, provided that this individual himself has not initiated force.

A few notes:

1. It need not be intentional. An unintended consequence of, say, an immoral law would still be an instance of the initiation of force. Or, if a bank robber's gun accidentally goes off and hits someone, is that not also an initiation of force -- though not intentional?

2. The examples you give are all crimes. Are there examples that aren't? If not, should crime be in the definition?

3. What's the genus of the definition? When defining, it helps to identify the broader category (genus) to which something belongs, then identify other instances of that concept, then identify the most essential trait (differentia) that distinguishes the instance of interest from the other instances.

4. It may help to list not just instances of the initiation of force, but lots of traits of it as well. From that list, identify the most fundamental.

5. It looks like you're trying to define the phrase through parallel definitions of initiation and force.

---

I would identify the genus as: vice.

Evasion, dishonesty, and sacrifice are other instances.

With these examples in mind, what differentiates the initiation of force? Note that only this vice can violate the rights of others.

My stab at a definition:

The "initiation of force" is the vice of violating the rights of innocent individuals through physical compulsion.

(The prepositional phrase at the end may be superfluous, but it stresses the force aspect, while the use of the adjective "innocent" stresses the initiation aspect.)

[BurgessLau]

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to define "initiation of force" [...]

In addition to Ed from OC's excellent procedural suggestions, I have a question:

Why try to define a phrase, that is, a set of ideas? Why not define a single concept, aggression?

Edited January 3, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Tom Rexton]

A few notes:

1.  It need not be intentional.  An unintended consequence of, say, an immoral law would still be an instance of the initiation of force.  Or, if a bank robber's gun accidentally goes off and hits someone, is that not also an initiation of force -- though not intentional?

I think it is essential that the physical act be intentional--accidental damage of another's property, accidental injury and accidental killing are not instances of the initiation of force.

Think about your car malfunctioning as you're driving down a road, and you end up accidentally running into some's car or house. Such a damage would not be intentional, though certainly a physical act against the will of the property owner(s). This would not be an initiation of force.

Think of another case where you're driving down a road and a person by sheer negligence (perhaps he's wearing headphones with music playing at a loud volume) crosses the street without looking both ways, in which case you severely injur if not kill the person. Such would NOT be an initiation of force, though certainly a physical act on the body of the person against his will.

2.  The examples you give are all crimes.  Are there examples that aren't?  If not, should crime be in the definition?

No, all crimes are instances of the initiation of force. There is no crime wherein some force is not involved--unless you mean "crime" as defined by the current US Code, rather than crimes as defined by an Ideal Objective Code.

3.  What's the genus of the definition?  When defining, it helps to identify the broader category (genus) to which something belongs, then identify other instances of that concept, then identify the most essential trait (differentia) that distinguishes the instance of interest from the other instances.

The CCD (identified above) is the genus. It subsumes all intentional, physical actions on an individual's body or property, such as hugging, kissing, healing, touching. It would be an initiation of force if these acts were done against the will of the individual. It also subsumes such acts as using, desposing or destroying someone else's property, and would be an initiation of force if such acts were against the will of the property owner.

It is for these reasons that I concluded that the differentia is "contrary to the will of the individual who (or whose property) is acted upon and who himself has not initiated force".

4.  It may help to list not just instances of the initiation of force, but lots of traits of it as well.  From that list, identify the most fundamental.

Traits common to all are:

the acts are physical

the acts are intentional

the acts are contrary to the individual's will

the individual himself has not initiated force

5.  It looks like you're trying to define the phrase through parallel definitions of initiation and force. 

---

I would identify the genus as: vice. 

Evasion, dishonesty, and sacrifice are other instances.

With these examples in mind, what differentiates the initiation of force?  Note that only this vice can violate the rights of others.

My stab at a definition:

The "initiation of force" is the vice of violating the rights of innocent individuals through physical compulsion.

(The prepositional phrase at the end may be superfluous, but it stresses the force aspect, while the use of the adjective "innocent" stresses the initiation aspect.)

But to violate an individual's rights IS to initate force against him--there is no other way. You can't make the referent (initiation of force) be the differentia (violation of rights), for it would only make the definition circular, which is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.

To qualify "individual" with the adjective "innocent"--with "innocent" meaning "not having initiated force"--is another form of a circular definition.

[edited for spelling errors]

[Ed from OC]

In addition to Ed from OC's excellent suggestions, I have a question:

Why try to define a phrase, that is, a set of ideas? Why not define a single concept: aggression?

I was thinking along the same lines, but "initiation of force" is a concept that isn't represented by a single word. It's the kind of thing that might be represented by a single word in another language, but not in English. "Joie de vivre" is something similar.

"Aggression" doesn't have the same meaning. I can drive aggressively, or an investor may take an aggressive position.

Also, thank you for the compliment.

Incidentally, I'm glad the topic came up. It immediately raised my interest and was a nice challenge.

[stephen_speicher]

My stab at a definition:

The "initiation of force" is the vice of violating the rights of innocent individuals through physical compulsion.

I hate to be a stinker here, but ...

First, the "initiation of force" is a phrase, not a word which stands for a concept, and a definition identifies the nature of the units subsumed by a concept. Therefore, strictly speaking, your above statement would be a characterization, not a definition.

Second, a "vice" is a moral depravity, yet, in your own discussion you mention accident as an instance where the initiation of force might still occur. An accident is hardly a moral depravity.

Third, why "innocent individuals?" Innocent of what? Perhaps you really mean to distinguish the initiation of force from its retaliatory use? If so, then that should be more clearly specified.

[Tom Rexton]

In addition to Ed from OC's excellent suggestions, I have a question:

Why try to define a phrase, that is, a set of ideas? Why not define a single concept, aggression?

Concepts need not have single words to stand for them. Take the 3-word concept Ayn Rand formed: the Conceptual Common Denominator. I believe "initiation of force" is such a concept--not primary, of course, and certainly dependent on many other logically prior concepts (force, will, individual, intention, physical, etc.)

[BurgessLau]

"Aggression" doesn't have the same meaning.  I can drive aggressively, or an investor may take an aggressive position.

Doesn't have the same meaning -- to whom?

Your examples are not examples of aggression -- in my meaning of the idea named by the term aggression. They are metaphorical uses. The word and idea of "war" is a classic example. If Honda wages "war" on Volkswagen would you include that in the genus list with World War II and the American Revolutionary War? I wouldn't, because the Honda War is only a metaphorical usage, that is, one that picks up only one characteristic (and a nonessential one, to boot) -- determination to win -- out of a host of them, for literary exaggeration.

Incidentally, I'm glad the topic came up.  It immediately raised my interest and was a nice challenge.

I agree. Tom has selected a topic and presented it in a doubly valuable way: (1) the topic itself, initiation of force, is one we all need to understand thoroughly, and (2) the process, defining concepts, is one that has universal applicability.

The general problem is: Where do you start when you define a concept that already has a name (a word) in common use but lacks a rigorous philosophical definition of the generally associated (fuzzy) idea?

[Tom Rexton]

I hate to be a stinker here, but ...

First, the "initiation of force" is a phrase, not a word which stands for a concept, and a definition identifies the nature of the units subsumed by a concept. Therefore, strictly speaking, your above statement would be a characterization, not a definition.

[...]

Assuming that it is just a phrase--a "qualified instance" of a concept, as it is called in the index in ITOE, then the concept must be "force" and the qualifier "initiation".

Force would then be defined as "an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will."

The "initiation of force" would then be the use of force against an individual who has not initiated force himself; otherwise, such an act would be a form of retaliation. But you see, I still can't find way to avoid using the term to "characterize" it. The characterization is still circular! It's like saying a broken glass is a glass that is broken! True, but of no help.

[BurgessLau]

Concepts need not have single words to stand for them.  Take the 3-word concept Ayn Rand formed: the Conceptual Common Denominator.

Would you say "24-year old, blue-eyed blonde" is the name of a concept?

[DavidOdden]

Would you say "24-year old, blue-eyed blonde" is the name of a concept?

If it's not, then what is it, such that it's distinct from a concept? From my reading of the definition of concept in ITOE (cf this), it would seem to qualify as a mental identification of a set of two or more existents.

[BurgessLau]

Assuming that it is just a phrase--a "qualified instance" of a concept, as it is called in the index in ITOE, then the concept must be "force" and the qualifier "initiation".

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Isn't the prepositional phrase of force adjectival here? Doesn't it tell us which kind of initiation -- the of force kind -- by specifying the object of the initiation?

I don't know what this construction (NOUN of NOUN) is called in English, but it is very common.

[Ed from OC]

First, the "initiation of force" is a phrase, not a word which stands for a concept, and a definition identifies the nature of the units subsumed by a concept. Therefore, strictly speaking, your above statement would be a characterization, not a definition.

How does my proposed definition not identify the nature of the units subsumed?

Second, a "vice" is a moral depravity, yet, in your own discussion you mention accident as an instance where the initiation of force might still occur. An accident is hardly a moral depravity.

That's true, but there are such things as accidental deaths that do incorporate the violation of someone's rights -- for instance, a car accident. Is such an event not an instance of initiating force?

Third, why "innocent individuals?" Innocent of what? Perhaps you really mean to distinguish the initiation of force from its retaliatory use? If so, then that should be more clearly specified.

That's what I meant: they're innocent of initiating force.

I think there's something wrong with my proposed definition, but I'm not sure what it is.

[Tom Rexton]

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Isn't the prepositional phrase of force adjectival here? Doesn't it tell us which kind of initiation -- the of force kind -- by specifying the object of the initiation?

I don't know what this construction (NOUN of NOUN) is called in English, but it is very common.

True, but I still can't avoid being circular:

initiation: the act of starting something

initiation of force: the act of starting the use of force against an individual who has NOT initiated force.

The clause "who has not initiated force" is necessary in order to distinguish it from the generic "force" and "retaliation".

I think the problem stems from the ambiguity in "initiation" and "starting".

----

BTW, I replied to Ed from OC post #4 in post #6, which you guys seemed to have missed.

[stephen_speicher]

Concepts need not have single words to stand for them.

Yes, they do.

Take the 3-word concept Ayn Rand formed: the Conceptual Common Denominator.

No. "Conceptual Common Denominator" is a phrase, and it is only by reducing it to "CCD" that it is a concept. Miss Rand acknowledges that precise instance in ITOE.

[DavidV]

How about: "initiatory coercion"

And if you want to define coercion: "an action taken against the will of another which causes material damage to his person or property"

[Ed from OC]

Doesn't have the same meaning -- to whom?

Your examples are not examples of aggression -- in my meaning of the idea named by the term aggression. They are metaphorical uses.

Here are some common definitions of aggression. I think the phrase "initiation of force" is more specific in meaning.

[Tom Rexton]

[...]

No. "Conceptual Common Denominator" is a phrase, and it is only by reducing it to "CCD" that it is a concept. Miss Rand acknowledges that precise instance in ITOE.

Alright, having reread that section in the index, I concede that it is a PHRASE. But my problem has not vanished into nonexistence:

Starting the use of force is forcing someone who has not started the use of force against anyone?

-----

Concept or prhase, the characterization is still circular.

[edited by Tom Rexton, added the quote to which this post is replying]

[y_feldblum]

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to define "initiation of force" without forming a circular defintion.  This is what I have so far:

Definition:  an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will, provided that this individual himself has not initiated force.

Conceptual Common Denominator (CCD):  intentional, physical action on an individual or property thereof

Differentia: contrary to the will of the individual who (or whose property) is acted upon and who himself has not initiated force  (source of circularity)

Try defining initiation and force first, then combining the concepts. The trouble you're running into right now is an apparent circularity in the definition of initiation; you'll run into the same problem in any attempt to define the initation of anything as you do in the attempt to define the initiation of force. A dictionary might give some insight into the definition of initiation.

Note that force - all force - is incompatible with the use of reason to lead a productive life, because all force is destructive of something (sucker-punching the guy who ran over your dog is not the same as producing a better coffee mug for sale). Force - all force - and mind are opposites. But only the initiation of force is immoral.

Many people do use the single word agression to mean the initiation of force. The phrase the initiation of force is more explicit in its meaning, but the word aggression is more graphic. They mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably.

DavidOdden, it's not a concept. It's a list of characteristics which any primitive software could parse, understand, and apply (perhaps in some perverse airport screening setup). Concepts identify the essential attributes, without specifying their measures, of a potentially infinite set of concretes. All of your criteria are measures, not the existence of attributes; moreover, none is an essential trait of anything.

[Ed from OC]

BTW, I replied to Ed from OC post #4 in post #6, which you guys seemed to have missed.

I saw it and am thinking about it. I'm a bit overwhelmed with the number of responses and the difficulty of the issues.

[stephen_speicher]

It's like saying a broken glass is a glass that is broken!

But that is what a broken glass means. In language we combine concepts to express meaning. If you are seeking a separate concept , an independent word to stand for "broken glass," then you need some reason -- some justification -- for doing so. If doing so is proper, then a proper definition will ensue. As Ayn Rand points out in ITOE, "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." If there is something worthy of being identified and retained by means of a single word, then it would be a combination of the two concepts "initiation" and "force." And then, since, as Ayn Rand explains, a definition is "a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept," you would have to identify its units and differentiate it from everything else that exists. But, if "initiation" is a clearly defined concept, and if "force" is a clearly defined concept, then I think you would be hard pressed to identify such units in any meaningful way. When combing concepts in language expression is sufficient to grasp meaning, finding a new concept to designate such is not inherently of value (or, even always possible).

[Tom Rexton]

But that is what a broken glass means. In language we combine concepts to express meaning. If you are seeking a separate concept , an independent word to stand for "broken glass," then you need some reason -- some justification -- for doing so. If doing so is proper, then a proper definition will ensue. [...]

I have already conceded that the "initiation of force" is a phrase, not a concept. But my problem remains. See post #20 above.

[edited, wrong link]

[stephen_speicher]

How does my proposed definition not identify the nature of the units subsumed?

I think you missed the point. You can explain the meaning of a phrase -- you can characterize it -- but a definition is a statement about a concept -- a single word -- not a phrase.